Monthly Archives: March 2018

Op-Eds

There She Goes Again: Clinton’s Blame Game, Mumbai Edition

1 Comment
Hillary Clinton in Concord, New Hampshire
Hillary Clinton in Concord, New Hampshire (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It’s  been James Comey. It’s been Them Russians. It’s been Barack Obama. It’s been misogyny. It’s been WikiLeaks. It’s been social media.  Hillary Clinton has tons of reasons why she lost the 2016 presidential election. And, oddly, none of those reasons are herself or her campaign.

This week, the excuse is that millions of whipped women just did as they were told. Clinton dropped that one on a conference in Mumbai:  “We do not do well with white men and we don’t do well with married, white women ….  part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

Hillary Clinton loves strong women. Well, sort of. She loves women who are strong enough to vote for Hillary Clinton, but not quite strong enough to speak publicly about their encounters — willing or unwilling, as equals or as mere White House interns bedazzled by presidential attention — with her husband.

It’s not the first time Clinton and her coterie have thrown feminism under the bus.  At a 2016 campaign rally in New Hampshire, former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright announced “a special place in hell” for women who dared make up their own minds instead of just buckling down and supporting Clinton.

One begins to suspect that for Hillary Clinton, everything is all about Hillary Clinton, all the time. That Hillary Clinton’s guiding principle is whatever’s best for Hillary Clinton right now. That Hillary Clinton is never to blame, nor to be held responsible, for anything negative.

If her record of fobbing every problem off on others while publicly stroking her own ego didn’t stretch back decades, and if I hadn’t seem them together, I might have to conclude that she and Donald Trump are the same person wearing different wigs.

Clinton didn’t lose the presidential election because white women don’t have minds of their own. She lost the presidential election because they do.

And because she ran a train wreck of a campaign.

And because she erroneously assumed that organized labor would get out the vote for her in the Rust Belt, an area she mostly ignored and Trump didn’t, where she lost by about 80,000 votes out of more than 135 million cast.

Hillary Clinton lost the election because of Hillary Clinton.

Trump is awful, but America dodged a bullet by not electing her.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Cakes, Guns, Discrimination, and Freedom of Association

Leave a comment

Gun photo from RGBStock

In the wake of the mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, a number of businesses have moved to distance themselves from scary-looking weapons like the AR-15, from younger purchasers of weapons in general, and from organizations that don’t support laws violating the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Whether these moves are from sincere conviction or mere concern for bottom lines, they’re provoking backlash. Retailers like Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods face multiple discrimination lawsuits from 18- to 21-year-olds over their corporate decisions to stop selling guns to that age group.

These lawsuits are not about gun rights, any more than Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, now before the US Supreme Court, is about same-sex marriage rites.  Both sets of cases, arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, are clearly about freedom of association.

If a baker doesn’t want to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, he shouldn’t have to. It’s his right to do business — or not — with whomever he wants, for whatever reasons are important to him.

If a store owner doesn’t want to sell an AR-15 to an 18-year-old, she shouldn’t have to. It’s her right to do business — or not — with whomever she wants, for whatever reasons are important to her.

Of course, many who take one side on one of the topics above take the opposite side on the other — “conservatives” because they hate same-sex marriage and love guns, “progressives” because they love same-sex marriage and hate guns. Each group considers its desired ends too important to abstain from hypocrisy as to the means of achieving those ends.

The hypocrites’ hobgoblin of choice when arguing the wrong sides of these cases is Jim Crow, a set of racial segregation laws that prevailed in the American south for nearly a century. Allowing people to discriminate in private business decisions, they say, will result in society re-segregating along racial, religious, sexual, and other lines.

What they forget (or would rather not discuss) is the fact that Jim Crow was not a set of social conventions freely adopted by the people of the south. It was a set of laws passed by corrupt politicians to artificially impede the natural tendency of people of all races to mix for both personal and commercial reasons. Rosa Parks wasn’t arrested for disobeying a bus driver. She was arrested for disobeying a law.

Yes, freedom of association brings some bigots, including but not limited to anti-black bigots, anti-gay bigots, and anti-gun bigots, out of the woodwork.  That’s a feature, not a bug. Bigotry thrives in the dark. In the light, bigots lose out both socially and financially.

Boycott (and “buycott”) punish “bad” (and reward “good”) behavior. I personally hope and expect that Dick’s and Walmart will pay a price for their decision to discriminate against would-be gun purchasers and against 18- to 21-year-olds, and that non-bigoted businesses will profit. And please, politicians: Stop grandstanding, get out of the way, and let the people sort these matters out for ourselves.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

“Sanctuary State” Suit: The Trump Administration versus California and Federalism

Leave a comment
English: ICE Special Agents (U.S. Immigration ...
English: ICE Special Agents (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) arresting suspects during a raid (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions find  California’s “sanctuary” laws inconvenient, and are asking the courts to rule in favor of their convenience rather than affirming the US Constitution. That’s the  takeaway from  United States v. State of California, a US Department of Justice lawsuit filed on March 6.

The case sounds like it’s about immigration — and the administration can be counted on to play up that perception in the secondary court of public opinion — but  it really isn’t. It’s about whether or not state and local governments are required to enforce, or assist in enforcing, federal law.

The California Values Act, one of the laws the administration is suing over, limits California law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration agencies. California cops will no longer detain or investigate people on suspected violations of federal immigration laws, or hand prisoners or prisoners’ information over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement without a warrant.

The exception to the rule under the CVA is that the names of persons convicted of violent crimes will be given to ICE before their release. But if you go to jail for 30 days for unpaid parking tickets, LAPD won’t be telling ICE about you.

If the federal district court adheres to US Supreme Court precedent, the Trump administration will lose on this.

In 1997’s Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot require local chief law enforcement officers to perform background checks on gun purchasers pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

The feds can do it themselves. Local law enforcers might assist, if state or local law allows or requires them to. But federal law can’t compel their participation, nor can Congress force state legislatures to pass laws requiring them to assist, because “[t]he Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service — and at no cost to itself — the police officers of the 50 States.”

SCOTUS got it right back then. Hopefully the US courts will stick to the principle.

California may lose on another count, that of the Immigrant Worker Protection Act, which forbids employers to cooperate with ICE absent a court order or subpoena. It’s disgusting to think that an employer would snitch out his workers to a bunch of jackbooted thugs who think the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to them, but California probably can’t forbid it.

Whatever you think of federal immigration laws, they’re not the issue. The issue is federalism.

The FBI doesn’t hand out speeding tickets in Peoria because that’s the Peoria Police Department’s job, not the FBI’s.

Similarly, it’s not California’s job to spend its state and local law enforcement money doing ICE’s job for it.

 

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY