Presidential Primaries Endorsement

Since primary season is upon us, I suppose I should make some endorsement. For the Democrats, I cannot offer an endorsement, because I think that both main candidates are absolutely awful. If you must vote Democrat, then I suppose that the approach should be "Bros before hoes," but then again I suspect that Sanders is more likely to win than Clinton in a national election.

For the Republicans, my endorsement is a bit more serious, because I might actually vote for their nominee. If it's Trump, then I'm going to vote third party, in all likelihood. Each of the other candidates has, in my opinion, some large flaws but also some significant upside. With that said, I think my preference is either for Rubio or Cruz. Carson seems very discerning, and he's certainly quite intelligent, and Kasich is also reasonably discerning about where he will dig in his heels and fight and where he will compromise. He's not pro-life enough for my tastes, and is weak on the marriage questions--but on the other hand he is signing the bill to defund Planned Parenthood in Ohio, and I suspect that we have lost the political fight over the meaning of marriage for the next generation at least. The goal her should really be, "do no harm."

With that said, neither Kasich nor Carson has a particularly clear (nor likely) path to the nomination. My first Choice was Jindal, but he did not even make it to the Iowa caucuses (in the the same way, my first preference two cycles ago was Brownback, who dropped out shortly after Iowa). If we had a less appalling frontrunner, I might consider a vote for Carson or Kasich, but really I don't lean much towards either of them over Cruz or Rubio.

I lean slightly more towards Cruz than Trump, but my actual endorsement at this point is "anybody but Trump." To this end, I would recommend the following strategy: vote for whichever between Cruz and Rubio is the frontrunner (or second behind Trump) in your state, at least until it becomes apparent that one or the other will bow out. Since many states are either winner-take-all or (more commonly) winner-take-most, having Trump lose (or come in second) in many states will draw a lot more delegates away from him, and will go much further to prevent his becoming the nominee, than will splitting the "not Trump" vote between Rubio and Cruz within each state.

A Dark Day for the Republic

Justice Antonin Scalia, who has been quite possibly the greatest Supreme Court Justice of our times, has died. In reading comments about this man's life an death, I see that very few people on the right or the left have managed to say much about the man himself, or about his legacy. I have read three or four good statements of mourning or eulogy, and many more either classlessly cheering his death and performing the verbal equivalent of dancing upon his soon-to-be-filled grave, or fretting about who (or if) President Obama will appoint to replace him. The latter is at least a relevant topic of concern, but could we not wait for at least a few days, until (say) after the late Justice Scalia's funeral, before speculating on this? Especially given the extremely polarizing nature of the topic at hand, give his friends and family time to grieve.

I have read three intentionally good (and classy) reaction to his passing: one from Texas' Republican governor, Greg Abbott; one from Vermont's Democratic Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders; and perhaps above all, the column written by Ross Douthat about Scalia as the intellectual and legal giant that he was (though again he does discuss the appointment implications):

Antonin Scalia, dead unexpectedly this weekend at 79, was not the most politically powerful justice during his three decades on the Supreme Court. That distinction belonged to the court’s two swing votes, Sandra Day O’Connor and then Anthony M. Kennedy, respectively the philosopher queen and king of our fraying republican order.

Unlike them, Scalia did not have the opportunity to write all his preferences into the law of the land. For every victory he won, there was a sharp defeat; for every important majority opinion a stinging, quotable dissent. And on the issues he cared the most about – abortion, above all – his defeats were famous and his dissents often not just eloquent but anguished.

But in every other respect, he was the most important Supreme Court justice of his era.

The New York Times also reprises its role as Hell's Mouthpiece (and many commenters in its lower half are all-too-eager to play along, even upping the ante here) and has published an editorial, allegedly about Scalia's legal legacy, but which actually existed as an advocacy piece for Obama to get to appoint another leftist to the bench before departing office. Still, they did manage one (half) paragraph of genuine praise (though it was not intended as such):

From abortion rights to marriage equality and desegregation, Justice Scalia opposed much of the social and political progress of the late 20th century and this one. He wanted to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision on women’s rights to privacy, he dissented on the decision that said anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

His passing is celebrated in Hell, and in the halls of those who would see our once great Republic slide further towards decadence and ruin. He is mourned by those who knew him. He is mourned again by those of us who desire to see just rulings based on the laws and legal traditions of our country rather than the capricious whims of the current zeitgeist as embodied in the personal preferences of nine (or five) judges and those from whom they would curry favor.


