It’s On

What John Lennon poetically wished for, an end of biblical religion, the progressives will now openly declare. The platform they are nearly at, and will be at soon, is to remove all tax breaks, and to criminalize all non-private religious expression and practice on the basis of debased “public-reason test” thinking. It’s on.

Carl Eric Scott
via ‘Your Frame Is Too Small’
Rod Dreher
The American Conservative
April 30, 2015

South China Sea Showdown: The Law and the Lawless

China and the US just had a confrontation over the South China Sea – Business Insider.

Whatever other disparaging thoughts you may hold about the US, and its actions in other theaters, it is difficult to ignore that, in brazen defiance of international law and convention, China has laid claim to vast swaths of the South China Sea that are, in fact, international waters and airspace. Recent incidents are simply the US is simply the right of any other nation to navigate those waters and that airspace.

I am uncomfortable with our seeming addiction to intervention far from our shores. In this case, however, we are trapped between two unpleasant alternatives. Either we send ships and planes and young Americans into harm’s way, or we allow China to believe that we have accepted their ahistorical and illegal claims in the South China Sea.

You may side with China’s claims, but prepare to be challenged to   support those claims with something more than passion and rhetoric.

And you may object to the US playing the “world’s policeman.” I sympathize. Unfortunately, when one country engages in practices that challenge international law and norms, the world faces a stark choice. Either we can find someone to draw a line around law and practice, or telegraph to the miscreant that international law is ought more than a doormat.

Chinese rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, these incidents in the South China Sea are the US putting its blood and treasure forward in the defense of international law. Until some other country has the fortitude and resources to do same, I guess we’re stuck with the job.

The Story We’re Forgetting in Garland

Jihadists More Repulsive than Pam Geller | Commentary Magazine.

Pam Geller and her tactics sicken me.

However, Peter Wehner has a cogent point underneath this provocative headline: we have somehow forgotten (or ignored) the fact that this was a terrorist attack on homeland soil. Yes, Geller made herself, her guests, and the people protecting them huge targets.

While we quite correctly condemn Ms. Geller as a McCarthyite hate-monger, why are we not outraged that there appear to be armed Islamists wandering free in America looking for something juicy to attack?

When is the Internet like Any Other Media?

“Public outcry forces FEC Democrats to junk bid to regulate Internet, Drudge”
Paul Bedard
Washington Examiner
May 21, 2015 

Let’s set aside for a moment the possibility that Democratic appointees on the Federal Elections Commission may in fact have the knives out for conservative bloggers and internet sites. I think that is a real possibility, but there is a larger issue at stake.

Is there a legal case to be made that at some point websites that are focused on influencing the political process should be made to disclose their funding? If there is, where is that line drawn? If there is not, then why must other media disclose?

The problem, really, is not about FEC Dems vs. FEC Republicans. It is about establishing the principle on which we demand transparency from anyone who engages in political speech. That principle must be applied fairly, consistently, and in keeping with both Federal election statutes and the constitution.

Anything else is so much partisan nonsense.

Republicans for Campaign-Finance Reform

Republicans for Campaign-Finance Reform: Lindsey Graham, Chris Christie, and Ted Cruz — The Atlantic.

David Graham’s excellent article explaining that campaign finance reform is not just a cause of the Left. There is now a growing shadow caucus of Republicans who, for different but parallel reasons, are tired of moneyball politics.

One cannot help but wonder about the sincerity of our elected officials about campaign finance reform. It is becoming plain that the way to bring about this change is my all but forcing it upon Congress. Why ever would an incumbent politician rock the boat on which he or she as bet their career?