theamericanconservative--2020-08-04--As the Filibuster Goes, So Goes the GOP

As the Filibuster Goes, So Goes the GOP

As the Filibuster Goes , So Goes the GOP If Democrats capture Congress , Republicans will likely be stripped of their ability to slow , halt , or shape law .
“ When the people find that they can vote themselves money , that will herald the end of the republic.
” This was the nightmare of Ben Franklin .
Yet , with passage this spring of a $ 4 trillion bailout of an economy facing historic losses because of the COVID-19 pandemic , and Nancy Pelosi ’ s House having voted out another $ 3 trillion , we may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed , if Democrats capture the Senate and win the White House , as many polls now project , it is not easy to see who or what prevents an uncontrolled explosion of fresh spending and a concomitant expansion of federal power .
Consider .
In his eulogy to John Lewis at Ebenezer Baptist Church , Barack Obama called on Democrats , if victorious in November , to kill the Senate filibuster , all but calling the filibuster an instrument of systemic racism .
Yet , the filibuster has been and remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States Senate .
It allows for extended deliberation by requiring , not 51 but 60 votes , a supermajority , to shut off debate and pass major bills .
If Democrats capture the Senate and abolish the filibuster , the Republican minority in 2021 would be stripped of virtually the only effective weapon in its arsenal to halt , slow , or shape U.S. law .
That is exactly what Obama was urging in his eulogy to Lewis .
“ If politicians want to honor John , ” said a surprisingly militant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him by revitalizing the law he was willing to die for … ( And ) once we pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act , we should keep marching.
” Said Obama : “ By making sure every American is automatically registered to vote , including former inmates… By adding polling places , and expanding early voting , and making Election Day a national holiday… By guaranteeing that every American citizen has equal representation … including the American citizens who live in Washington , D.C. , and in Puerto Rico .
“ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another Jim Crow relic … then that ’ s what we should do.
” By calling the filibuster “ another Jim Crow relic ” the ex-president was putting progressives on notice that failure to get rid of it would be to collaborate with racists .
After abolishing the filibuster , says Obama , Democrats should ram through statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. , thereby expanding the Senate to 104 members , and adding four new Democratic senators .
That new Senate , says Obama , should enact every law possible to enlarge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballot to ex-convicts .
His eyes open to the potential of a Senate where 51 Democrats can enact a socialist agenda , Sen. Bernie Sanders hastily endorsed Obama ’ s call : “ President Obama is absolutely right .
… Getting rid of the filibuster would enable Democrats to pass a comprehensive agenda to guarantee the rights and dignity of everyone in this country.
” This is but the beginning .
If Democrats deprive a Republican minority of the filibuster , there would be no one stopping Congress from passing or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The door would be open to legislation putting DACA “ dreamers ” on a fast track to citizenship , and to granting amnesty to illegal migrants , and to putting the 11 million to 22 million who are already here on the road to citizenship and the ballot box .
With amnesties , open borders bills , a renewal of chain migration , an end to deportations and new restrictions on ICE and the Border Patrol , a Democratic Congress , by opening the gates to millions , could turn traditionally red states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as blue as New York , Illinois and California .
As The Wall Street Journal also notes , one of the agenda items of the Biden-Bernie-AOC Democratic Party is the raising of payroll taxes , personal income taxes , corporate taxes , capital gains taxes and estate taxes .
All of these newer and higher tax rates are included in a $ 3 trillion package to which Joe Biden has signed on .
If Democrats gain control of Congress and the filibuster is killed , reparations for slavery , the Green New Deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harsh climate change laws are on the table for Democrats to decide alone , without hearing from the GOP .
In a 2017 public letter , Democrats endorsed the retention of the filibuster , both on principle and because of the unique character of the Senate : “ We are steadfastly committed to ensuring that this great American institution continues to serve as the world ’ s greatest deliberative body.
” If the filibuster is thrown out , writes the Journal , “ The door to radicalism is getting busted wide open , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like what comes out the other side.
” Another Ben Franklin quote comes to mind .
“ A republic if you can keep it , ” Franklin told the lady in Philadelphia who had asked what kind of government they had created .
If the filibuster goes , and the Democratic left runs wild in the next two years , will that republic survive the disfiguring surgery ?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “ Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided @ @ @ @

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
This was the nightmare of Ben Franklin.
Yet, with passage this spring of a $4 trillion bailout of an economy facing historic losses because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and Nancy Pelosi’s House having voted out another $3 trillion, we may have reached Franklin’s peril point.
Indeed, if Democrats capture the Senate and win the White House, as many polls now project, it is not easy to see who or what prevents an uncontrolled explosion of fresh spending and a concomitant expansion of federal power.
Consider. In his eulogy to John Lewis at Ebenezer Baptist Church, Barack Obama called on Democrats, if victorious in November, to kill the Senate filibuster, all but calling the filibuster an instrument of systemic racism.
Yet, the filibuster has been and remains one of the distinguishing features of the United States Senate. It allows for extended deliberation by requiring, not 51 but 60 votes, a supermajority, to shut off debate and pass major bills.
If Democrats capture the Senate and abolish the filibuster, the Republican minority in 2021 would be stripped of virtually the only effective weapon in its arsenal to halt, slow, or shape U.S. law.
That is exactly what Obama was urging in his eulogy to Lewis.
“If politicians want to honor John,” said a surprisingly militant Obama, “Let’s honor him by revitalizing the law he was willing to die for … (And) once we pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, we should keep marching.”
“Keep marching”? To where?
Said Obama: “By making sure every American is automatically registered to vote, including former inmates… By adding polling places, and expanding early voting, and making Election Day a national holiday… By guaranteeing that every American citizen has equal representation … including the American citizens who live in Washington, D.C., and in Puerto Rico.
“If all this takes eliminating the filibuster, another Jim Crow relic … then that’s what we should do.”
By calling the filibuster “another Jim Crow relic” the ex-president was putting progressives on notice that failure to get rid of it would be to collaborate with racists.
After abolishing the filibuster, says Obama, Democrats should ram through statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C., thereby expanding the Senate to 104 members, and adding four new Democratic senators.
That new Senate, says Obama, should enact every law possible to enlarge and expand the electorate, including extending the ballot to ex-convicts.
His eyes open to the potential of a Senate where 51 Democrats can enact a socialist agenda, Sen. Bernie Sanders hastily endorsed Obama’s call:
“President Obama is absolutely right. … Getting rid of the filibuster would enable Democrats to pass a comprehensive agenda to guarantee the rights and dignity of everyone in this country.”
This is but the beginning. If Democrats deprive a Republican minority of the filibuster, there would be no one stopping Congress from passing or the president from signing new anti-gun legislation.
The door would be open to legislation putting DACA “dreamers” on a fast track to citizenship, and to granting amnesty to illegal migrants, and to putting the 11 million to 22 million who are already here on the road to citizenship and the ballot box.
With amnesties, open borders bills, a renewal of chain migration, an end to deportations and new restrictions on ICE and the Border Patrol, a Democratic Congress, by opening the gates to millions, could turn traditionally red states such as Arizona, Georgia and Texas as blue as New York, Illinois and California.
As The Wall Street Journal also notes, one of the agenda items of the Biden-Bernie-AOC Democratic Party is the raising of payroll taxes, personal income taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes and estate taxes.
All of these newer and higher tax rates are included in a $3 trillion package to which Joe Biden has signed on.
If Democrats gain control of Congress and the filibuster is killed, reparations for slavery, the Green New Deal, “Medicare for All” and harsh climate change laws are on the table for Democrats to decide alone, without hearing from the GOP.
In a 2017 public letter, Democrats endorsed the retention of the filibuster, both on principle and because of the unique character of the Senate: “We are steadfastly committed to ensuring that this great American institution continues to serve as the world’s greatest deliberative body.”
If the filibuster is thrown out, writes the Journal, “The door to radicalism is getting busted wide open, and Americans of both parties may not like what comes out the other side.”
Another Ben Franklin quote comes to mind.
“A republic if you can keep it,” Franklin told the lady in Philadelphia who had asked what kind of government they had created.
If the filibuster goes, and the Democratic left runs wild in the next two years, will that republic survive the disfiguring surgery?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”


theamericanconservative--2020-08-05--Congress Used to Regulate Philanthropies, Now They Benefit From Them

WASHINGTON - MARCH 10 : Bill Gates ( L ) , co-founder and co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation , and former U.S. President Bill Clinton shake hands after testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill March 10 , 2010 in Washington , DC .
( Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images ) In the 1960s , when populist politicians tended to be white , Southern , and Democratic , two powerful members of the House of Representatives , Wright Patman and Wilbur Mills , took aim at private foundations and their “ special ” status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1962 , Patman led a series of investigations into how foundations were being used to avoid taxes , protect family economic interests , and promote narrow political agendas .
In 1969 , Mills , as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee , held hearings on private foundations that included an infamous performance by McGeorge Bundy , President of the Ford Foundation .
The result was sweeping legislation that forced foundations to pay out a specified amount of money each year in grants , limited their ability to control for-profit businesses , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other political activities .
In 2020 , there is a need for a similar effort to regulate more carefully the activities of private foundations and other endowed entities , ranging from universities to local museums .
During the past decade , the assets of these organizations have been swollen by a strong stock market and a new generation of ultra-wealthy individuals and families who have transferred billions of dollars into nonprofit endowments .
While some people of wealth , like Pierre Omidyar , have chosen to do their giving through a limited liability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealthy people do not take this route .
Today , about $ 1.7 trillion resides in the coffers of private foundations and other endowed nonprofits .
This generosity has many admirable qualities , if applied appropriately .
But the growth of these institutions has also had a dark side .
Foundations now play an extraordinary role in shaping American public policy by funding other organizations that are deeply engaged in politically partisan activities , even though they may be following the legal restrictions .
Because operating expenses can be counted towards a foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little incentive to control salaries or other costs .
As a result , many foundation executives have salaries exceeding $ 500,000 per year .
More generally , a huge amount of charitable money is taken out of circulation in order to support these institutions in perpetuity .
Today , foundation endowments amount to around $ 1 trillion .
Of that amount , less than 5 % is distributed in any given year to other charitable groups .
Very little of this money touches poor communities where violence , drugs , and dysfunctional schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even a modest chance of joining the ranks of the employed .
Despite the rhetoric of many large foundations , few provide direct support to community groups and other local organizations in the neediest communities .
Many universities , cultural institutions , and think tanks have also amassed gigantic endowments that have allowed them almost total independence from market and political pressures .
This freedom could , in theory , be positive and engender creativity and new initiatives .
But too often the building of endowments becomes a goal in and of itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources can or should be used .
And as we have seen in recent weeks , these endowed entities are now under considerable pressure to politicize their work at the expense of their core missions .
It is laudable for Yale and Columbia to use some of their endowments to further diversify their faculties and student bodies .
The elites and their institutions certainly need to confront their privilege and become more inclusive .
But very little of this money will do much to help the poor communities of New Haven or New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between elite endowed organizations and the rest of the nonprofit sector in terms of resources , salaries , and capacity .
What can be done to restore balance within the nonprofit world and ensure that charitable money is actually used to address real societal needs ?
Here are some thoughts on what to do about foundations , endowed institutions , and the nonprofit sector overall .
For existing private foundations , five reforms would help address the sector ’ s most pressing problems : • 10 percent payout of net assets : Right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private foundations have to spend at least 5 percent of their net assets per year on grants or eligible administrative expenses .
The most important reform would be to impose a much higher payout requirement on these foundations and force them to distribute more money each year to the rest of the nonprofit sector .
• Operating expenses can not count as part of the payout : If foundations want to have large staffs , fancy buildings , and multiple foreign offices , that is their choice .
But that choice should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to charitable organizations .
• Prohibit compensation for foundation board members : While most foundations do not directly compensate their board members , some still do and at a handsome rate .
This step would simply bring foundations in line with the best practices of the nonprofit sector .
• Grants can not be used for endowments or capital projects : An increased payout requirement could incentivize foundations to simply endow friendly organizations that share their outlook on the world .
Thus , it is important to prohibit foundations from supporting endowments and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would be forced to actually put their money to work .
• 4 percent excise tax : The excise tax was first imposed to finance the enforcement of the 1969 legislation on foundations .
The sector has grown , become more complex , and is much more difficult to monitor and regulate .
An increase in the excise tax would provide the resources for enhanced oversight .
For other nonprofit endowments , two steps might be useful : • 10 percent payout of net assets : Currently , endowed institutions that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Harvard and other universities can simply amass billions for their investment funds , with no obligation to use this money .
A payout requirement would force them to actually put their charitable assets to work .
• No transfers to other organizations : As with private foundations , there would be a temptation to simply park resources at friendly , maybe even affiliated organizations in order to conserve capital and avoid spending endowed resources .
That should be disallowed .
Finally , the entire nonprofit sector as a whole needs new restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage in activities close to politics and to be more forthcoming about where they raise their money and how they use it : • Further limit the ability of nonprofits to lobby and influence public policy : Over time , smart lawyers have found more ways to enable nonprofits to lobby .
It will be difficult to find the right means to constrict this ability , but it is essential to do so .
• Regulate more closely the relationship between 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) and 501 ( c ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups now have both types of organizations , one that can take charitable contributions and the other capable of engaging very directly in political activities .
Organizations need to make a choice between one or the other .
• Complete and accurate transparency of all salaries and expenses : Similarly , there is only limited transparency through nonprofits ’ Internal Revenue Service Form 990 reporting on how they spend their money .
While the compensation for top executives can be discerned , other costs are often murky at best .
There should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foundations and , more generally , the nonprofit sector have grown tremendously in size and influence , especially in the sphere of public policy .
While Senator Charles Grassley and others have paid periodic attention to abuses among charitable organizations , these sporadic efforts have not kept pace with the increasing ability of nonprofits to stretch the law to meet their purposes .
These suggestions are just a start .
One next step might be to simply prohibit the creation of new foundations and push everyone to follow Omidyar ’ s lead and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimum , this would push wealthy families to make direct contributions to nonprofits rather than storing their assets in the vaults of foundations .
There is a lot of low-hanging fruit for a member of Congress or Senator who wants to take up the mantle of Wright Patman and Wilbur Mills .
More importantly , if we continue to ignore these challenges and problems , the legitimacy of the charitable world will be increasingly questioned .
George Soros , Bill Gates , and the Koch brothers have already attracted a great deal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deployed their massive , charitable assets .
If we want to make sure that attacks do not grow louder and stronger , we need to take corrective action soon and bring the nonprofit world back to its charitable roots .
The author has four decades ’ worth of executive-level experience at grantmaking foundations and foundation-supported nonprofit organizations around the country .

In the 1960s, when populist politicians tended to be white, Southern, and Democratic, two powerful members of the House of Representatives, Wright Patman and Wilbur Mills, took aim at private foundations and their “special” status in the nonprofit world.
Beginning in 1962, Patman led a series of investigations into how foundations were being used to avoid taxes, protect family economic interests, and promote narrow political agendas. In 1969, Mills, as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, held hearings on private foundations that included an infamous performance by McGeorge Bundy, President of the Ford Foundation. The result was sweeping legislation that forced foundations to pay out a specified amount of money each year in grants, limited their ability to control for-profit businesses, and restricted their involvement in voter registration and other political activities.
In 2020, there is a need for a similar effort to regulate more carefully the activities of private foundations and other endowed entities, ranging from universities to local museums. During the past decade, the assets of these organizations have been swollen by a strong stock market and a new generation of ultra-wealthy individuals and families who have transferred billions of dollars into nonprofit endowments. While some people of wealth, like Pierre Omidyar, have chosen to do their giving through a limited liability corporation and forego tax advantages, most wealthy people do not take this route. Today, about $1.7 trillion resides in the coffers of private foundations and other endowed nonprofits.
This generosity has many admirable qualities, if applied appropriately. But the growth of these institutions has also had a dark side. Foundations now play an extraordinary role in shaping American public policy by funding other organizations that are deeply engaged in politically partisan activities, even though they may be following the legal restrictions. Because operating expenses can be counted towards a foundation’s payout requirement, there is little incentive to control salaries or other costs. As a result, many foundation executives have salaries exceeding $500,000 per year.
More generally, a huge amount of charitable money is taken out of circulation in order to support these institutions in perpetuity. Today, foundation endowments amount to around $1 trillion. Of that amount, less than 5% is distributed in any given year to other charitable groups. Very little of this money touches poor communities where violence, drugs, and dysfunctional schools prevent upward mobility or give their residents even a modest chance of joining the ranks of the employed. Despite the rhetoric of many large foundations, few provide direct support to community groups and other local organizations in the neediest communities.
Many universities, cultural institutions, and think tanks have also amassed gigantic endowments that have allowed them almost total independence from market and political pressures. This freedom could, in theory, be positive and engender creativity and new initiatives. But too often the building of endowments becomes a goal in and of itself, with little thought of how these resources can or should be used. And as we have seen in recent weeks, these endowed entities are now under considerable pressure to politicize their work at the expense of their core missions. It is laudable for Yale and Columbia to use some of their endowments to further diversify their faculties and student bodies. The elites and their institutions certainly need to confront their privilege and become more inclusive. But very little of this money will do much to help the poor communities of New Haven or New York. There is a growing gap between elite endowed organizations and the rest of the nonprofit sector in terms of resources, salaries, and capacity.
What can be done to restore balance within the nonprofit world and ensure that charitable money is actually used to address real societal needs? Here are some thoughts on what to do about foundations, endowed institutions, and the nonprofit sector overall.
For existing private foundations, five reforms would help address the sector’s most pressing problems:
10 percent payout of net assets : Right now, to retain their tax-exemption, private foundations have to spend at least 5 percent of their net assets per year on grants or eligible administrative expenses. The most important reform would be to impose a much higher payout requirement on these foundations and force them to distribute more money each year to the rest of the nonprofit sector.
: Right now, to retain their tax-exemption, private foundations have to spend at least 5 percent of their net assets per year on grants or eligible administrative expenses. The most important reform would be to impose a much higher payout requirement on these foundations and force them to distribute more money each year to the rest of the nonprofit sector. Operating expenses cannot count as part of the payout: If foundations want to have large staffs, fancy buildings, and multiple foreign offices, that is their choice. But that choice should not reduce the amount of money that goes to charitable organizations.
If foundations want to have large staffs, fancy buildings, and multiple foreign offices, that is their choice. But that choice should not reduce the amount of money that goes to charitable organizations. Prohibit compensation for foundation board members: While most foundations do not directly compensate their board members, some still do and at a handsome rate. This step would simply bring foundations in line with the best practices of the nonprofit sector.
While most foundations do not directly compensate their board members, some still do and at a handsome rate. This step would simply bring foundations in line with the best practices of the nonprofit sector. Grants cannot be used for endowments or capital projects: An increased payout requirement could incentivize foundations to simply endow friendly organizations that share their outlook on the world. Thus, it is important to prohibit foundations from supporting endowments and capital projects. In doing so, they would be forced to actually put their money to work.
An increased payout requirement could incentivize foundations to simply endow friendly organizations that share their outlook on the world. Thus, it is important to prohibit foundations from supporting endowments and capital projects. In doing so, they would be forced to actually put their money to work. 4 percent excise tax: The excise tax was first imposed to finance the enforcement of the 1969 legislation on foundations. The sector has grown, become more complex, and is much more difficult to monitor and regulate. An increase in the excise tax would provide the resources for enhanced oversight.
For other nonprofit endowments, two steps might be useful:
10 percent payout of net assets: Currently, endowed institutions that are not private foundations have no payout requirement. Harvard and other universities can simply amass billions for their investment funds, with no obligation to use this money. A payout requirement would force them to actually put their charitable assets to work.
Currently, endowed institutions that are not private foundations have no payout requirement. Harvard and other universities can simply amass billions for their investment funds, with no obligation to use this money. A payout requirement would force them to actually put their charitable assets to work. No transfers to other organizations: As with private foundations, there would be a temptation to simply park resources at friendly, maybe even affiliated organizations in order to conserve capital and avoid spending endowed resources. That should be disallowed.
Finally, the entire nonprofit sector as a whole needs new restrictions on the ability of charitable organizations to engage in activities close to politics and to be more forthcoming about where they raise their money and how they use it:
Further limit the ability of nonprofits to lobby and influence public policy : Over time, smart lawyers have found more ways to enable nonprofits to lobby. It will be difficult to find the right means to constrict this ability, but it is essential to do so.
Over time, smart lawyers have found more ways to enable nonprofits to lobby. It will be difficult to find the right means to constrict this ability, but it is essential to do so. Regulate more closely the relationship between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations : Many advocacy groups now have both types of organizations, one that can take charitable contributions and the other capable of engaging very directly in political activities. Organizations need to make a choice between one or the other.
: Many advocacy groups now have both types of organizations, one that can take charitable contributions and the other capable of engaging very directly in political activities. Organizations need to make a choice between one or the other. Complete and accurate transparency of all salaries and expenses: Similarly, there is only limited transparency through nonprofits’ Internal Revenue Service Form 990 reporting on how they spend their money. While the compensation for top executives can be discerned, other costs are often murky at best. There should be more clarity.
Since 1969, private foundations and, more generally, the nonprofit sector have grown tremendously in size and influence, especially in the sphere of public policy. While Senator Charles Grassley and others have paid periodic attention to abuses among charitable organizations, these sporadic efforts have not kept pace with the increasing ability of nonprofits to stretch the law to meet their purposes. These suggestions are just a start. One next step might be to simply prohibit the creation of new foundations and push everyone to follow Omidyar’s lead and create limited liability corporations. At a minimum, this would push wealthy families to make direct contributions to nonprofits rather than storing their assets in the vaults of foundations.
There is a lot of low-hanging fruit for a member of Congress or Senator who wants to take up the mantle of Wright Patman and Wilbur Mills. More importantly, if we continue to ignore these challenges and problems, the legitimacy of the charitable world will be increasingly questioned. George Soros, Bill Gates, and the Koch brothers have already attracted a great deal of criticism and concern for how they have deployed their massive, charitable assets. If we want to make sure that attacks do not grow louder and stronger, we need to take corrective action soon and bring the nonprofit world back to its charitable roots.
The author has four decades’ worth of executive-level experience at grantmaking foundations and foundation-supported nonprofit organizations around the country.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-05--Big Philanthropy Stopped Being Charitable, Here’s How to Fix It


theamericanconservative--2020-08-07--A Tribute to the Irish ‘Titan’ John Hume

BARCELONA , SPAIN : Veteran Northern Ireland politician and Nobel Peace Prize winner John Hume speaks on the European constitution in the Tribuna Barcelona , in Barcelona 21 January 2005 .
AFP PHOTO/CESAR RANGEL ( Photo credit should read CESAR RANGEL/AFP via Getty Images ) As with so many deaths just now , the funeral of the popular Irish politician John Hume ( 1937-2020 ) has been a quiet family affair .
Laid to rest at St Eugene ’ s Cathedral in Derry this Wednesday , there was no state funeral , no large public crowds out to line the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him while they find the opportunity to do some side-business .
In these times of Covid-19 and social media , the family simply asked people to mark his passing in the Irish tradition by lighting a candle placed at their windows in solidarity with them and to # StayHome .
The outpouring of condolences include those who worked with him in forging the peace in Northern Ireland .
Tony Blair repeated what he wrote in his autobiography that he was “ a titan , ” while Bill Clinton recalled Hume as someone whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace process .
Hume ’ s story is an island ’ s story .
Born the first of a family of seven on January 18 , 1937 , in his grandparents ’ Derry home , his father was long-term unemployed and the household relied on his mother ’ s wages .
As common in this part of the world at the time , Hume thought of entering the priesthood .
He started seminary training at St Patrick ’ s College Maynooth , but decided this was a mistake and changed to the secular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MA degrees .
He is celebrated as an alumnus through a building in his name ( as a lecturer in law at the university I teach in this building ) and endowed PhD scholarships .
His education formed his rigorous logic , a desire to help his community , and what he called a “ stickability ” in getting things done .
In 1960 , he returned to Derry as a teacher , and married a fellow teacher Pat Hone , with whom he had five children .
His wife remained at his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his trusted partner in politics as well as life .
Hume ’ s route to power was through community activism in the city , also known as Londonderry .
His moment of decision to act came around 1966 , in reaction to difficulties he faced as chairman of a housing association set up in 1965 .
Within a year some 100 families were housed in renovated houses , but when planning permission was refused to build new housing he could stand by no longer .
Hume put the decision down to gerrymandering , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was totally unpolitical .
When it came home to me I went out and protested.
” This protest would take him as an independent member to the Stormont parliament in February 1969 .
The following year he helped found the Social Democratic and Labour Party ( SDLP ) , a party which still advocates Irish reunification but has since lost support to the republican Sinn Féin party , which has also grown in popularity in the Republic of Ireland .
Ireland ’ s traditional nationalism says the island forms one people , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , primarily meaning the English .
Hume represented a different tradition , what has been controversially labelled ‘ revisionist nationalism.
’ Hume advocated “ aggressive non-violence ” and unity through consent .
He challenged the dogma of a Nationalism and Catholicism joined at the hip , and abhorred the violence that came with the nationalist cause .
Hume believed you make peace not with your friends but your enemies .
He was a social democrat who argued that the people , not bombs , should decide the future of Northern Ireland .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inspiration from how France and Germany transformed war into the “ European project , ” believing that in Northern Ireland the “ troubles ” could be equally transformed by people ’ s unity via prosperity .
He did not help organize the event which in January 1972 resulted in 14 people being indiscriminately killed by British paratroopers , and became known as Bloody Sunday .
However , he was filmed standing on the city walls pointing down to the Bogside , stating “ Many people down there feel now that it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not Hume making a pro-nationalist argument , rather a statement of what was a felt reality for the people of his city .
His star rose throughout the 1970s and 1980s , buoyed by support at home and abroad , thanks in part to his personal connections with Dublin , London and the US .
In between the 1979 Irish Republican Army ( IRA ) assassination of Airey Neave , British Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland , in the precincts of Parliament and the 1984 attempt to assassinate Margret Thatcher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground on .
Hume and Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams had won seats at Westminster in 1983 , which Hume took up physically but Adams spurned according to party policy .
In 1985 , Thatcher and Irish Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement , stating both governments would formally consult on Northern Ireland , opening up the possibility of a united nation .
Hume was a pivotal player in the accord and said he believed in an “ agreed Ireland , ” later explaining in 1992 that unity means “ agreement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owed a lot to Hume ’ s relations with Washington , which is well illustrated in a 2017 film ‘ In the Name of Peace : John Hume in America.
’ Hume was the first major elected politician to make an appeal to Irish-Americans not to give money to the IRA .
He said , “ Ask yourself whether you would throw a bomb or pull a trigger , for that is what your dollar will do.
” The IRA announced on August 31 , 1994 , an historic ceasefire with “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 years of bombings and shootings .
A symbolic link was made to Adams being granted a visa by Clinton to visit America that same year , but it was Hume who was the more pivotal .
Clinton recalled that it was Hume who encouraged him to take ‘ a leap of faith ’ when the US controversially issued the visa , “ He was always above the fray in a way but he sure knew when to get involved.
” Clinton explained Hume told him , “ I think it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came July 31 , 1997 .
The last steps towards a political solution exacted a personal toll on Hume ’ s health , and he spoke openly about his depression .
He had been attacked politically from all sides by unionists , Conservative politicians and British officials , and even at times the Dublin elite .
He collapsed and was hospitalized .
In 1998 , all-party negotiations at last produced the Belfast Agreement .
Later that year along with the Ulster Unionist Party leader David Trimble , Hume received the Nobel Peace Prize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deteriorate over the years , retiring from front-line politics in February 2004 .
In June of that year the SDLP experienced a collapse with the party losing Hume ’ s seat , which he had held since the first European Parliament election in 1979 .
In retirement Hume was deservedly lauded .
He was named a Knight Commander of the Papal Order of St. Gregory the Great by Pope Benedict XVI in 2012 .
He received honorary doctorates from 44 different universities , as well as the Gandhi Peace Prize and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Nobel award makes him the only recipient of all three major peace awards .
With his death , his name is now established in history and added to the great Irish constitutional nationalists of the 19th-century : Daniel O ’ Connell ( 1775-1847 ) known as The Liberator , and , Charles Stewart Parnell ( 1846-1891 ) leader of the struggle for Irish Home Rule in the late 19th century .
Hume was named “ Ireland ’ s Greatest ” in a 2010 national public poll .
A mural in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martin Luther King , Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela .
Sadly , his diagnosed dementia rid Ireland and beyond of the post-office wisdom often dispensed by those who bring about change in their society .
Hume has left behind him an Ireland with remaining sores to be scratched , as shown by the killing of journalist Lyra McKee and the Brexit border disputes .
He also leaves behind an island with a balancing act , with the North only just recently having a government after a 590-day closure , and a Republic with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popularity of Sinn Féin in the recent election .
Hume said there is no such thing as territory , there are only people , but today a territory and a people unite mourning in the hope that peace will continue to prevail , and if it does this will be in no small way thanks to the Derry-boy John Hume .
While old statues may be falling , one suspects there will be one or two new ones deservedly erected soon around the island of Ireland and perhaps even in America .
Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lecturer in Law , National University of Ireland Maynooth , and a former Visiting Scholar at Boston College .
His books include The Coming Economic Implosion of Saudi Arabia : A Behavioral Perspective and Frank H Knight : Prophet of Freedom , both published by Palgrave Macmillan .

As with so many deaths just now, the funeral of the popular Irish politician John Hume (1937-2020) has been a quiet family affair. Laid to rest at St Eugene’s Cathedral in Derry this Wednesday, there was no state funeral, no large public crowds out to line the route, or international leaders to mourn him while they find the opportunity to do some side-business.
In these times of Covid-19 and social media, the family simply asked people to mark his passing in the Irish tradition by lighting a candle placed at their windows in solidarity with them and to #StayHome. The outpouring of condolences include those who worked with him in forging the peace in Northern Ireland. Tony Blair repeated what he wrote in his autobiography that he was “a titan,” while Bill Clinton recalled Hume as someone whose counsel he could rely on during the peace process.
Hume’s story is an island’s story. Born the first of a family of seven on January 18, 1937, in his grandparents’ Derry home, his father was long-term unemployed and the household relied on his mother’s wages. As common in this part of the world at the time, Hume thought of entering the priesthood. He started seminary training at St Patrick’s College Maynooth, but decided this was a mistake and changed to the secular Maynooth University to earn his BA and MA degrees. He is celebrated as an alumnus through a building in his name (as a lecturer in law at the university I teach in this building) and endowed PhD scholarships.
His education formed his rigorous logic, a desire to help his community, and what he called a “stickability” in getting things done. In 1960, he returned to Derry as a teacher, and married a fellow teacher Pat Hone, with whom he had five children. His wife remained at his side until the end, having been his trusted partner in politics as well as life.
Hume’s route to power was through community activism in the city, also known as Londonderry. His moment of decision to act came around 1966, in reaction to difficulties he faced as chairman of a housing association set up in 1965. Within a year some 100 families were housed in renovated houses, but when planning permission was refused to build new housing he could stand by no longer. Hume put the decision down to gerrymandering, later explaining “Up to that I was totally unpolitical. When it came home to me I went out and protested.” This protest would take him as an independent member to the Stormont parliament in February 1969. The following year he helped found the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), a party which still advocates Irish reunification but has since lost support to the republican Sinn Féin party, which has also grown in popularity in the Republic of Ireland.
Ireland’s traditional nationalism says the island forms one people, and division is the fault of the British, primarily meaning the English. Hume represented a different tradition, what has been controversially labelled ‘revisionist nationalism.’ Hume advocated “aggressive non-violence” and unity through consent. He challenged the dogma of a Nationalism and Catholicism joined at the hip, and abhorred the violence that came with the nationalist cause. Hume believed you make peace not with your friends but your enemies. He was a social democrat who argued that the people, not bombs, should decide the future of Northern Ireland. He was also a Europhile, who took inspiration from how France and Germany transformed war into the “European project,” believing that in Northern Ireland the “troubles” could be equally transformed by people’s unity via prosperity.
He did not help organize the event which in January 1972 resulted in 14 people being indiscriminately killed by British paratroopers, and became known as Bloody Sunday. However, he was filmed standing on the city walls pointing down to the Bogside, stating “Many people down there feel now that it’s a united Ireland or nothing.” This was not Hume making a pro-nationalist argument, rather a statement of what was a felt reality for the people of his city. His star rose throughout the 1970s and 1980s, buoyed by support at home and abroad, thanks in part to his personal connections with Dublin, London and the US. In between the 1979 Irish Republican Army (IRA) assassination of Airey Neave, British Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the precincts of Parliament and the 1984 attempt to assassinate Margret Thatcher and her government, the political process ground on. Hume and Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams had won seats at Westminster in 1983, which Hume took up physically but Adams spurned according to party policy. In 1985, Thatcher and Irish Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, stating both governments would formally consult on Northern Ireland, opening up the possibility of a united nation. Hume was a pivotal player in the accord and said he believed in an “agreed Ireland,” later explaining in 1992 that unity means “agreement, not a takeover bid.”
Peace efforts owed a lot to Hume’s relations with Washington, which is well illustrated in a 2017 film ‘In the Name of Peace: John Hume in America.’ Hume was the first major elected politician to make an appeal to Irish-Americans not to give money to the IRA. He said, “Ask yourself whether you would throw a bomb or pull a trigger, for that is what your dollar will do.” The IRA announced on August 31, 1994, an historic ceasefire with “a complete cessation of military operations” after 25 years of bombings and shootings. A symbolic link was made to Adams being granted a visa by Clinton to visit America that same year, but it was Hume who was the more pivotal. Clinton recalled that it was Hume who encouraged him to take ‘a leap of faith’ when the US controversially issued the visa, “He was always above the fray in a way but he sure knew when to get involved.” Clinton explained Hume told him, “I think it’s worth the risk.” The final ceasefire came July 31, 1997.
The last steps towards a political solution exacted a personal toll on Hume’s health, and he spoke openly about his depression. He had been attacked politically from all sides by unionists, Conservative politicians and British officials, and even at times the Dublin elite. He collapsed and was hospitalized. In 1998, all-party negotiations at last produced the Belfast Agreement. Later that year along with the Ulster Unionist Party leader David Trimble, Hume received the Nobel Peace Prize. His health, however, continued to deteriorate over the years, retiring from front-line politics in February 2004. In June of that year the SDLP experienced a collapse with the party losing Hume’s seat, which he had held since the first European Parliament election in 1979.
In retirement Hume was deservedly lauded. He was named a Knight Commander of the Papal Order of St. Gregory the Great by Pope Benedict XVI in 2012. He received honorary doctorates from 44 different universities, as well as the Gandhi Peace Prize and the Martin Luther King Award, which along with the Nobel award makes him the only recipient of all three major peace awards. With his death, his name is now established in history and added to the great Irish constitutional nationalists of the 19th-century: Daniel O’Connell (1775-1847) known as The Liberator, and, Charles Stewart Parnell (1846-1891) leader of the struggle for Irish Home Rule in the late 19th century. Hume was named “Ireland’s Greatest” in a 2010 national public poll. A mural in his home town of Derry pictures Hume with Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela. Sadly, his diagnosed dementia rid Ireland and beyond of the post-office wisdom often dispensed by those who bring about change in their society.
Hume has left behind him an Ireland with remaining sores to be scratched, as shown by the killing of journalist Lyra McKee and the Brexit border disputes. He also leaves behind an island with a balancing act, with the North only just recently having a government after a 590-day closure, and a Republic with a tenuous power-sharing government fighting off the popularity of Sinn Féin in the recent election. Hume said there is no such thing as territory, there are only people, but today a territory and a people unite mourning in the hope that peace will continue to prevail, and if it does this will be in no small way thanks to the Derry-boy John Hume. While old statues may be falling, one suspects there will be one or two new ones deservedly erected soon around the island of Ireland and perhaps even in America.
Dr. David Cowan is an Author and Associate Lecturer in Law, National University of Ireland Maynooth, and a former Visiting Scholar at Boston College. His books include The Coming Economic Implosion of Saudi Arabia: A Behavioral Perspective and Frank H Knight: Prophet of Freedom, both published by Palgrave Macmillan.


theamericanconservative--2020-08-07--Biden’s Game Plan — Take No Risks & Run Out the Clock

Hiding Joe is the ideal strategy for the Left , his public appearances reveal his weakness .
US Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden speaks during a campaign event at the William `` Hicks '' Anderson Community Center in Wilmington , Delaware on July 28 , 2020 .
( Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP ) ( Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images ) When Vice President Calvin Coolidge ascended to the presidency on the death of Warren Harding in 1923 , a wag remarked that Silent Cal ’ s career had exhibited unmistakable signs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national attention during the Boston police strike of 1919 , where , in a stinging letter to Sam Gompers of the AFL , he thundered : “ There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody , anywhere , any time.
” If Joe Biden becomes president , celestial intervention , once again , can not be ruled out .
In the first Democratic contest in 2020 in Iowa , Biden , though the clear front-runner in the national polls , ran a humiliating fourth .
In New Hampshire , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Nevada , Joe was crushed again by Bernie Sanders but edged out Sens .
Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar thanks to his loyal African American base .
Came then South Carolina where the Black vote , 60 % of the total , gave Biden a triumph — and the momentum that propelled him to a sweeping victory on Super Tuesday .
Biden ’ s delegate count became so large it was virtually impossible for Sanders to overcome .
That March , however , which had begun with the resurrection of Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month the COVID-19 pandemic hit in full fury , sinking the exuberant economy that had been Donald Trump ’ s ticket to reelection .
At that point , Biden went to earth .
Through the spring of 2020 and this summer , he has socially distanced himself from the press and the public and sheltered in place in a basement bunker as the worst pandemic in a century drove down the best economy in decades to Depression-era levels .
The last quarter alone saw a 9 % plunge in our gross domestic product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then his “ basement bunker ” campaign will be studied by historians alongside the “ front porch ” campaign of Harding that led to the 1920 landslide victory over Democrat James M. Cox .
Yet , several scheduled events could still upend Biden ’ s take-no-risks-and-run-out-the-clock strategy .
The first is his choice of a vice presidential nominee , which Biden has promised will be a woman .
However , if Biden restricts his choice to a Black woman , as some have insisted , he eliminates from consideration every governor and senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And if all the media attention given to Harris and other VP candidates fails to produce that Black woman , in this hour of renewed demands for racial equality , Biden will have some serious explaining to do to the core constituency that saved his bacon in South Carolina .
There is another danger in Biden ’ s choice .
When General Eisenhower chose Richard Nixon in 1952 , the liberal press ginned up a story about a “ secret Nixon slush fund , ” so intense that Ike was almost stampeded into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sen. George McGovern ’ s campaign failed in its due diligence on his vice presidential choice , and McGovern was forced to drop Sen. Tom Eagleton from his ticket and replace him with Sargent Shriver .
Moreover , given Biden ’ s age — he would be the oldest president ever inaugurated by eight full years — his choice will have to be seen by the nation as a credible president .
A second hurdle for Biden is his speech accepting the Democratic nomination .
The country would be watching intently to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had lost the mental and communication skills he once had .
But Biden ’ s advisers bypassed that hurdle this week by declaring that the pandemic prevents Biden from traveling to the Milwaukee convention .
This leaves the three presently scheduled debates as perhaps the last major hurdles between Biden and the presidency .
Since 1960 , when John F. Kennedy established himself as a credible challenger to Vice President Nixon in the first of four debates , these confrontations have often proven critical .
In 1976 , President Gerald Ford severely damaged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had inherited from Nixon when he insisted during his debate with Jimmy Carter that Poland , then under Soviet control , was a free nation .
Ronald Reagan used his 1980 debate with Carter to show with his wit and demeanor that he was anything but the reactionary of the major media ’ s depiction .
For Trump to regain lost ground , he must convince the country that not only is he the right man to manage America ’ s way out of the health crisis , economic crisis and racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but that Biden has lost the physical rigor and mental capacity to cope with the triple crisis .
And the best , and perhaps last , place to do that is in the debates .
The left understands this , which is why we are suddenly seeing media suggestions that Biden should cancel the debates .
A terrified left wants Joe Biden to coast to victory , and many on that side share a belief that this may be the only way he gets there .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .
”

When Vice President Calvin Coolidge ascended to the presidency on the death of Warren Harding in 1923, a wag remarked that Silent Cal’s career had exhibited unmistakable signs of celestial intervention.
Governor Coolidge vaulted to national attention during the Boston police strike of 1919, where, in a stinging letter to Sam Gompers of the AFL, he thundered: “There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time.”
If Joe Biden becomes president, celestial intervention, once again, cannot be ruled out.
Consider.
In the first Democratic contest in 2020 in Iowa, Biden, though the clear front-runner in the national polls, ran a humiliating fourth. In New Hampshire, a week later, he ran fifth. In Nevada, Joe was crushed again by Bernie Sanders but edged out Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar thanks to his loyal African American base.
Came then South Carolina where the Black vote, 60% of the total, gave Biden a triumph — and the momentum that propelled him to a sweeping victory on Super Tuesday. Biden’s delegate count became so large it was virtually impossible for Sanders to overcome.
That March, however, which had begun with the resurrection of Biden’s campaign, was also the month the COVID-19 pandemic hit in full fury, sinking the exuberant economy that had been Donald Trump’s ticket to reelection.
At that point, Biden went to earth. Through the spring of 2020 and this summer, he has socially distanced himself from the press and the public and sheltered in place in a basement bunker as the worst pandemic in a century drove down the best economy in decades to Depression-era levels. The last quarter alone saw a 9% plunge in our gross domestic product.
If Biden wins in November, then his “basement bunker” campaign will be studied by historians alongside the “front porch” campaign of Harding that led to the 1920 landslide victory over Democrat James M. Cox.
Yet, several scheduled events could still upend Biden’s take-no-risks-and-run-out-the-clock strategy. The first is his choice of a vice presidential nominee, which Biden has promised will be a woman.
However, if Biden restricts his choice to a Black woman, as some have insisted, he eliminates from consideration every governor and senator in the party save Kamala Harris.
And if all the media attention given to Harris and other VP candidates fails to produce that Black woman, in this hour of renewed demands for racial equality, Biden will have some serious explaining to do to the core constituency that saved his bacon in South Carolina.
There is another danger in Biden’s choice.
When General Eisenhower chose Richard Nixon in 1952, the liberal press ginned up a story about a “secret Nixon slush fund,” so intense that Ike was almost stampeded into dropping his running mate.
In 1972, Sen. George McGovern’s campaign failed in its due diligence on his vice presidential choice, and McGovern was forced to drop Sen. Tom Eagleton from his ticket and replace him with Sargent Shriver.
Moreover, given Biden’s age — he would be the oldest president ever inaugurated by eight full years — his choice will have to be seen by the nation as a credible president.
A second hurdle for Biden is his speech accepting the Democratic nomination.
The country would be watching intently to see if the Biden of August 2020 had lost the mental and communication skills he once had.
But Biden’s advisers bypassed that hurdle this week by declaring that the pandemic prevents Biden from traveling to the Milwaukee convention.
This leaves the three presently scheduled debates as perhaps the last major hurdles between Biden and the presidency.
Since 1960, when John F. Kennedy established himself as a credible challenger to Vice President Nixon in the first of four debates, these confrontations have often proven critical.
In 1976, President Gerald Ford severely damaged his chances of holding onto the office he had inherited from Nixon when he insisted during his debate with Jimmy Carter that Poland, then under Soviet control, was a free nation.
Ronald Reagan used his 1980 debate with Carter to show with his wit and demeanor that he was anything but the reactionary of the major media’s depiction.
For Trump to regain lost ground, he must convince the country that not only is he the right man to manage America’s way out of the health crisis, economic crisis and racial crisis that were none of his doing, but that Biden has lost the physical rigor and mental capacity to cope with the triple crisis. And the best, and perhaps last, place to do that is in the debates.
The left understands this, which is why we are suddenly seeing media suggestions that Biden should cancel the debates.
A terrified left wants Joe Biden to coast to victory, and many on that side share a belief that this may be the only way he gets there.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”


theamericanconservative--2020-08-08--The Right Needs Their Own Boycott: Social Media

Liberals have been winning the culture war due to their economic pressure on corporations .
Why ca n't we ?
This photo illustration taken on March 22 , 2018 shows a woman looking at Social Networking applications Facebook , Instagram , Snapchat , Whatsapp , Twitter , Messenger and Linkedin on a smartphone in Kuala Lumpur .
( Photo by Manan VATSYAYANA / AFP ) ( Photo by MANAN VATSYAYANA/AFP via Getty Images ) Usually we have to wait until the end of Lent for the torrent of articles by journalists flagellating themselves over their social media addictions .
Easter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? )
this year , however .
Over at The Spectator USA , columnist Bridget Phetasy published an article aptly titled , “ Twitter Has Stolen My Life.
” In it , she meets her aged self on her deathbed .
Bridget the Elder asks , “ How do you feel about the time you spend on Twitter ?
” Bridget the Younger gives a mixed report .
On the plus side , much of her professional and personal success is owed to social media .
She ’ s an expert at promoting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digital age .
But there are downsides : Well .
Where do I begin ?
Like everyone , I have a love-hate relationship with social media .
To be honest , I ’ ve always been skeptical of it and never really wanted to join in .
Twitter is my fix , but you can insert any other social media platform you ’ re addicted to and what I ’ ll say will probably be true with minor variations .
The downside is that it robs me of joy .
That was my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have said it better myself : Twitter robbed me of my joy .
That ’ s why , about three or four years ago , I decided to delete all of my social media accounts .
I ’ ve written about my opposition to Big Tech here and elsewhere .
In short : social media makes you mean , stupid , impatient , and depressed .
It takes a serious toll on your social , physical , and mental health .
Even the upsides given by Ms. Phetasy are cyclical .
Sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a journalist in the Age of Twitter .
But wouldn ’ t it be better if there was no Age of Twitter at all ?
When it comes to social media , we all suffer from a weird kind of Stockholm Syndrome .
We accept Twitter as a given and dare not imagine life without it .
The most we can do is thank Big Twit for occasionally showering us with its favor .
It ’ s like hearing some apparatchik say , “ Yes , the Communist Party killed hundreds of millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the other hand , I wouldn ’ t have gotten that cushy job in the Politburo without it !
” These confessions by social media addicts are always well-received by their readers .
Ms. Phetasy ’ s article is currently the second-most read article on the Speccie website , and I expect it will overtake the first before it disappears into the blogosphere ’ s vast elephant graveyard .
It ’ s obvious that many ( perhaps most ) Americans resent social media .
But it ’ s as if they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they want out , but they ’ re too afraid to change the locks .
Now , if this were only a matter of personal wellbeing , I ’ d be happy to keep playing up my Luddite schtick .
The problem is that Big Tech , having successfully privatized the public square , uses its power to advance the progressive agenda .
Like the averse health effects of social media , this isn ’ t exactly breaking news .
From censoring campaign ads to biased “ fact-checking ” to curating search results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermine conservative and Republican causes .
Surely , then , the sane thing for conservatives and Republicans to do would be to boycott social media .
And yet we don ’ t .
We have voluntarily handed them the right to censor our political discourse .
We know it ’ s wrong , both for ourselves and for our country .
But that doesn ’ t mean we ’ re going to do anything about it .
This is why—despite my admiration for folks like Josh Hawley and Elizabeth Warren , who want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t endorse their efforts .
Facebook , Twitter , and Instagram aren ’ t really monopolies .
They don ’ t use price controls to maintain their market dominance .
The service they offer is totally , completely , 100 percent free to consumers .
What Senators Hawley and Warren ( like Ms. Phetasy ) actually resent is Americans ’ total lack of self-control .
Almost three-quarters of American adults use social media .
If they wanted to , they could simply walk away .
But they won ’ t .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I turn on some right-wing television channel or log onto some right-wing website , I hear the conservative masses wailing at the lack of “ free speech ” on these social-media sites .
Guess what , folks ?
Facebook and Twitter are private companies .
So far as they ’ re concerned , you have no free speech .
They ’ re not bound by the First Amendment .
They have no Constitutional duty to represent your “ viewpoint.
” That ’ s like walking into a Catholic Church and demanding the freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s like sitting down at a vegan restaurant and insisting on the right to BYO filet mignon .
Private property doesn ’ t go away just because you find it inconvenient .
In fact , Jack Dorsey could ban Donald Trump , Sean Hannity , and Ben Shapiro from Twitter if he so chose .
Why not ?
It ’ s his website .
If that awesome power alarms you—and it absolutely should—then deactivate your account .
Herein lies the bitter truth .
Conservatives lack any whiff of self-discipline .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t organize a boycott to save our lives , even though progressives have been delivering our business leaders ’ heads on silver platters for at least sixteen years .
It ’ s why we completely gave up the fight for traditional marriage the moment Obergefell v. Hodges was handed down .
( In fact , Dear Leader has been assiduously marketing himself to the LGBT voting bloc in the runup to 2020 . )
We ’ re all sound and fury , signifying nothing .
Let ’ s draw a line in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t bring ourselves even to delete our Twitter and Facebook accounts , we deserve to lose .
If we can ’ t reclaim the public square from progressive oligarchs , then they ought to rule the day .
If we can ’ t break the ties that bind us to those Silicon Valley moguls—at no cost to ourselves—then we ’ ll get what we deserve .
“ I have not yet begun to fight !
” cried John Paul Jones in 1779 .
Nor have we .
We ’ ve not allowed ourselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense of our way of life .
If we continue giving our implicit consent for the Dorseys and Zuckerbergs to police our political discussions , then we may as well surrender now .
If you God-fearing , freedom-loving patriots really wish to “ reclaim the narrative ” from the Left , then stop giving them carte blanche to set the parameters of acceptable opinion .
And don ’ t switch to some “ alternative ” platform , like GAB or Parlor .
Stop choosing the lesser of two evils .
Make a rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at any time , for any reason .
Then , delete your accounts .
Swear off social media forever .
If we can ’ t make this one small sacrifice—not only for our own good , but for the good of our country—we will lose battle after battle in the Culture Wars .
And we will deserve every humiliating blow .
Michael Warren Davis is the editor of Crisis Magazine .
He is the author of The Reactionary Mind ( Regnery , 2021 ) .

Usually we have to wait until the end of Lent for the torrent of articles by journalists flagellating themselves over their social media addictions. Easter came early (or is it late?) this year, however. Over at The Spectator USA, columnist Bridget Phetasy published an article aptly titled, “Twitter Has Stolen My Life.” In it, she meets her aged self on her deathbed. Bridget the Elder asks, “How do you feel about the time you spend on Twitter?” Bridget the Younger gives a mixed report. On the plus side, much of her professional and personal success is owed to social media. She’s an expert at promoting her “personal brand” in the digital age.
But there are downsides:
Well. Where do I begin? Like everyone, I have a love-hate relationship with social media. To be honest, I’ve always been skeptical of it and never really wanted to join in. Twitter is my fix, but you can insert any other social media platform you’re addicted to and what I’ll say will probably be true with minor variations. The downside is that it robs me of joy.
That was my experience, too. I couldn’t have said it better myself: Twitter robbed me of my joy. That’s why, about three or four years ago, I decided to delete all of my social media accounts.
I haven’t looked back.
I’ve written about my opposition to Big Tech here and elsewhere. In short: social media makes you mean, stupid, impatient, and depressed. It takes a serious toll on your social, physical, and mental health.
Even the upsides given by Ms. Phetasy are cyclical. Sure, Twitter allowed her to flourish as a journalist in the Age of Twitter. But wouldn’t it be better if there was no Age of Twitter at all?
When it comes to social media, we all suffer from a weird kind of Stockholm Syndrome. We accept Twitter as a given and dare not imagine life without it. The most we can do is thank Big Twit for occasionally showering us with its favor. It’s like hearing some apparatchik say, “Yes, the Communist Party killed hundreds of millions of people and stole my humanity. On the other hand, I wouldn’t have gotten that cushy job in the Politburo without it!”
These confessions by social media addicts are always well-received by their readers. Ms. Phetasy’s article is currently the second-most read article on the Speccie website, and I expect it will overtake the first before it disappears into the blogosphere’s vast elephant graveyard. It’s obvious that many (perhaps most) Americans resent social media. But it’s as if they’re stuck in an abusive relationship: they want out, but they’re too afraid to change the locks.
***
Now, if this were only a matter of personal wellbeing, I’d be happy to keep playing up my Luddite schtick. The problem is that Big Tech, having successfully privatized the public square, uses its power to advance the progressive agenda.
Like the averse health effects of social media, this isn’t exactly breaking news. From censoring campaign ads to biased “fact-checking” to curating search results, Silicon Valley is openly working to undermine conservative and Republican causes. Surely, then, the sane thing for conservatives and Republicans to do would be to boycott social media.
And yet we don’t. We have voluntarily handed them the right to censor our political discourse. We know it’s wrong, both for ourselves and for our country. But that doesn’t mean we’re going to do anything about it.
This is why—despite my admiration for folks like Josh Hawley and Elizabeth Warren, who want to break up the Big Tech monopolies—I can’t endorse their efforts. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram aren’t really monopolies. They don’t use price controls to maintain their market dominance. The service they offer is totally, completely, 100 percent free to consumers.
What Senators Hawley and Warren (like Ms. Phetasy) actually resent is Americans’ total lack of self-control. Almost three-quarters of American adults use social media. If they wanted to, they could simply walk away. But they won’t. They lack the willpower.
Every time I turn on some right-wing television channel or log onto some right-wing website, I hear the conservative masses wailing at the lack of “free speech” on these social-media sites. Guess what, folks? Facebook and Twitter are private companies. So far as they’re concerned, you have no free speech. They’re not bound by the First Amendment. They have no Constitutional duty to represent your “viewpoint.” That’s like walking into a Catholic Church and demanding the freedom to give a sermon praising same-sex marriage. It’s like sitting down at a vegan restaurant and insisting on the right to BYO filet mignon. Private property doesn’t go away just because you find it inconvenient.
In fact, Jack Dorsey could ban Donald Trump, Sean Hannity, and Ben Shapiro from Twitter if he so chose. Why not? It’s his website. If that awesome power alarms you—and it absolutely should—then deactivate your account.
Herein lies the bitter truth. Conservatives lack any whiff of self-discipline. That’s why we can’t organize a boycott to save our lives, even though progressives have been delivering our business leaders’ heads on silver platters for at least sixteen years. It’s why we completely gave up the fight for traditional marriage the moment Obergefell v. Hodges was handed down. (In fact, Dear Leader has been assiduously marketing himself to the LGBT voting bloc in the runup to 2020.) We’re all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
***
Let’s draw a line in the sand. If we conservatives can’t bring ourselves even to delete our Twitter and Facebook accounts, we deserve to lose. If we can’t reclaim the public square from progressive oligarchs, then they ought to rule the day. If we can’t break the ties that bind us to those Silicon Valley moguls—at no cost to ourselves—then we’ll get what we deserve.
“I have not yet begun to fight!” cried John Paul Jones in 1779. Nor have we. We’ve not allowed ourselves to suffer the slightest inconvenience in the defense of our way of life. If we continue giving our implicit consent for the Dorseys and Zuckerbergs to police our political discussions, then we may as well surrender now.
If you God-fearing, freedom-loving patriots really wish to “reclaim the narrative” from the Left, then stop giving them carte blanche to set the parameters of acceptable opinion. And don’t switch to some “alternative” platform, like GAB or Parlor. Stop choosing the lesser of two evils. Make a rule for yourself now: no evil, at any time, for any reason.
Then, delete your accounts. Swear off social media forever. If we can’t make this one small sacrifice—not only for our own good, but for the good of our country—we will lose battle after battle in the Culture Wars. And we will deserve every humiliating blow.
Michael Warren Davis is the editor of Crisis Magazine. He is the author of The Reactionary Mind (Regnery, 2021).


Churchill’s Annus Mirabilis

One can overrate speeches but there is little doubt he captured the mood of the British public in his great addresses of 1940 .
The Splendid and the Vile : A Saga of Churchill , Family , and Defiance During the Blitz , by Erik Larson , Crown , February 2020 , 546 pages .
Books on Winston Churchill appear with amazing regularity .
Two years ago , Andrew Roberts produced a superb and exhaustive 1100-page biography , Walking With Destiny .
One would think that there is nothing more to say about Churchill after that monument .
Erik Larson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highly regarded , The Devil in theWhite City , Larson turned his attention to the first year of Churchill ’ s premiership , May 1940 to May 1941 , the year when Great Britain came close to losing the war .
As it turns out , 1940 would prove to be the supreme year of Churchill ’ s life when he led the nation in the greatest challenge in its history .
Her only ally , France , was defeated in a matter of weeks in May-June 1940 and Britain faced the dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Beating back the German air attack in the July-September 1940—what is known as the Battle of Britain where the Royal Air Force fought to keep control of the sky over England—the threat of invasion faded .
But Britain was alone .
For eight months , October 1940 to May 1941 , she was exposed to the first sustained bombing campaign of the Second World War what the British called “ The Blitz.
” In The Splendid and the Vile , Larson brings home the terrible destruction that Britain suffered during the German @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target for the Luftwaffe including the East End docks and the Houses of Parliament which were destroyed in a targeted raid on May 10 , 1941 .
Bombs even fell on Buckingham Palace where the King and Queen were in residence .
Larson points out that contrary to popular belief , the London Underground was not extensively used as a bomb shelter .
Five percent of Londoners slept in the tube stations while 71 percent stayed in their homes .
Despite the intensity of the bombing , according to Mass Observation , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number one complaint of the public wasn ’ t the bombing as much as the enforcement of the blackout that inconvenienced every aspect of life especially in London .
According to Larson during the year of the Blitz the British experienced 100,000 casualties including 45,000 deaths .
Those figures were grim for their time but do not compare the retribution the Germans would receive at the hands of Allied bombing .
In an attack on Hamburg in July-August 1943 , Allied bombing destroyed 6000 acres of the city , 300,000 homes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Churchill ’ s role during the year after he became Prime Minister in May 1940 because it proved crucial for Britain ’ s survival .
But Larson ’ s approach is different .
His isn ’ t your traditional military history of 1940 , although there is considerable discussion of the conflict , especially the air war .
Instead Larson weaves together personal thoughts and actions of some significant figures in the war—some not so significant—to paint a portrait of a nation struggling to survive .
Larson uses the letters and especially diaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to give life to the “ splendid ” side of the story of 1940 , particularly those of Jock Colville , Churchill ’ s private secretary and those of Churchill ’ s daughter Mary .
The “ vile ” side is mostly drawn from the diary of Dr. Josef Goebbels along with interviews with Herman Goring , overlord of the Luftwaffe , taken while he was a prisoner after the war .
Larson also devotes space to the exotic characters that Churchill liked to surround himself with particularly Lord Beaverbrook and “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he notes , Churchill always had a weakness for the rouges .
Beaverbrook is one of the key figures in the book , someone who Churchill believed was the kind of innovative genius that England needed in the crisis of 1940 .
He put Beaverbrook in charge of expanding aircraft production during the Battle of Britain , and behaving like an industrial pirate , he succeeded in dramatically producing planes .
Britain had more planes , especially fighters , at the end of the Battle of Britain in September than she had when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s portrait of Churchill is in keeping with that of other students of the great man .
He keeps Churchill ’ s eccentricity in focus to provide the human touch—his bizarre dress , pink silk underwear for instance , his siren suit , really a grown-up version of a child ’ s pajamas , his perpetual cigar .
Churchill never rode in a bus , and only once traveled on the Underground where he got lost and had to be rescued .
He didn ’ t carry cash , hated whistling—something he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us with the liquor order for Churchill ’ s retreat at Chequers—216 bottles of wine , brandy and champagne .
Churchill liked to dine well and found drink a stimulant to good discussion .
But as his secretary Jock Colville noted he never saw Churchill drunk .
Churchill would tease his wife , Clementine , that he took more out of drink than drink took out of him .
Throughout the book Larson demonstrates how hard Churchill worked even if he kept unusual hours—he rarely went to bed before 1 or 2 a.m. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Franklin Roosevelt in order to gain American aid for the British war effort .
He recognized that he could not win the war , much less stay in it , without American help .
No suitor he remarked wooed a lady he way he wooed America .
Roosevelt was sympathetic but was handicapped by the strong isolationist sentiment in the United States .
Many Americans feared that Britain would sign some kind of peace treaty with Hitler to get out of the war .
That fear banished when the British attacked and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on July 3 , 1940 in the North African port of Mers el Kebir .
Larson notes what an unparalleled step it was for Churchill to order an attack on an ally of just a few weeks earlier .
Americans started to believe that Britain might survive after all and would not sue for peace .
American aid started to flow , initially in September 1940 when the United States traded some old destroyers for bases in the New World .
Later Roosevelt would launch Lend Lease to enable Britain to pay for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action at Mers el Kebir took immense courage , but it had positive consequences not just among the top levels of the American government .
It also was a major step in winning the confidence of the House of Commons where Larson points out Churchill was still viewed with skepticism especially among his fellow Conservatives .
When Churchill announced the action against the French the House of Commons rose and cheered .
It was the beginning of his mastery of Parliament for the rest of the war .
Larson devotes considerable space to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 1940 .
Of his ‘ Blood , tears and sweat ’ speech three days after taking office , Larson notes that it was not well received in the House of Commons although the response among the public was overwhelming positive according to Mass Observation , the organization that monitored public opinion in the nation .
Larson believes that Churchill ’ s ‘ Their finest hour ’ speech of June 18 , following the defeat in France and the withdrawal from Dunkirk marked the moment when he cemented his command on the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began by saying that wars are not won by evacuations but resolved to fight on in a peroration that ranks with the great speeches of Lincoln or Pericles : “ If we can stand up to him , all Europe may be free , and the life of the world may move forward into the broad , sunlit uplands , but if we fail then the whole world , including the United States , and all that we have known and cared for , will sink into the abyss of a new dark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more prolonged , by the lights of a perverted science.
” He ended with his call that if the British Empire and Commonwealth lasts for a thousand years , men will say , ‘ This was their finest hour.
’ ” Harold Nicolson , the journalist and MP , no mean judge of oratory , called it “ the finest speech I have ever heard.
” One can overrate speeches but there is little doubt that Churchill captured the mood of the British public in his great addresses of 1940 .
Larson believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a knack for making people feel loftier , stronger and above all more courageous.
” Larson ’ s book is not without its flaws .
It is repetitious at times and has a lot of padding but is well-written and with his unusual approach of alternating the significant and the trivial , holds the reader ’ s attention throughout .
For Churchill buffs it is a necessary addition to their library .
John P. Rossi is professor emeritus of History at La Salle University in Philadelphia .

The Splendid and the Vile: A Saga of Churchill, Family, and Defiance During the Blitz, by Erik Larson, Crown, February 2020, 546 pages.
Books on Winston Churchill appear with amazing regularity. Two years ago, Andrew Roberts produced a superb and exhaustive 1100-page biography, Walking With Destiny. One would think that there is nothing more to say about Churchill after that monument. Erik Larson would take exception.
Author of the highly regarded, The Devil in the White City, Larson turned his attention to the first year of Churchill’s premiership, May 1940 to May 1941, the year when Great Britain came close to losing the war. As it turns out, 1940 would prove to be the supreme year of Churchill’s life when he led the nation in the greatest challenge in its history. Her only ally, France, was defeated in a matter of weeks in May-June 1940 and Britain faced the dangerous summer of 1940 expecting a German invasion.
Beating back the German air attack in the July-September 1940—what is known as the Battle of Britain where the Royal Air Force fought to keep control of the sky over England—the threat of invasion faded. But Britain was alone. For eight months, October 1940 to May 1941, she was exposed to the first sustained bombing campaign of the Second World War what the British called “The Blitz.”
In The Splendid and the Vile, Larson brings home the terrible destruction that Britain suffered during the German bombing campaign. London was the main target for the Luftwaffe including the East End docks and the Houses of Parliament which were destroyed in a targeted raid on May 10, 1941. Bombs even fell on Buckingham Palace where the King and Queen were in residence.
Larson points out that contrary to popular belief, the London Underground was not extensively used as a bomb shelter. Five percent of Londoners slept in the tube stations while 71 percent stayed in their homes. Despite the intensity of the bombing, according to Mass Observation, the government agency that monitored public opinion, the number one complaint of the public wasn’t the bombing as much as the enforcement of the blackout that inconvenienced every aspect of life especially in London.
According to Larson during the year of the Blitz the British experienced 100,000 casualties including 45,000 deaths. Those figures were grim for their time but do not compare the retribution the Germans would receive at the hands of Allied bombing. In an attack on Hamburg in July-August 1943, Allied bombing destroyed 6000 acres of the city, 300,000 homes and killed 44,600 people.
Larson concentrates on Churchill’s role during the year after he became Prime Minister in May 1940 because it proved crucial for Britain’s survival. But Larson’s approach is different. His isn’t your traditional military history of 1940, although there is considerable discussion of the conflict, especially the air war. Instead Larson weaves together personal thoughts and actions of some significant figures in the war—some not so significant—to paint a portrait of a nation struggling to survive.
Larson uses the letters and especially diaries of a handful of figures around Churchill to give life to the “splendid” side of the story of 1940, particularly those of Jock Colville, Churchill’s private secretary and those of Churchill’s daughter Mary. The “vile” side is mostly drawn from the diary of Dr. Josef Goebbels along with interviews with Herman Goring, overlord of the Luftwaffe, taken while he was a prisoner after the war.
Larson also devotes space to the exotic characters that Churchill liked to surround himself with particularly Lord Beaverbrook and “the Prof,” Frederick Lindemann. As he notes, Churchill always had a weakness for the rouges.
Beaverbrook is one of the key figures in the book, someone who Churchill believed was the kind of innovative genius that England needed in the crisis of 1940. He put Beaverbrook in charge of expanding aircraft production during the Battle of Britain, and behaving like an industrial pirate, he succeeded in dramatically producing planes. Britain had more planes, especially fighters, at the end of the Battle of Britain in September than she had when the conflict began in July.
Larson’s portrait of Churchill is in keeping with that of other students of the great man. He keeps Churchill’s eccentricity in focus to provide the human touch—his bizarre dress, pink silk underwear for instance, his siren suit, really a grown-up version of a child’s pajamas, his perpetual cigar. Churchill never rode in a bus, and only once traveled on the Underground where he got lost and had to be rescued.
He didn’t carry cash, hated whistling—something he shared with Hitler. Larson even provides us with the liquor order for Churchill’s retreat at Chequers—216 bottles of wine, brandy and champagne. Churchill liked to dine well and found drink a stimulant to good discussion. But as his secretary Jock Colville noted he never saw Churchill drunk. Churchill would tease his wife, Clementine, that he took more out of drink than drink took out of him. Throughout the book Larson demonstrates how hard Churchill worked even if he kept unusual hours—he rarely went to bed before 1 or 2 a.m.
Larson focuses on Churchill’s cultivation of Franklin Roosevelt in order to gain American aid for the British war effort. He recognized that he could not win the war, much less stay in it, without American help. No suitor he remarked wooed a lady he way he wooed America. Roosevelt was sympathetic but was handicapped by the strong isolationist sentiment in the United States. Many Americans feared that Britain would sign some kind of peace treaty with Hitler to get out of the war. That fear banished when the British attacked and sunk the fleet of their ally France on July 3, 1940 in the North African port of Mers el Kebir.
Larson notes what an unparalleled step it was for Churchill to order an attack on an ally of just a few weeks earlier. Americans started to believe that Britain might survive after all and would not sue for peace. American aid started to flow, initially in September 1940 when the United States traded some old destroyers for bases in the New World. Later Roosevelt would launch Lend Lease to enable Britain to pay for its war material.
Churchill’s action at Mers el Kebir took immense courage, but it had positive consequences not just among the top levels of the American government. It also was a major step in winning the confidence of the House of Commons where Larson points out Churchill was still viewed with skepticism especially among his fellow Conservatives. When Churchill announced the action against the French the House of Commons rose and cheered. It was the beginning of his mastery of Parliament for the rest of the war.
Larson devotes considerable space to Churchill’s speeches during the crisis of 1940. Of his ‘Blood, tears and sweat’ speech three days after taking office, Larson notes that it was not well received in the House of Commons although the response among the public was overwhelming positive according to Mass Observation, the organization that monitored public opinion in the nation.
Larson believes that Churchill’s ‘Their finest hour’ speech of June 18, following the defeat in France and the withdrawal from Dunkirk marked the moment when he cemented his command on the House of Commons and public alike. Churchill began by saying that wars are not won by evacuations but resolved to fight on in a peroration that ranks with the great speeches of Lincoln or Pericles: “If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free, and the life of the world may move forward into the broad, sunlit uplands, but if we fail then the whole world, including the United States, and all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more prolonged, by the lights of a perverted science.”
He ended with his call that if the British Empire and Commonwealth lasts for a thousand years, men will say, ‘This was their finest hour.’” Harold Nicolson, the journalist and MP, no mean judge of oratory, called it “the finest speech I have ever heard.”
One can overrate speeches but there is little doubt that Churchill captured the mood of the British public in his great addresses of 1940. Larson believes that in these speeches Churchill showed “a knack for making people feel loftier, stronger and above all more courageous.”
Larson’s book is not without its flaws. It is repetitious at times and has a lot of padding but is well-written and with his unusual approach of alternating the significant and the trivial, holds the reader’s attention throughout. For Churchill buffs it is a necessary addition to their library.
John P. Rossi is professor emeritus of History at La Salle University in Philadelphia.