About these ads

Why Are We Aiding ISIL?

And make no mistake; we are. I understand and appreciate the desire to lend humanitarian aid to innocent civilians, but we have no evidence whatsoever that civilians are actually receiving the aid; rather, it appears that the aid is being diverted to meet ISIL’s needs and interests. Behold:

“The convoys have to be approved by ISIS and you have to pay them: the bribes are disguised and itemized as transportation costs,” says an aid coordinator who spoke to The Daily Beast on the condition he not be identified in this article. The kickbacks are either paid by foreign or local non-governmental organizations tasked with distributing the aid, or by the Turkish or Syrian transportation companies contracted to deliver it.

And there are fears the aid itself isn’t carefully monitored enough, with some sold off on the black market or used by ISIS to win hearts and minds by feeding its fighters and its subjects. At a minimum the aid means ISIS doesn’t have to divert cash from its war budget to help feed the local population or the displaced persons, allowing it to focus its resources exclusively on fighters and war making, say critics of the aid.

The aid is being used to materially assist a group with which the United States is at war. It’s a hard decision to make, but the decision must be made to stop the flow of humanitarian assistance until ISIL’s hold on the territory where the aid is flowing is disrupted.

About these ads

More Obamacare Failures


Patricia Wanderlich got insurance through the Affordable Care Act this year, and with good reason: She suffered a brain hemorrhage in 2011, spending weeks in a hospital intensive care unit, and has a second, smaller aneurysm that needs monitoring.

But her new plan has a $6,000 annual deductible, meaning that Ms. Wanderlich, who works part time at a landscaping company outside Chicago, has to pay for most of her medical services up to that amount. She is skipping this year’s brain scan and hoping for the best.

“To spend thousands of dollars just making sure it hasn’t grown?” said Ms. Wanderlich, 61. “I don’t have that money.”

About 7.3 million Americans are enrolled in private coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, and more than 80 percent qualified for federal subsidies to help with the cost of their monthly premiums. But many are still on the hook for deductibles that can top $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 for families — the trade-off, insurers say, for keeping premiums for the marketplace plans relatively low. The result is that some people — no firm data exists on how many — say they hesitate to use their new insurance because of the high out-of-pocket costs.

Gee, maybe if consumers could have the benefit of shopping a national market, rather than merely being restricted to regional ones, they might be able to get better deals regarding deductibles. I hear that market competition does have a way of working out to the benefit of consumers. Perhaps the Affordable Care Act–which really is not affordable–could have been written in such a way as to actually encourage the existence a free marketplace for consumers. Too bad that the bill’s authors decided to go in another direction, and too bad that a former speaker of the House of Representatives decided that we had to pass the health care bill in order to find out what is in it.

So, Ron Klain Will Be the Ebola Czar . . .

And I have something of a problem with it, given the penchant of government in general, and this administration in particular to name czars to handle crises. After all, I would think that given the current bureaucracy in place, and the fact that we already have a national security adviser, secretaries of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services, and a director of the Centers for Disease Control at their desks and working, we really don’t need an additional czar to take care of things. And yes, Ronald Klain was involved in making Solyndra a household word, and that doesn’t speak well of him, or of anyone else involved in making Solyndra a household word.

But in the event that there is someone needed to coordinate the governmental response to the spread of the Ebola virus, and in the event that the national security adviser, secretaries of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services, and director of the Centers for Disease Control have full plates and can’t do anything extra in terms of assisting in that coordination effort, then I am willing to go along with the appointment. Maybe there are people out there who might be better than Ron Klain at handling the crisis, but then again, maybe not. Klein does have a lot of experience at relatively high levels in dealing with the government and the bureaucracy, and that experience may prove to be valuable. We have enough doctors and medical professionals working on dealing with the crisis; to the extent that more people are needed, those people will have to be savvy and clever in bringing governmental resources to bear on the task at hand. While I am not fully convinced that Klain’s presence is necessary, I am willing to keep an open mind about it, and if he proves his worth in dealing with the current crisis, then I will be among the first to tip my hat.

Quote of the Day

To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities — I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not — that one endures.

Friedrich Nietzsche. Maria Popova’s piece is well worth reading in full.

What Academic Intolerance Looks Like


The email arrived on the last Friday afternoon of the spring term shortly before 5:00 p.m. Anastasia Coleman, Fordham’s Director of Institutional Equity and Compliance, and its Title IX Coordinator, wanted to meet with me. “It has been alleged,” she wrote, “that you may have acted in an inappropriate way and possibly discriminated against another person at the University.”

I was stunned. My wife, kids and friends have been warning me for years that, in these prudish times, my outrageous sense of humor and intellectual irreverence (my last book is about bestiality) could get me in trouble. I imagined myself brought before an academic disciplinary tribunal from Francine Prose’s Blue Angel, where all my past transgressions would be marshaled to prove that I don’t belong in the classroom. My mind raced, recalling the many slips of the tongue I had in three decades of teaching. I perspired profusely and felt the onset of a stomach bug. What would I tell my mother?

“Did it have anything to do with a student?” I shot back anxiously, hoping to get a sense of my predicament before the director left for the weekend. I was lucky. Coleman responded immediately. “This does not involve students and is about your behavior regarding American Studies.”

What a relief. But it was also very odd. The decision of the American Studies Association to boycott Israeli universities in December 2013 had upset me. I wrote emails, circulated articles, and was pleased that my university president quickly declared his opposition to the measure. I joined a national steering committee that set out to fight the boycott and participated in the drafting of a few statements. As an American historian who delivered in 1987 his first paper at the annual meeting of the American Studies Association and served on the executive committee of Fordham’s American Studies program, I wanted Fordham’s program to sever official ties with the national organization until it rescinded the measure. Other programs have taken this courageous symbolic step, and I thought it proper for the Jesuit university of New York to take the moral stand against what most scholars of anti-Semitism consider anti-Semitic bigotry.

It was this stand that led Fordham’s Title IX officer to launch the proceedings. During an emotional meeting convened to discuss the appropriate response to the measure, I stated that should Fordham’s program fail to distance itself from the boycott, I will resign from the program and fight against it until it took a firm stand against bigotry. The program’s director, Michelle McGee, in turn filed a complaint against me with the Title IX office, charging that I threatened to destroy the program. (As if I could? And what does this have to do with Title IX?) This spurious complaint (the meeting’s minutes demonstrated that I did not make such a threat) ushered me into a bruising summer that taught me much about my colleagues, the university, and the price I must be willing to pay for taking on the rising tide of anti-Zionism on American campuses.

(Via InstaPundit.) Stories like this one show why the Israel lobby is needed. Also, I’ll bet that the people who make a fuss about Steven Salaita’s case won’t raise a peep about this case.

How Very Horrifying

If you are going to oppose genetically modified organisms–even though such opposition would make no sense whatsoever from a scientific standpoint–it is incumbent upon you to actually know what genetically modified organisms are. You should certainly know what the acronym GMO stands for

Unfortunately . . . well . . . look:

(Via Bill Bradley, via InstaPundit.) And yes, ignorance is deadly.)


Quote of the Day

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) systematically limited the ability of individuals and groups to criticize the people who run the government. It was a Draconian law, severely capping the amount of money that could be contributed to political candidates, spent by candidates and campaigns, and even by individuals and groups totally independent of any candidate. The annual limit of $1,000 on “outside” spending made it a federal crime to sponsor a quarter page ad in The Times criticizing the president of the United States during an election year.

The whole purpose and effect of FECA was inconsistent with the core principle of the First Amendment and of democracy, namely, that we need more discussion and debate about government and politics, not less. The law also included burdensome and intrusive donor disclosure requirements so wide in application and deep in reporting as to threaten recognized rights of associational privacy and undermine the secrecy of the ballot. And FECA provided public financing of presidential elections through a formula effectively designed to benefit only Republicans and Democrats. The final outrage was to put enforcement of these drastic restraints on First Amendment rights in the hands of the very incumbents in Congress who had passed the law in the first place, a built-in constitutional conflict of interest.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court in 1976 struck down the worst excesses of the law, namely, the restrictions on candidate, campaign and independent expenditures. But in an ill-advised Solomon-like compromise, the court upheld the restrictive $1,000 limit on contributions to candidates. This inevitably hurt underfunded challengers and benefited well-heeled incumbents, who could more easily raise money at $1,000-a-plate dinners from special interest groups. It also ensured that groups and individuals, unable to donate more than $1,000 to candidates, would seek other outlets for their political messages. This led over time to the rise of political action committees, the use of soft money by political parties and outside groups and, nowadays, well-funded political activity by Super PACs and nonprofit organizations. While all this First Amendment activity has added to the public debate, without contribution limits the funding might have gone directly to the candidates and the parties to be used in a more transparent and accountable way.

Joel M. Gora. Yes, money is speech, and yes, placing limits on campaign contributions and spending do violate speech. And the violations tend to favor incumbent candidates, as Professor Gora points out.

Are We Finally Going to Close Guantanamo?

Well . . . maybe, if certain noises from the Obama administration are to be believed. But Benjamin Wittes is rightly skeptical:

Let me be blunt about this: I will believe this the day it happens, and not a moment before.

If Obama were serious about using the power of his office to close Guantanamo, he would have done it already. He would have vetoed one of the bills that have carried the transfer restrictions. He would have signaled clearly in one of his earlier signing statements that he reserved the right to defy the relevant provisions—and done so. He would have used his considerable negotiating leverage in his dealings with Congress to work his will at a substantive level on the relevant legislation. He has not done these things, because closing Guantanamo—while a sincere priority, I am sure—has always been a secondary or tertiary priority. It’s a priority that has yielded to health care and to other national security needs and concerns. And so it will yield again to his higher-order priorities.

It is costless for the administration to float to reporters that it is “drafting options” for unilateral action in this area. It signals seriousness about reviving the matter. I wouldn’t be surprised to see more such stories. I will be very surprised, however, to read the one that says the president has actually signed an order to proceed with Guantanamo closure without Congress on board. Yes, I know: political calculations may be different after the mid-terms; the costs to Obama of action will be less. But even after this last election, Obama will still need to get things done—ISIS fight appropriations, for example, or authorization. The question is whether Obama will want to gum up the works on everything over where he stores a small number of people, a matter on which nearly all Republicans and most Democrats will oppose him. He won’t. If he were willing to stick his neck out on this issue, he wouldn’t have spent the last six years protecting it from the axe.

Quite so. I suspect that Guantanamo will not actually be closed down by the time President Obama leaves office, which will, of course, mean that yet another campaign promise from 2008–repeated in 2012–will be broken. What must the president’s supporters think about that?

What Elizabeth Warren Does Not Know about Credit Cards and Borrowing Money

I’m amazed that the following actually has to be explained to a former Harvard Law professor and current United States senator:

Why do people borrow? To hear law professor turned Senator Elizabeth Warren, it is because they are seduced by rapacious lenders and a consumerist culture into living beyond their means, buying big-screen televisions, new cars, and expensive vacations. And before you know it, you are under the thumb of the big banks—or, even worse, of the street corner payday lender.

But as we show in our new book, Consumer Credit and the American Economy, economists have long understood why consumers borrow. Although there are exceptions to any rule, for most it bears little resemblance to Senator Warren’s picture of hapless victims goaded into debt by rapacious credit card issuers. Instead, consumers borrow for essentially the same reasons that businesses borrow: for capital investments and to smooth disruptions in income and expenses. And paternalistic regulations that make credit more expensive and less available typically makes people poorer.

Consider something as mundane as a washing machine. A washing machine is no frivolous bauble; its value is in not having to schlep to the laundry mat every Saturday with a pocket full of quarters. While a washing machine costs much more on the front end to acquire, it generates a stream of benefits over years. In that sense, it is no different from a construction company that borrows money to purchase a backhoe to dig a ditch instead of hiring ten guys with shovels. Whether it is the financing of a car or a financing of a college education (increasing human capital), the bulk of consumer lending goes to acquisition of investment goods. In addition, like retailers that rely on bank loans to ride out quarterly fluctuations in sales and expenses, households use consumer credit to deal with unexpected expenses like a sick child, emergency car repair, or other financial disruption.

But aren’t people today different—more prone to living beyond their means? As then-Professor Warren herself put it in a 2004 interview with PBS, “The [credit card] industry has no evidence that people were being turned down for loans in the early 1980s. What they have is evidence that people more often in the early 1980s preferred to pay cash than to pay on credit.” Yet hand-wringing about how other people use consumer debt is as old as debt itself. For example, the New York Times warned in the 70s that American consumers were “borrowing trouble”—the 1870s, that is.

There are a lot of people who want Warren to run for president because they agree with her views on economic policy. But before Warren makes an attempt to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, could she actually bother to learn something about the economy, and how it impacts individuals and families?

Congratulations to Malala Yousafzai

In Pashtun, “Yousafzai” has the same meaning as “Yousefzadeh,” so I am entirely willing to pretend that Malala Yousafzai is my cousin. In that vein, my family is immensely proud that she has won the Nobel Peace Prize, and in a much more serious vein, the prize is entirely deserved. Malala’s work in fighting to ensure that women and girls have access to educational institutions–despite the Taliban’s irrational and lunatic opposition to the education of women and girls–and the courage she displayed in recovering from a Taliban assassination attempt and resuming her work, are nothing short of extraordinary and inspirational. Giving her the Nobel has been just about the best thing that the Nobel committee has done in years. It is wonderful to see that Malala has gotten this award, and it is even more wonderful to consider that recognition from the Nobel committee will help inspire others to take up the cause she has taken up so bravely and so skillfully.

The Banality of Clinton

Hillary Clinton isn’t evil, but at the very least, she is doing a spectacular impression of someone who is just utterly vapid. I don’t know how anyone can dig up anything resembling a coherent thought from the dirt pile of words that Jennifer Rubin quoted, and I don’t know how anyone can conclude that Clinton is some kind of intellectual powerhouse; a would-be White House Mentat, just waiting to set her mind in motion by will alone. It is clear that Clinton believes she can win the White House by offering up pablum for the masses, and her soon-to-be campaign has obviously decided that to be original and intellectually daring is to risk losing. As the Clintons most certainly do not want to lose again, they have decided instead to set American intellectual discourse back a couple of centuries by running the most insipid campaign possible. Team Clinton obviously believes that by playing to the lowest common denominator, it can win the greatest prize that American politics has to offer.

The question–as I have stated before–is whether the American people are going to let Team Clinton win this way. We don’t have to, you know. We could make it clear to the Clinton campaign, and to every other campaign out there that we expect more and better from our would-be presidents. We expect them to actually excite our intellects, to renew our passion for smart public discourse, to inspire us to ask intelligent and tough questions and to demand intelligent and tough answers in return. There is a lot that is right in this country, but there is also a lot that is wrong, and that which is wrong very much needs to be addressed. Only by thinking our way through our problems will we be able to solve them.

Unfortunately, Team Clinton doesn’t appear to be interested in engaging in rigorous thinking. Rather, it seems determined to dumb down the next presidential election. Obviously, Hillary Clinton believes that we don’t deserve better than what she has to offer. Maybe, just maybe, she and her campaign should pay a price for that kind of arrogance by losing votes that they might have otherwise won, and losing out a chance to live in the White House again in the process.

Quote of the Day

In the midst of the 2012 reelection campaign, the White House appears to have covered up a story involving a presidential advance team member, a prostitute, and Secret Service agents, allowing the Secret Service to take the fall while denying the involvement of anyone on the advance-team.

That’s the takeaway from a damning Washington Post report which finds that, according to both documentary and interview evidence, “senior White House aides were given information at the time suggesting that a prostitute was an overnight guest in the hotel room of a presidential advance-team member — yet that information was never thoroughly investigated or publicly acknowledged.”

[. . .]

. . . The administration had evidence indicating that a young advance team member, who was also the child of a lobbyist-and-donor-turned-administration-staffer, was involved in a potentially embarrassing incident with a prostitute while serving as a member of the presidential advance team—and yet explicitly denied that this was the case, and also appears to have pressured independent investigators to delay and withhold evidence until after the election was over.

And the question the story raises is: If the White House was so determined to cover up this embarassing but relatively minor incident, what larger stories has the White House suppressed or covered up that we don’t know about?

Peter Suderman (via InstaPundit). Coverage here. There is going to be an investigation of this issue, right? No one is going to tell me that only Republicans are going to care about getting to the bottom of this story, right?

This Is Bad

Oh, this is very, very, very bad:

As nearly two dozen Secret Service agents and members of the military were punished or fired following a 2012 prostitution scandal in Colombia, Obama administration officials repeatedly denied that anyone from the White House was involved.

But new details drawn from government documents and interviews show that senior White House aides were given information at the time suggesting that a prostitute was an overnight guest in the hotel room of a presidential advance-team member — yet that information was never thoroughly investigated or publicly acknowledged.

The information that the Secret Service shared with the White House included hotel records and firsthand accounts — the same types of evidence the agency and military relied on to determine who in their ranks was involved.

The Secret Service shared its findings twice in the weeks after the scandal with top White House officials, including then-White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler. Each time, she and other presidential aides conducted an interview with the advance-team member and concluded that he had done nothing wrong.

Meanwhile, the new details also show that a separate set of investigators in the inspector general’s office of the Department of Homeland Security — tasked by a Senate committee with digging more deeply into misconduct on the trip — found additional evidence from records and eyewitnesses who had accompanied the team member in Colombia.

The lead investigator later told Senate staffers that he felt pressure from his superiors in the office of Charles K. Edwards, who was then the acting inspector general, to withhold evidence — and that, in the heat of an election year, decisions were being made with political considerations in mind.

“We were directed at the time . . . to delay the report of the investigation until after the 2012 election,” David Nieland, the lead investigator on the Colombia case for the DHS inspector general’s office, told Senate staffers, according to three people with knowledge of his statement.

I am sure that within short order, we will be told that this story is not a big deal, and that we should all just move along. And we will be told this before any further serious investigation even so much as takes place. But there certainly seems to be enough to this story to warrant a congressional investigation. Let’s have one, please.

The Very Inconvenient Leon Panetta

This is just devastating:

After resigning as secretary of defense last year, Leon E. Panetta watched with growing dismay at what he perceived as a president losing his way. Instead of asserting American leadership on the world stage, Mr. Panetta concluded, President Obama was vacillating and overly cautious.

“He was concerned about the frustration and exhaustion of the country having fought two wars,” Mr. Panetta observed in an interview on Monday. The president, he said, nursed “the hope that perhaps others in the world could step up to the plate and take on these issues.” As a result, he added, “there was a kind of a mixed message that went out with regard to the role of the United States.”

Typically frank, occasionally feisty and finally free of the constraints of clearing opinions with the White House, Mr. Panetta is re-emerging with a blunt account of his time in the Obama administration. In a new memoir to be published on Tuesday, Mr. Panetta draws a largely respectful portrait of a president who made important progress and follows a “well-reasoned vision for the country” but too often “avoids the battle, complains, and misses opportunities.”


In an interview at his home with Capital Download, USA TODAY’s video newsmaker series, Panetta says Obama erred:

• By not pushing the Iraqi government harder to allow a residual U.S. force to remain when troops withdrew in 2011, a deal he says could have been negotiated with more effort. That “created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it’s out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed.” Islamic State also is known as ISIS and ISIL.

• By rejecting the advice of top aides — including Panetta and then-secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton — to begin arming Syrian rebels in 2012. If the U.S. had done so, “I do think we would be in a better position to kind of know whether or not there is some moderate element in the rebel forces that are confronting (Syrian President Bashar) Assad.”

• By warning Assad not to use chemical weapons against his own people, then failing to act when that “red line” was crossed in 2013. Before ordering airstrikes, Obama said he wanted to seek congressional authorization, which predictably didn’t happen.

The reversal cost the United States credibility then and is complicating efforts to enlist international allies now to join a coalition against the Islamic State, Panetta says. “There’s a little question mark to, is the United States going to stick this out? Is the United States going to be there when we need them?”

[. . .]

In the book’s final chapter, however, he writes that Obama’s “most conspicuous weakness” is “a frustrating reticence to engage his opponents and rally support for his cause.” Too often, he “relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader.” On occasion, he “avoids the battle, complains, and misses opportunities.”

Still more (via InstaPundit), which indicates that contrary to Obama administration statements–and those of likely presidential candidate Hillary Clinton–there was no effort on the part of the administration to work with the Iraqi government in order to construct a Status of Forces agreement that would have allowed American troops to remain in Iraq. Of course, longtime readers of mine know this already, but it is nice to see that the point has been made anew. Would that more media outlets pick up on it. Here is some of Panetta’s actual commentary on the matter:

We had leverage. We could, for instance, have threatened to withdraw reconstruction aid to Iraq if al-Maliki would not support some sort of continued U.S. military presence. My fear, as I voiced to the President and others, was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we’d seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S. Iraq’s stability was not only in Iraq’s interest but also in ours. I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military.

Under Secretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy did her best to press that position, which reflected not just my views but also those of the military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs. But the President’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated. Flournoy argued our case, and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.

… To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away. The deal never materialized….

Of course, it ought to go without saying that Panetta’s criticism should be part and parcel of the 2016 presidential campaign. When Hillary Clinton runs for president–and I think that we all know that Hillary Clinton will run for president–she will cite her foreign policy experience as a major reason for why she ought to be elected, and she will cite the supposed foreign policy successes of the Obama administration in order to try to convince voters that Clinton would make a great leader of the free world.

Panetta’s narrative interferes with those claims, which I guess is why partisans on the port side of the political divide are so busy trying to diminish the credibility of that narrative–going so far as to claim that Panetta’s willingness to publish a book while President Obama is still in office demonstrates a certain lack of loyalty. Funny; these same people weren’t making these same claims when Paul O’Neill and Scott McClellan published books attacking George W. Bush and his administration.

Quote of the Day

We know what needs to be done. Last week, finally, the United States government organized the deployment of three thousand aid workers and began marshalling a wider international response. Inside our borders, the C.D.C. has fostered a cadre of thousands of public-health professionals at the local, state, and federal levels who are ready to respond and who have proved to be reliable and effective at getting this kind of work done. And, with the announcement of the Dallas case, hospitals across the country are now scrambling to get their procedures in place. Doctors’ offices should do so, too. They need to download the C.D.C.’s checklists. And they need to do what other high-risk professions have done for years and train people immediately in “closed-loop communication”—confirming verbally that critical information has been received and understood.

The diagnosis of the first U.S. case is not the sign that we need to shut patients out. It’s the sign that we need to bring more help in. The Ebola epidemic is stoppable.

Atul Gawande. Read the whole thing.

What Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Doesn’t Know about Corporate Law and the First Amendment

Stephen Bainbridge takes the young Kennedy to task for pretending that corporations can somehow be given some kind of “death penalty” for not agreeing with Kennedy’s views on climate policy. Of course, to say that Professor Bainbridge has forgotten more about corporate law than the young Kennedy will ever learn is to understate matters (and you should really read through both of the professor’s blog posts in order to get a sense of just how entirely overmatched the young Kennedy is), but there is another matter worth exploring as well when it comes to this particular debate.

Consider the following quote from the young Kennedy, which Professor Bainbridge provides us in his first blog post on this subject:

Hysterics at the right wing think tanks and their acolytes at The Washington Times, talk radio and the blogosphere, are foaming in apoplexy because I supposedly suggested that “all climate deniers should be jailed.” . . . Of course I never said that. I support the First Amendment which makes room for any citizen to, even knowingly, spew far more vile lies without legal consequence.

I do, however, believe that corporations which deliberately, purposefully, maliciously and systematically sponsor climate lies should be given the death penalty. This can be accomplished through an existing legal proceeding known as “charter revocation.” State Attorneys General can invoke this remedy whenever corporations put their profit-making before the “public welfare.”

Shorter Robert F. Kennedy: “I am entirely in favor of First Amendment rights for corporations which disagree with my views on climate policy . . . except that I am actually not.” And no, this isn’t an exaggeration; if the young Kennedy objects to a corporation’s stated views on climate policy, he wants “[s]tate Attorneys General” to revoke corporate charters in order to punish that speech and the corporations who issued that speech–which of course would have the effect of deterring the future issuance of speech to which the young Kennedy objects. Instruments of state power would be used in order to prevent debate. If this isn’t suppression and an effort to strangle in the crib speech that the young Kennedy dislikes, I don’t know what is. And I don’t know what is more amazing; (a) the possibility that the young Kennedy doesn’t understand that his own rhetoric undermines his supposed reverence for the First Amendment, (b) the possibility that the young Kennedy understands completely that his own rhetoric undermines his supposed reverence for the First Amendment, but hopes that the rest of us don’t notice, or (c) that there actually are fans of the young Kennedy who believe that he is being entirely intellectually consistent.

I am entirely willing to afford First Amendment rights to those whose views I despise. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not, his claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Let there be no confusion about that particular fact.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,733 other followers

%d bloggers like this: