Nothing Whatsoever: Hillary Clinton’s ‘No True Scotsman’

Hillary Clinton, last week:

The bottom line is that we are in a contest of ideas against an ideology of hate, and we have to win. Let’s be clear, though, Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. The obsession in some quarters with a clash of civilization, or repeating the specific words radical Islamic terrorism isn’t just a distraction, it gives these criminals, these murderers more standing than they deserve. It actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side.

Let’s take this one sentence at a time.

The bottom line is that we are in a contest of ideas against an ideology of hate, and we have to win.

No, we are at war with radical Islamism, which long ago declared war on us. “Contest of ideas” plays into it, insofar as we seek to dissuade would-be jihadists from joining the ranks of, or otherwise giving aid and comfort to, those waging war on the West, but this is not a Presidential primary debate–it is war.

And if we are to win that war, as Clinton says we must, then we should (1) understand that it is a war, and (2) understand who and what we are at war with.

Let’s be clear, though, Islam is not our adversary.

If Ms. Clinton were seeking clarity, she would not rely so heavily on weasel-words, like “adversary.” But yes, let us be clear.

What Ms. Clinton might have said, if she were inclined toward clarity rather than obfuscation, was that we are not at war with Islam, but this would have left the impression that we are at war with something else–perhaps with an “ideology of hate,” as she put it.

But no, we are apparently trying to win a “contest of ideas” against an unspecified “adversary,” the latter being a word that can mean anything from an opponent in a chess match, to a foreign invader hell-bent on committing genocide on your group.

So yes, let’s be clear, Ms. Clinton: We are at war with global radical Islamism–Islamism being a subset, but not the totality, of Islam. Put simply, then, we are at war with radical Islamism, but we are not at war with Islam per se.

Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

Nonsense. On stilts.

A better way to state the reality:

  1. Many Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.
  2. Many Muslims are intolerant, but have nothing to do terrorism.
  3. Many Muslims are intolerant and support terrorism, but do not participate in it directly.
  4. Many Muslims are intolerant, support terrorism, and participate in it directly.

In other words, Islam is not all One Big Thing. Anyone who says it is One Big Thing is lying, or is a moron. The Religion of Peace narrative is just as specious and unsupported by reality as the All Muslims Are Terrorists (or terrorist sympathizers) narrative is. A pox on both narratives.

The facts are that Islam is multifaceted, and its adherents’ behavior ranges from benign to evil–all of which behavior can be justified by their particular (and sometimes, largely regional) interpretation of Islam.

If you doubt the diversity of Islam, check out Pew’s “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society” (2013).

And a footnote: There are moderate (and liberal) Muslims, and then there are fake moderates like the favorite go-to Muslim spokespeople of the media (and Hamas front group), CAIR. When the media consistently holds up obvious wolves like CAIR as sheep, it’s little wonder that some people conclude that the term “moderate Muslim” is a fantasy–but it is not.

The obsession in some quarters with a clash of civilization, or repeating the specific words radical Islamic terrorism isn’t just a distraction, it gives these criminals, these murderers more standing than they deserve.

Ms. Clinton may have meant to say “civilizations,” plural.

Obsession? OK, Ms. Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Lady. :-D

I dislike the term “clash of civilizations,” if only because it confuses what’s actually going on. Islamism is at war with the West, but it is also at war with what it considers illegitimate, “apostate” regimes in the Muslim world. For example,

[Abu Musab] Al-Zarqawi started [Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, which evolved into ISIS] with the intention of overthrowing the “apostate” Kingdom of Jordan, which he considered to be un-Islamic. After toppling Jordan’s monarchy, presumably he would turn to the rest of the Levant.

As for “the obsession…with repeating the specific words radical Islamic terrorism” being a “distraction,” Ms. Clinton is, as they say on the Interwebs, FOS. As I noted earlier, if we are to win the war that Ms. Clinton calls a “contest,” but nevertheless says we must win, then we should (1) understand that it is a war, and (2) understand who and what we are at war with. Repeatedly attempting to force Leftists to stop playing word games is not an obsession on our part, so much as an obsession, on the part of Leftists, with avoiding speaking the plain truth.

Ms. Clinton resents the fact that murderous jihadi Islamists are motivated by their particular interpretation of Islam. I’m sure that millions of Muslims the world over are similarly exercised. But an Islamist who is motivated by a particular interpretation of Islam is still a Muslim, and still part of Islam. To state the obvious, this is Islam’s problem, not Christianity’s, or Judaism’s, etc.

Playing word games about what motivates radical Islamists does nothing to help anyone other than Islamists; denying their religious motivation is an absurd exercise.

It actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side.

Playing the Religion of Peace game is what hurts moderate and liberal Muslims.

Nobody with half a brain hears about a Muslim homicide bomber praising Allah before he blows up innocents and thinks, well this obviously has nothing to do with Islam, because Islam is a Religion of Peace.

But when the obvious fact that an atrocity was motivated by Islamist fervor is denied out of Western squeamishness; when the proverbial No True Scotsman card is played; when the intellectual towel is thrown in, and we pretend that Islam is in no need of reform, because “terrorists” are mere “criminals,” and are not Muslims–that’s when, as the saying goes, “the terrorists win,” because Islam and Islamism–Muslim faith versus Muslim theocracy–are lazily assumed to be one and the same.

Playing word games get us nowhere. If Hillary Clinton is elected President, we will likely be subjected to eight more years of such word games, and the consequences will be deadly for many.

Donald Trump and the visceral appeal of fascism

Standard gotcha journalism fare is to ask a leading, provocative question that can later be framed as if the person being questioned offered up an outrageous comment without being prompted.

Knowing that, rational people–particularly those accustomed to being in the public eye, and even more particularly, politicians–engage in a sort of kung fu, redirecting the energy inherent in the gotcha back onto the questioner, and onto the assumptions (often Leftist in origin) that the questioner betrays. Newt Gingrich was very good at this; Chris Christie is even better. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz comport themselves well in this respect, as well.

That said, there are some responses to the aforementioned type of questions that are so outrageous, so beyond the pale, so off the rez, so tone-deaf, and so stupid, that they betray either (1) an overweening eagerness to tell the interviewer (and by extension, his audience) what he wants to hear, (2) a deep-seated and perverted take on the subject matter, or (3) both.

For example, this exchange between a reporter for Yahoo News, and Donald Trump:

Yahoo News asked Trump whether his push for increased surveillance of American Muslims could include warrantless searches. He suggested he would consider a series of drastic measures.

“We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule,” Trump said. “And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

Yahoo News asked Trump whether this level of tracking might require registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion. He wouldn’t rule it out.

“We’re going to have to — we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,” Trump said when presented with the idea. “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.”

Of course, his fans will wax rhapsodic at the willingness of The Donald to tell the hard truths, disregarding political correctness, that need to be told.

It also goes without saying that, all too frequently (as if once isn’t more than enough), Trump riffs on questions while indulging them, no matter how absurd or transparently fascist his answers, in a lame attempt to tell people what they want to hear.

This is one of those instances where I get a clear sense of my biggest shortcoming as a writer: I am rendered largely mute by the painfully obvious. In this instance, the obvious fact is, Donald Trump wouldn’t know Constitutional Federalism if it bought him dinner, took him out dancing, and gave him a blowjob. I will leave it to other, much more talented and patient writers than myself, to enumerate all the ways in which this is a self-evident fact.

Suffice it to say that Donald Trump is a visceral fascist–and much to my dismay, given his popularity, apparently a quarter of the Republican electorate (if the polling is to be trusted, and the Bradley Effect doesn’t manifest itself with a vengence when crunch time comes) is, as well.

This should have been our best opportunity to retake the White House. Given the support for Trump (and to a lesser extent, the woefully clueless Ben Carson), it may instead mark the death rattle of conservatism.

And none of it can be laid at the door of the media.

Snowflake flag: Whining Makes You Free


Transcript: Trump compares Carson’s claimed pathological anger to child molesting

Video here.

Also of interest, @rubedawg1061 provided this very germane link concerning the word apophasis, “a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up.”

My transcription:

EB: In terms of Dr. Carson, um, you’ve said some of the questions about his past are fair. There have been a lot of questions about what really happened, what his childhood was like. Uh, yunno, he’s pushed back on the media. He said at the debate the other night, “I have a problem about being lied about.” Do you believe he’s being truthful now you’ve heard his answers?

DT: Well I don’t know, I mean, first of all I like him. I get along with him very well. I just don’t don’t know. And don’t forget, this is in his book. I’m not bringing up anything that’s not in his book, and, yunno, when he says he went after his mother and wanted to hit her in the head with a hammer, that bothers me. I mean, that’s pretty bad. When he says he’s pathological, and he says that in the book, I don’t say that.

And again, I’m not saying anything. I’m not saying anything, other than, pathological is a very serious disease. And he said he’s pathological. Somebody said he has pathological disease.

Other people said he said in the book–and I haven’t seen it, I know it’s in the book–that’s he’s got a pathological temper or temperament. That’s a big problem, because you don’t cure that.

That’s like, yunno, I could say–they say you don’t cure, as an example, child molester. You don’t cure, these people. You don’t cure, a child molester. There’s no cure for it. Pathological, there’s no cure for that. Now, I didn’t say it, he said it in his book.

So when I hear somebody pathological, when somebody says I went after my mother with a–and he’s saying it about himself–with a hammer and hit her in the head, I say whoa! I never did. You never did. I don’t know anybody that ever did, personally. But that’s a big statement.

When he said he hit a friend of his in the face with a lock, with a padlock, right in the face, I say whoa! That’s pretty bad.

And when he said he stabbed somebody with a knife but it hit him in the belt buckle–I know a lot about knives and belt buckles. Belt buckles aren’t gonna stop because they’re gonna turn, they’re gonna twist, they’re gonna, yunno, they’re not solid, especially if somebody has got a ‘couple extra pounds on you. Yunno, they move, there’s a lot of movement. So, the chances of somebody going like that, hitting a belt buckle where it doesn’t slide off and go into the

EB: So you’re not satisfied.

DT: Well I just don’t know. But when said that he’s pathological, you’ll have to ask him that question. Look, I hope it’s fine, because I think it would be a shame. But think of it. What he’s saying is these things happened. But it would be nicer if he said no, none of these things did happen. He’s saying these things happened, and therefore I have credibility. And what I’m saying is I’d rather have them if they didn’t happen. I don’t want somebody that hit somebody in the face really hard with a padlock. I don’t want somebody that went after his mother with a hammer.

EB: To be President.

DT: I don’t want somebody, frankly, I didn’t ready his book. But according to the book he said he’s pathological. That’s a very serious term.

Trump: “The word ‘fix’ is not a good one to use in politics!”



“We’re going to find out why [the Department of Veterans Affairs is] going bad and we’re going to fix it.” (10/31/15)

“Our infrastructure is terrible, and it’s only getting worse and more expensive to fix.” (Crippled America, 2015)

“Why can’t we get these problems fixed? The answer is that the people we put in charge don’t know how to fix them.” (Crippled America, 2015)

“We don’t spend enough to fix, build, or maintain our ‘plant.'” (Crippled America, 2015)

“Fixing our infrastructure will be one of the biggest projects this country has ever undertaken….Let me ask you, if your own house was falling down and you had to hire someone to fix it before it completely collapsed, who would you hire?” (Crippled America, 2015)

“For me, fixing the country’s infrastructure would be a major priority project.” (Crippled America, 2015)

And so on.


Incompetence? Hardly.


My Twitter timeline is here.

President Obama has a case of the sads

President Obama, in Seattle:

“Which makes you wonder, why are all these Republican politicians so down on America? I mean, I know it’s political season, but listening to them is kind of depressing.”


idiocracy_camacho attacks host of show on which Andrew appeared dozens of times

So you don’t have to give these cretins traffic:

Hugh Hewitt, GOP Debate Questioner, Sides with Establishment, Not Voters

Hugh Hewitt, the moderator picked by GOP leaders for the upcoming candidates’ debate, is firmly on the establishment’s side in its struggle against outsider Donald Trump.

Hewitt is going to be asking the questions in the Sept. 16 debate, and he’s already made clear he doesn’t like Trump—he doesn’t like his populist priorities, and he prefers establishment candidates, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who has tried since 2012 to boost the migration of lower-wage, profit-boosting foreign workers into the United States.

“No. no, he doesn’t” have the “temperament” to be president, Hewitt said about Trump, to NBC host Chuck Todd Aug. 9.

The next debate takes place Sept. 16 at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, but Hewitt is already doing his best to rough-up Trump.

Trump sat for a Sept. 3 interview on Hewitt’s radio show. While the title of the audio file posted on Hewitt’s website suggests that the interview was presented to Trump as an opportunity to answer why he “took the [GOP] pledge,” yet Hewitt’s first mention of Trump’s GOP pledge did not come until 20 minutes and 32 seconds into the interview—an interview which was a grand total of 20 minutes at 47 seconds long.

Instead, Hewitt began by immediately presenting a list of jihadi leaders to identify. Properly, Trump tried to focus on the top-level question of national strategy, including his determination to boost America’s clout. “By the time we get to office, the [individuals will] all be changed. They’ll be all gone… I will hopefully find [a great strategist like] Gen. Douglas MacArthur in the [U.S] pack” to counter those jihadis, Trump said. “Iran right now is in the driver’s seat to do whatever they want to do,” he said, but Hewitt kept pushing Trump to talk about individual leaders on the jihadi side.

“Are you familiar with General Soleimani?” Hewitt began the interview by asking. “I’m looking for the next commander-in-chief to know who Hassan Nasrallah is, and Zawahiri, and al-Julani, and al-Baghdadi. Do you know the players without a scorecard, yet, Donald Trump?,” Hewitt pressed.

Hewitt was then the first to suggest that his questions could be considered a so-called “gotcha questions.”

“I don’t believe in gotcha questions,” Hewitt said defensively—even though Trump had yet to accuse him of such. “I’m not trying to quiz you on who the worst guy in the world is,” Hewitt insisted.

NBC’s Chuck Todd later described the mugging as the “Hugh Hewitt pop quiz of Donald Trump.”

Trump’s enemies in the GOP and in the GOP-leaning media seized on the interview to claim that Trump is unprepared for the job. His answers are “very concerning,” said Hewitt’s favorite candidate, Rubio. Politico, a pro-establishment website, called the interview a “gaffe” for Trump.

But those criticisms weren’t leveled at candidate Carly Fiorina, when she also tried to steer Hewitt towards strategy instead of details. “I have to be very honest with you,” Fiorina replied. “Sometimes I can get confused a bit between the name and group because they sound a bit alike sometimes, so I have to pause and think sometimes.” Hewitt did not press her for a more in-depth answer: “I don’t think it’s disqualifying or in any way indictment that people get confused about the names,” he assured her.

National Journareports he has become the “Republican establishment’s go-to pundit.”

Hewitt is the media darling of establishment Republicans and GOP leadership. For instance, in June of this year both Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) separately appeared on Hewitt’s show to sell the Republican plan to grant Obama authority to pass globalist wage-reducing trade deals, and earlier this year, Mitt Romney decided to allow Hewitt to be the first to report that Romney would not be running for president.Thus the talk radio host, who was handpicked to participate in the debates as part of the Republican National Committee’s plan to provide balance to “Establishment” media outlets, is himself an establishment media figure in an election where outsiders and voters are jointly slashing at the bipartisan establishment that has run Washington since at least 1988.

Hewitt is frequently in complete agreement with so-called “mainstream” outlets on the most critical issues of the 2016 debate—borders, language, and national identity. That puts him squarely on the opposite side of most Republican primary voters and the vast majority of Americans who favor a more populist platform that protects Americans’ jobs and wages.

In a recent op-ed, Hewitt urged Republicans not to get distracted by the death of young Kate Steinle. Even though 62 percent of Americans would like to see legal action taken against sanctuary cities, Hewitt casually dismissed the concerns of Americans who are worried about rape- and murder-enabled by sanctuary cities, and instead advised Republicans to focus their attention on China and Vladimir Putin: “[Kate Steinle’s] slaying by an oft-deported illegal immigrant felon should not prompt Republican presidential candidates to become amplifiers for that small slice of the electorate which sincerely believes illegal immigration is the most pressing issue facing the country,” Hewitt declared.

While many Americans were furious about President Barack Obama’s decision to wave in a flood of illegal alien minors last summer, Hewitt argued that the United States should “make the border kids Americans.” He demanded that the illegal minors be “dispersed all across the country,” even as Americans were blocking convoys of Obama’s migrants. He was even more anti-border than Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who last summer argued that the minors could not be allowed to remain in the country. “We have to send a clear message that ‘Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean your child gets to stay,’” she said in June of 2014.

Hewitt’s support for open borders would accelerate the decline in schools’ SAT scores and would impose additional burdens on already-strained educational resources, but would also fill the ranks of Democrats with millions of additional government-dependent migrants. This type of mass immigration turned Hewitt’s home state of California—a state which once launched the Gipper into both the Governor’s mansion and the oval office—into an irreversibly blue, big-government stronghold.

On language and national identity, Hewitt once again finds himself opposed to the views of most Republican primary voters. Language and national identity emerged as a dominant 2016 issue last week when Trump called for English language patriotism after Jeb Bush delivered a Trump-attack message in Spanish. Even though becoming an American citizen requires proficiency in the English language, Hewitt has argued that the United States should not place any great value in language patriotism—arguing that the “perfect [GOP] ticket” will be able to “talk to Latino-Americans.” That’s partly why he backs Spanish-speaking Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, who have a “fluency in the language of Univision and Telemundo.”

Marco Rubio has frequently used his Spanish interviews on Univision to promote a campaign agenda that contradicts the one he sells to his constituents when he is speaking English. He did this during the height of the Gang of Eight bill, when he told his Spanish audience that amnesty and legalization of illegal immigrants would precede border enforcement. Rubio similarly repeated this tactic earlier this year when he decided to endorse Obama’s executive amnesty for illegal immigrants in a Spanish media interview with Jorge Ramos.

Hewitt’s views on language places him squarely at odds with conservative icon and grassroots leader Phyllis Schlafly, who has argued that Rubio’s decision to campaign in Spanish while running to be the President of the United States ought to be inherently disqualifying: “Rubio’s [pro-executive amnesty] statement was made in Spanish on the Spanish-language network Univision, which is reason enough to eliminate him from serious consideration,” Schlafly said. “When somebody is running for President of the United States, why should we have to get somebody to translate his remarks into English?”

Hewitt, however, does not seem to be bothered by Rubio’s contradicting, dual-language campaign agendas, as both Hewitt’s public and private comments indicate his high regard for Rubio as a presidential candidate.

Publicly, Hewitt has described Marco Rubio as “Hillary Clinton’s worst nightmare,” as he said in a June appearance on Meet The Press. This is apparently a sentiment Hewitt shares in private conversations as well—in a closed-door gathering of Republican Hill-staffers in June of this year, Hewitt told GOP aides that he believes Rubio to be the Republican candidate who poses the greatest threat to Hillary Clinton, several GOP aides told Breitbart News. Hewitt has also praised Rubio’s work on immigration and in January of 2013, Hewitt advised Republicans to follow Rubio’s lead on the issue of immigration: “Marco Rubio has credibility… listen to him. Do what he says. It isn’t that complicated.”

On American sovereignty and trade agreements, which Trump has used as a wedge issue to distinguish himself from virtually every other Republican candidate running for president, Hewitt—once again— finds himself at odds with Trump and American voters. Trump has made in-roads with blue-collar voters with his emphasis on bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States and pleading to crack down on the unfair trading practices of foreign competitors. “On free trade deals, Trump shares a skepticism held by about half of Republican voters, but that’s usually suppressed by the party’s powerful business wing,” writes Ezra Klein from liberal-leaning website Vox.

But again, this is not an opinion shared by the RNC’s preferred radio host. In June of this year, Hewitt told Paul Ryan that he strongly supports the creation of global trade pacts: “I’m a big TPA-TPP supporter,” Hewitt proudly declared. While Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Howie Carr, and Lars Larson all opposed giving President Obama trade promotion authority, Hewitt stood firmly beside establishment Republicans in their effort to pass Obamatrade, which could ensnarl the United States in global governing commissions similar to that of the European Union.

While Hewitt is at odds with Republican voters on the central issues of the 2016 election debate, which he will help moderate—there is an increasing sense amongst political observers that the critical issue of immigration has legs beyond simply the 2016 debate—and is, in fact, the central political issue of the 21st century.

On Sunday, Sept. 6, Hewitt declared on Twitter that the “Pope calls on all of Europe’s Catholics to house refugees.”

Although a tweet isn’t always an endorsement, it certainly suggests that Hewitt agrees with the Pope’s general post-national, anti-border views. The tweet harkens to mind the controversial 1973 French novel Camp of the Saints, which argued that liberals and Western religious leaders would dissolve national borders in the name of tolerance for foreign cultures and would drown the West under a flood of hopeful migrants.

Many political observers—from Pat Buchanan to The Week Magazinehave argued that the challenges facing Western civilization have become a fundamental issue for ordinary Americans and Europeans, because tens of millions—and soon hundreds of millions—of poor Africans, Latin Americans, Asians, and Middle Easterners are responding to the open-borders signals from progressive elites in the developed world. That deep divide between elite and ordinary voters, between the developed world and the global poor, ensures that that migration is not only the central issue of the 2016 election, but also one of the primary issues of 21st century global politics.

But Hugh Hewitt is a voice for the bipartisan elites.

Trumpkins are at war with James Madison

I couldn’t have said it better than Robert Tracinski at The Federalist. Oh, how I tried:

There is a kind of political nihilism at work here, a desire to see the whole system destroyed if you don’t get everything you want right now….You’re just venting your anger. If this is the case, please go find a hobby to channel your excess energy into, and leave politics alone. Politics is not about venting your emotions. It’s about accomplishing results, which takes planning, persistence, and patience….

Their beef isn’t with the Republican Party, it’s with the whole American system of government. Their enemy isn’t Mitch McConnell. It’s James Madison. If you’re the sort of person who uses “cuckservative” as an epithet for anyone who settles for less than what you imagine the right kind of strongman could deliver, then I’ve found your ultimate nemesis. James Madison is the original “cuckservative.”

Read it all.

Another Reason To Love Twitter



Mr. Personality, when he said he didn’t need to “look that up,” was apparently responding to this tweet that doesn’t display in the thread:





Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers