The unambiguous evidence reveals that much of what the federal government does is unaffected by elections; this is the consequence of the Statists’ design. ….upon ascending to the presidency, (F. D.) Roosevelt erected an autocratic program to overcome the transience of Statist electoral victories and interrupted rule, about which he had earlier complained. Roosevelt altered the character of our constitutional system and mounted a lasting policy agenda largely invulnerable to opposition electoral victories and legal challenges.
China Sees Its Chance
As this Number of The New Terrapin Gazette was being prepared for release, news arrived that China has breached computer networks of the US government.
That is an act of war. Of course it will not be interpreted as such by the current administration, as China knows.
This is the confluence of Chinese adventurism and US reluctance to assert itself credibly. Let no one pretend that the character of the president of the USA was not observed, studied, and understood by Beijing.
“The Courts Told Him It Was Illegal And He Just Kept Doing It Anyway”
There are aspects of Rand Paul’s comments on foreign policy that put this newsletter off, but his attitude toward domestic issues seems solid. The best example of the latter is the recent defeat of the NSA’s “grab everybody’s phone records and a lot of their conversations, and look through them later, maybe” policy.
Won’t putting the NSA back on its leash make life more dangerous for folks in the USA? That’s possible, and it’s dishonest not to admit it. First, let Paul explain:
The main objective (Ed.: he meant “objection”) I have is to the generalized collection — the collection of records when you don’t put someone’s name on the list. If you put the name of a suspect — and it doesn’t even have to be enough to convict, you just have to have enough information to make a judge believe there’s probable cause that a crime may have been committed — it’s really not that high of a standard.
It’s a standard that is almost always affirmed by the judges. I would like people to know that I’m not just defending privacy, but I’m also a believer that the Constitutional warrant can get more information than the bulk collection system can.
Too, it is still legal to use informants to identify dangerous members of the US Islamic community. Surveillance in general has not been ended.
No outsider knows what really goes on after NSA copies everybody’s telephone records and calls, but this newsletter is willing to bet that the vast majority of those archives are never opened. That monster facility in Utah is very likely an instance of excessive zeal prompting a sickening waste of money.
The Murky Crystal Ball
Begin with two easy predictions: first, it’s likely that the Republicans will have a candidate for the presidency who is more collectivist than Ron Paul. Second, the Democrats will run Hillary, who is (a) more personally ambitious and (b) more stealthy about collectivism than are Bernie Sanders and the (very coy) Faux Squaw Warren. The libertarians in the GOP and the candid neo-Marxists in the Democratic camp will both be snubbed.
Yes, those are not really predictions — they merely recognize there will be some jolly crusading for hopeless causes before everyone votes against the “moderate” the other party has nominated.
Now for more specific and risky fortune-telling.
Hillary will have to evade the sniper fire her blunders have attracted. It will be entertaining to watch as she dodges and weaves. Ultimately, she might not defeat the Republican. Yes, that’s not a prediction, but it gets some support if you can see the two major flaws in Hillary’s reasoning. Look:
First, she assumes that she’s very strong with women. That means she believes her status as a member of a persecuted “minority” gives her an edge — rather like the one Obama had.
Now it is known that black voters overwhelmingly supported Obama. Anyone who commands over ninety percent of a sizable fraction of the voters has an asset that can make all the difference. (This newsletter has repeatedly asked how the Democrats would have reacted if the GOP candidates facing Obama had been supported by over ninety percent of the white voters.)
Hillary feels that the female vote plus the Democrat vote will spell victory. But black folks voted out of a racial solidarity that far surpassed women’s current sentiments. Many women will vote against a woman.
Second, Hillary thinks the public will ignore the implications of her presidency. On the contrary. There is a groundswell of irritation with dynastic occupancy of the White House; many voters want to see more diversity, less emphasis on inherited privilege and power, and a reduction of the inappropriately monarchistic sentimentality that inspires mindless respect for wealthy families.
Third, as more information gets out about Hillary’s lust for great wealth, that foundation she and Slick run will come under increasing scrutiny. The results already in hand do not reflect well on the candidate, and their impact will grow.
Next, look at the elephant in the living room: many voters would like to know just why it is that Hillary did not divorce that superannuated adolescent years ago.
Who can respect Hillary for her decision? Not everyone, certainly, and it does say something about her lust for financial and political power that she is not about to dismiss the liar.
The question will, therefore, persist: what and whom will Slick be doing while his wife is president? Expect the tabloids to mount imaginative surveillance of the White House, its visitors, and the excursions of the First Husband; how dignified will that be, and how will foreign observes react to the spectacle? Perhaps more to the point, how would Hillary react if Slick, his ashes having been properly hauled by an operative hired by a foreign state, informs Ms. President that his executive experience tells him the USA should….
Fact: the public has limited patience for politicians whose misbehavior must be kept secret. That maxim will apply to Mr. First Husband Slick, as well.
Of course one can’t put any faith in the libidinous delinquent’s promises to reform; he’s a practiced liar and a conscienceless rascal. Finally, abstract declarations of the rights of the individual will not dismiss public opinion that there has already been much too much sexual buffoonery in the White House, and risking more is not just unprincipled, but stupid.
Conclusions: Obama did not have to worry about an elusive segment of the black voters (that’s why he did not focus on them). Many women will not vote for Hillary. She could lose to any of several possible Republican candidates.
Perhaps US voters should ask Commentary to figure out what The One Leader is going to do next….
The Supremes get one right! Details here.
In the event you are interested in the NSA and its policies, perhaps one of the best sources of information is William Binney. He left the NSA when he realized that it was intent on doing things that are clearly unconstitutional. You can get a good sense of the man from a two and a half hour-long video made a few months ago; in it, Binney summarizes the what, the how, and the implications of the USA’s government program to spy on US citizens. He’s credible, he’s not at all a conspiracy theorist, and he frightens the thoughtful with plain facts that do not require him to tell secrets. The federal government did try to intimidate him by putting him on trial, a tactic for which he was prepared. Binney is a well-spoken man who impresses because of his easy-going grace. He’s telling the public what it needs to know about the implications of intelligence collection in the computer age. Some of his revelations will surprise you, and some will anger you. Do see this video, and if you can’t do that in one sitting, then do it in two or more (it gets better as it winds down…and you do need to hear what he says about the World Trade Center/Pentagon/Pennsylvania attacks). The video richly deserves this newsletter’s highest possible recommendation.
Is this corruption? (Do note which newspaper published the report.) Over to you….
Rand Paul celebrates, and all US citizens should, too.
California’s Governor Jerry Brown is a politician who has been badly spoiled by the state’s electorate. His signature project, a high-speedrail line that is unnecessary, noncompetitive, astronomically expensive, autocratically outrageous, and childish, is a conceit that he feels the voters should pay for. It will be a vulnerable target for Islamofascist vandals. Governor Moonbeam suffers from vainglorious stupidity, and he should be recalled.
Iran’s nuclear weapons development: there is no agreement between the New York Times and the Obama/Kerry team on the basic facts, but the paper seems to be on solid ground. Given that discrepancy, can the pact with Iran be credible, and later, trustworthy?
From the “Yes, we can!” department: in the USA, The One Leader is less popular than W. Amazing…that it took this long.
The most recent Unofficial Space Police report includes the claim (fasten your seat belts) that because past, present, and future are all simultaneous (awk!), people from the future can visit the 21st century — and are doing that in order to get things they need in their struggle against…well, somebody, and the things they need include current humans’ DNA. This tale is an extension of an official British report that was released very quietly some years ago, and proves — oh, look, if you are interested, sit through this, and all will be, er, made opaque. The word from here is that there is a lot of evidence, and some of it suggests that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth. Maybe some day the president of the USA will find out what’s going on and tell everybody, but that seems highly unlikely. Why is that? Because the real insiders won’t let the president know anything about events of maximum importance, and visitors from outer space would be the most important event ever. The perception of the relevant cabal is that Presidents are just temporary figureheads elected by the crowd, so they can’t be trusted.