Update: Robert P. George has also written a good eulogy. Excerpt:

Justice Scalia preached the principle that the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that honors the text—the words on the page—understood as they were intended by those whose act of ratification made them part of the fundamental law of the land. One might have thought this was simple common sense. But the principle had been rejected and abandoned by jurists and legal scholars who wished to expand the authority of judges to declare “unconstitutional” legislation or executive actions that they regarded as behind the times, unfair, unwise, or for some other reason undesirable....

Antonin Scalia was a dear friend to whom I was indebted for many kindnesses. I shall miss him. His death is a grave loss to the Nation and a blow to the cause of fidelity to the Constitution. My deepest condolences to his widow Maureen and to his children and grandchildren. Requiscet in pace.

Saint Thomas More: ora pro nobis!

Second Update: I have been waiting to hear what Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bar Ginsburg would have to say Much as I dislike her as a judge, I also know that she and Scalia were actually friends. Here is her reflection on his passing, and it doesn't disappoint.

We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the 'applesauce' and 'argle bargle'—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his 'energetic fervor,' 'astringent intellect,' 'peppery prose,' 'acumen,' and 'affability,' all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.... It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend.

Pray for the repose of Scalia's soul--and the conversion and comfort of that of his friend.

Irony from New Hampshire

Bernie Sanders handily beat Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary. However, he will not receive more delegates from New Hampshire than did Ms. Clinton. Indeed, Ms. Clinton has so far had one tie and one blowout loss, yet has many more delegates so far as compared to Mr. Sanders. I don't mind this much either way, to the extent that I won't be voting for either of them; I do think that the Democrats (and the Republicans, to the extent that they do this too) should consider not placing so much power in the hands of the party machine, since it does tend to make voters feel disenfranchised, to say nothing of disenchanted, with respect to their party of choice.

With that said, there is something ironic about the idea of the man who is running on an explicitly socialist platform complaining that the votes which he is working so hard for are being taken from him and given to somebody else who didn't earn them.

Bonus:

Today's Orwellian News

Lying doesn't pay. Even when lying for a good cause. With that said, the fact that a Gran Jury has indicted David Daleidon--the man behind the "undercover sting" videos which busted Planned Parenthood for trafficking in human organs from aborted children--of criminal charges. Specifically, the Grand Jury brought charges of organ trafficking against Mr. Daleidon--who pretended to want to buy organs--but not against Planned Parenthood, who actually tried to sell them.

A grand jury in Harris County, Texas, returned two charges on Monday afternoon against Daleiden, the activist who planned and organized the undercover sting videos. Although the grand jury allegedly investigated Planned Parenthood, no charges were brought against the nation’s largest abortion provider, whose executives were shown in multiple videos attempting to sell trafficked organs and other body parts harvested from aborted babies. One Planned Parenthood executive, while haggling over the prices of aborted baby organs, noted that she needed to get the right price because, “I want to buy a Lamborghini.”

According to a press release from the office of Harris County district attorney’s office which was provided to The Federalist, Daleiden was charged with the purchase and sale of human organs, a misdemeanor, and with tampering with a governmental record, a felony. Sandra Merritt, one of Daleiden’s associates, was also charged with tampering with a governmental record.

In his press release, Mr. Daleidon states that "buying fetal tissue requires a seller as well" and that "Planned Parenthood still cannot deny the admissions from their leadership about fetal organ sales captured on video for all the world to see."

In this life, and especially in these times and this place, the relatively innocent are charged as guilty, whereas the really guilty parties walk away scot free. Another point of interest: the Harris County prosecutor in this case sits on the board of directors for the Planned Parenthood affiliate which Daleidon targeted.


Ceterum censeo Planned Parenthood esse delendam

Every Once in a While

Every once in a while, justice is served, and it is sweet. This time, it happened in Russia:

Russian citizen Andrei Filin challenged the Russian government to deny him his right to wear the trademark headwear of his pasta god’s church, the sacred colander. Surprisingly, the state allowed Filin to win.

But Russia, refusing to be made a fool of, found a way to keep Filin honest about his supposed religious doctrine.

“The next time he is stopped by the traffic police, if he doesn’t have a pasta strainer on his head, his license will be taken from him,” said Vladimir Kuzin, deputy chief of Moscow’s State Traffic inspectorate.

The pastafarians are a fake religion, whose purpose is to attack real religions and to make a mockery of religious liberty, largely so that it will be stamped out. It's nice to see them get served up a nice helping of justice on occasion.

Manic Monday Madness

It's MLK Day, and I'm at work. This made me chuckle during my lunch break, though:



Simple fact is, gun violence rates are declining in America, without our needing to add any new regulations. I am willing to get on-board with reasonable regulations--but reasonable and "reasonable-sounding" aren't always the same thing. Case in point: it sounds reasonable that convicted felons should be banned from owning firearms--until you realize just how petty some felonies are. Certainly, it would be good to redefine felonies to actually mean serious offences only; then again, it is specifically the violent criminals who ought not own firearms. I don't really care if a man who has been convicted (and has served time) for grand theft is allowed later to purchase a gun. I'm more concerned with preventing murderers, rapists, or robbers from readily obtaining guns than embezzlers.



In other news, while I don't support the Bundy Bunch--they are counter-productive at best, and certainly helping to distract from rather than raise awareness for the real issues--I tend to have little sympathy for the statists who have called for trying them for treason (the penalty for which is death). I'm especially unsympathetic to people who have spent their entire lives in either an urban area or on the east coast--such people tend to be utterly clueless as regards how much people in rural areas get worked over by the government at various levels.

False Dichotomies

Evil often wins (at least for a time) because it often offers us two (or more) relatively easy choices, one of which is slightly less bad than the other. Society--meaning, the great mass of people--is then asked to choose between the two, as if no other alternatives exist.

There often is another alternative, one which is not evil (and which may in fact actually be good), but it is often difficult.

There are countless cases, but as an example let me pick just one which is currently in the collective conscience: that of the Mohammedan rape gangs in Europe (and particularly in Germany). The choices which we are provided with, as "relatively easy" options are these:

1. Support the actual rape culture of the Mohammedan immigrants
2. Support the "anti-rape" culture of the feminist crowds who argue that women who act however and dress however they want with impunity
3. The minor (third) choice is that we should round up all of the Mohammedans and deport them

Option number 3 isn't necessarily a sub-choice of option number 2, though I've seen plenty of people using 2 to argue for 3. A further subset of 3 is "forced assimilation or deportation," which is an improvement on 3.

Looking at the choices above, it seems obvious that 2 is the "less evil" option of the two major options; nobody really wants option 1, after all. And too often, 2 is implicit in 3: I've seen quite a few erstwhile "conservative" voices suddenly supporting 2 because 1 looks like the worse option.

The problem is, 2 is not a good option either. Surely, it is less bad than option 1, but it is still bad. Men should not become rapists, that is obvious; men who do should be punished severely for it. On the other hand, women should not engage in "Slut Walks" or exhibitionism, or naked "performance art" (I won't provide a link, but let's just say this exists) as a response to the bad behavior of men. Degradation is not suddenly made better on account of being self-degradation as opposed to degradation inflicted by another.

Cads, Cads Everywhere!

In the senate, and running for president... but so few real men. No decorum, nor virtue: we have no leaders, only would-be rulers and demagogues. And the person in the White House now is the worst of the lot, a poltroon who at times rises almost to the level of being a cad.

What a stupid time to be alive. Or, perhaps the real moral is, "Trust not in princes..."

Man or Rabbit? A Reading

This is a pretty well done video-reading of an essay by C.S. Lewis:


Enjoy!

Refugees Redux

As I noted yesterday, "Welcoming the stranger and housing the homeless are works of mercy. Refugees would certainly fall under this, and so we should seek to do what we can to help them: but not at the cost of allowing a flood of terrorists easy access to their targets. Unfortunately, these seem to be the two alternatives: turn away the stranger in need (not a good option) or allow in a flood of people who are a mix of refugees, legitimate asylum-seekers, and opportunistic terrorists."

 Me, I think we should consider building livable (but high-security) refugee camps, which gives us time to screen these people while also providing them temporary asylum in the meantime. I would also recommend expediting aide to Christians (the group actually being persecuted), widows, and orphans, or at least to these latter two groups if the first cannot be done feasibly. I would place these camps in relatively remote areas so that they do not have easy access to potential terrorist targets.

I think we should supply these camps with the basic necessities of food and water, shelter and clothing, and medical attention as needed and available. We should also allow for visits by clerics, be they Imams of priests or whatnot, according to the requests of said refugees--I think that religious freedom also applies to foreigners. It also occurs to me that the Christian refugees should be separated from the Muslim ones as much as possible if they request it--there is a reason why Christians are fleeing the area.

In short, I basically agree with the assessment of Dr. Taylor Marshal, and of the CATO Institute's Mr. Alex Nowrasteh. The latter notes that

About 4 million Syrians were forced out of the country by the conflict. Since October 2014, the United States has let in just 800 Syrian refugees. There are security concerns with Syrian refugees and the government needs to thoroughly review their individual backgrounds before allowing them to settle here, but more should be allowed to do so.

Settling here is just the first step; assimilation and integration are also important. Fortunately, past success bodes well for current groups....

The goal of the Office of Refugee Resettlement is economic self-sufficiency — refugees working and supporting themselves without public assistance. That is a worthy goal, but more strict denials of means-tested welfare or blocking it entirely for refugees can speed up integration.

Fewer welfare benefits mean that refugees more rapidly enter the labor market, search for jobs and work with Americans on a daily basis. Work boosts self-confidence, which increases refugee satisfaction and contentment with their new homes. A growing economy combined with smaller welfare benefits in Richmond, Va. helped to rapidly integrate that city’s refugee population in the 1980s and 1990s.

American taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill. Refugees have access to some means-tested welfare benefits before other immigrants do; that should end. Churches, charities and mutual aid associations should fulfill that responsibility.

There are over 150,000 Americans of Syrian descent, with a median household income of over $65,000, compared to about $53,000 for native-born Americans. They can help ease Syrian refugees into life in the United States. It’s enough for the U.S. government to allow more peaceful Syrians who have passed through national security, criminal and health checks to settle here — the government should not, and does not, need to support them.

There is a crisis in Syria, thanks both to the revolution and its exasperation of and by the rise of ISIS. We should help as we can: this is charity, mercy. We should go about it in a manner which minimizes the risk of allowing terrorists to slip through and commit an attack against us: this is prudence, justice.


UPDATE: Why are there so few (yes, few) Christian refugees from Syria? Given that they are the heavily-persecuted minority, you would naively believe that they should be over-represented rather than heavily under-represented among refugees. With my emphases:

Many Americans would happily have us take in some nice Syrians who have nowhere in the Middle East to turn, who are hunted, plundered, raped, sold and sometimes murdered. And since we have limited capacity in a world of more than 7 billion people, it makes sense to focus on those who have nowhere safe in the Middle East to turn. Yes, Sunni and Shiite Muslims persecute each other in the Middle East, but each group has Sunni or Shiite enclaves they can retreat to in the region. The Christians, meanwhile, aren’t even safe in the refugee camps.

So dangerous are the camps for Syrian Christians that they mostly avoid them. And the UN does its refugee head-counting in the refugee camps. If the Christians aren’t there to be counted, desperate as they are, then they don’t end up on the asylum lists the U.S. State Department uses for vetting potential refugees.... 

As bad off as the Muslim refugees are, they aren’t without politically well-connected advocates in the Middle East. Many Muslim powerbrokers are happy to see Europe and America seeded with Muslim immigrants, and would surely condemn any U.S. action that appeared to prefer Christian over Muslim refugees, even if the effort were completely justified. By and large, they support Muslim immigration to the West and have little interest in seeing Christian refugees filling up any spaces that might have been filled by Muslim refugees.

The deck, in other words, is heavily stacked against the Christian refugees.... 

And, by the way, while some have tried to equate Jewish refugees back then with Muslim refugees today, that argument doesn’t work. Muslim migrants have many places to turn to in the Middle East. But like the Jews under the shadow of Hitler, today’s Middle Eastern Christians under the shadow of radical Islam have precious few options. For many of them in this vale of tears, America is their last best hope for refuge.

This further underscores why I think that just opening the borders to Syrian refugees is the wrong approach, and also why I think that the Christian refugees should be separated from the Mohammedan ones as much as possible.

TMM: Syrian Refugees

My heart goes out to the persecuted people of Syria. This does not mean that we should be allowing them to come here en masse. The Mohammedan Jihadis are using the same tactic they always use, which is to use human shields. Allowing them into the country will guarantee that a few of ISIS' terror cells gain easy access to here.

I think that a strong amount of screening is necessary--I don't mind allowing them asylum in a a contained area while screening is completed, even if this idea sounds like a scary concentration camp. There's a bit of a difference between rounding up people who are already here and placing them into such camps while confiscating everything they have, and creating temporary centers of this sort for people who are trying to enter the country. It accomplishes the goal of getting them out of harm's way, while giving us a better chance of protecting our own.

Second, I think that the Syrian Christians are the ones in real danger (and they will largely tend not to be ISIS operatives), so fast-tracking them for asylum resettlement as refugees and perhaps eventually citizens makes more sense than indiscriminately opening the borders further. Plus, there is a much greater chance that Syrian (or, for that matter, Nigerian) Christian refugees can assimilate to (or better yet, become leaven in) our culture than could Islamic refugees (longer term). It makes much more sense to try to resettle the Islamic refugees in areas where Islam is a substantial part of the culture, or where the population is sparse enough for religious difference to not matter, just from a "longevity-and-assimilation" standpoint.

For that matter, there are a number of virtually unpopulated places around the world in which they could be settled easily, be they unpopulated islands or wilderness areas as in parts of Canada and Alaska and Siberia, or even the Falkland Islands. They may not be desirable places to live, but in a pinch they should function adequately until we can find more suitable permanent homes for these people. Even rural areas in the US mainland are fine, as temporary holding locations until a permanent solution is found.

It can function as "home" for a time.

Of course, that will never fly in the politically correct thing which once was Christendom.

Welcoming the stranger and housing the homeless are works of mercy. Refugees would certainly fall under this, and so we should seek to do what we can to help them: but not at the cost of allowing a flood of terrorists easy access to their targets. Unfortunately, these seem to be the two alternatives: turn away the stranger in need (not a good option) or allow in a flood of people who are a mix of refugees, legitimate asylum-seekers, and opportunistic terrorists.

UPDATE:
The right response is to accept Christian refugees (after some screening to verify that they are whom they claim to be), but to be a bit more skeptical about accepting Islamic refugees. ANd then to send what aide we can to all the refugees:
As Dr. Taylor Marshal notes:

Justice and charity demand that I care for the less fortunate and it is a Catholic belief that our salvation depends on how we treat the hungry, the naked, the homeless, and the sick.

MOREOVER….

I am not obliged to take the homeless into my house and have them sleep in my daughter’s bedroom at night. I am not obliged by justice or charity to give the homeless a vote over my financial decisions. He does not have the right to choose what’s for dinner. The homeless man does not (by my charity) receive a right to my continued support. The homeless man cannot share a bed with my wife when I am traveling. Nor may he presume a right over my children’s belongings....

The common good is the peace of society so that life and faith can thrive. Babies can be born and have a happy life. Grandparents can grow old together. Anyone who seeks to destroy the common good should be, according to Thomas, destroyed....

Have no doubt that Thomas Aquinas would have stated that Christian nations should receive Christian refugees but refuse Muslim refugees for the sake of national justice and the common good. The Muslim’s official declaration of faith denies natural law (eg, polygamy), religious liberty (eg, Sharia), and implicitly Muhammad’s doctrine and example of political violence....

We Christians should be generous with humanitarian aid toward Muslims and all people. We should send money and resources to those who have been dispossessed. We should be loving and generous with Muslims. Kindness brings about conversion and understanding. We should also try to topple the Islamic State and eradicate terrorism in our lands and in the Islamic lands.

Remember the Good Samaritan! He did not take the roadside victim home with him. Rather, the Good Samaritan put the victim up in a hotel and paid for him to get better. The Good Samaritan was good and commended by Christ. The Good Samaritan did the right thing: humanitarian aid.

We are not required by Christ to take victims that oppose our faith and our way of life and make them into our political heirs. We are not required to take them into our homes.

But we are obliged to help them. And if terrorists use our charity as a pretense to hurt us, then, as Thomas Aquinas says, they should be swiftly destroyed.

Well put.

More About #BlackLivesMatter Protests

It is beyond me why it is racist to say that "All Lives Matter." In other news, the #BlackLivesMatter protests are (not surprisingly) turning violent, especially against whites (NSFW).

The barbarians have long since breached the gates.