Sunday, July 31, 2016

Pipes On The Battles Against Islamist Terrorism. My Main Motivation for How I Will Vote. If You Do Not See It You Can Read It!

Maybe the 2016 Election is all about Hilllary
                versus Bill. (See 1 below.)

The battle against Islamist terrorists has not actually begun according to Daniel Pipes.  Pipes, unlike Huntington, believes conflicts remain political not civilizational.(See 2 below.)
If you do not see it you can surely read it. (See 3 below)
For those who have some knowledge of what The Founding Fathers intended when they established three independent branches in order to make them, more or less independent and equal, they also wrote structural language that was supposed to result in various checks and balances.

They also understood the effect power of personality might have on each branch.

From time to time one branch gains strength at the cost of another and I submit that , over the years, Congress has allowed itself to become weaker as The Executive Branch gained. However, the Supreme Court , though one of the structurally weaker branches, because it has no army, cannot even raise its own salaries, remains the strongest as long as we wish to remain a nation of laws. Why? Because Jurist's are appointed for life and their willingness to create law rather than faithfully interpret the meaning of The Constitution, can change the direction of our Republic emphatically and lastingly

This reason, alone, motivates me to vote for Trump over all of his and/or Hillary's negatives and/or positives.

When anyone, including members of my own family, tell me they are going to vote for other candidates, ie. Libertarians, Greens etc., I remind them of this fact.

Obama has radically altered the direction of our nation both by his own philosophy and resort to ruling by Executive actions but also through his appointments to the Supreme Court.  The next president will have no less than two and possibly three opportunities to appoint Jurists thereby altering the, so called, ideological balance thus, neutralizing any swing vote effect.

I can think of no more single determining reason to cast my vote for Trump.

1)  Mrs. Clinton v. Mr. Clinton

Bill Clinton’s 1992 Democratic agenda sounded downright Paul Ryanish.

 By William McGurn

When her husband was running for president in 1992, Hillary Clinton appeared by his side on “60 Minutes” to help him rebut claims he’d had a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers.

When asked if he “categorically” denied the allegation, Mr. Clinton responded “I’ve said that before.” Just to clarify her own role, Mrs. Clinton added, “I’m not sitting here—some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.”

Each was fibbing. In a deposition in the Paula Jones case years later, Mr. Clinton admitted that his relationship with Ms. Flowers had been sexual. Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, would spend the next eight years in full Tammy Wynette mode, standing by her man through all the women and all the lies.

Which makes this year’s convention in the City of Brotherly Love even more of a triumph for Mrs. Clinton. Not only is she the Clinton whose name sits atop the party’s presidential ticket this time, in some ways the entire Democratic convention is a repudiation of all things Bill.

Start with the platform. Now, it’s true that platforms are not binding, but they give a good sense of how parties and candidates see themselves. Notwithstanding the “lock her up” chants from Bernie supporters here in Philly, Mr. Sanders says of the prevailing draft that “we now have the most-progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party.”

It’s hard to recall these days, but Bill Clinton’s 1992 platform and presidency were once thought to deliver the Democratic Party from precisely this kind of thinking. Back then, Mr. Clinton was the face of the “New Democrat” who aimed to persuade the American people Democrats had changed from the McGovern days and could be trusted on values, the economy and national security.

In 1992, the party of Bill Clinton called business a “noble endeavor.” Its platform sounded downright Paul Ryanish, listing its “first priority” as “broad-based, non-inflationary economic growth and the opportunity that flows from it.” And it declared its opposition to “the adoption of new programs and new spending without new thinking.”

In his administration, Mr. Clinton would work with Republicans to pass welfare reform and repeal the Glass-Steagall provisions forbidding affiliations between banks and securities firms. He would sign the North American Free Trade Agreement. And in his 1996 State of the Union address, Mr. Clinton would declare that “the era of big government is over.”

In 2016, the party of Hillary Clinton has chucked all this overboard, embracing a plethora of new programs and spending. It has come out for “free” college education and a government health-care option. Mrs. Clinton opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the biggest trade deal since Nafta. For this Clinton, the era of big government is back.

Nor is the rejection of Bill Clinton limited to economics. In 1992, when a Washington Post interviewer asked hip-hop artist Sister Souljah about black-on-black violence during that summer’s riots in Los Angeles, she answered that “if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people.” At a Rainbow Coalition event sponsored by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Mr. Clinton likened her to the white supremacist David Duke.

In 2016, by contrast, the Democratic Party of Mrs. Clinton has gone all in with the Black Lives Matter movement. This includes accepting the false idea that black men are being shot because of institutional racism among our men and women in blue.

Ditto for social issues. In his acceptance speech at the 1992 Democratic convention, Mr. Clinton famously said that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” In 2016, the party of Mrs. Clinton has thrown out “rare” for the most-extreme position possible: abortion on demand subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer.

Gone too is the call for a more muscular approach to foreign policy, a theme Bill Clinton used to criticize George H.W. Bush as too weak. “I believe our nation has a higher purpose than to coddle dictators and stand aside from the global movement toward democracy,” said Mr. Clinton.

Now, it’s possible that on Russia and NATO, Mrs. Clinton may repeat the weakness argument, given Donald Trump’s refusal to see Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression as a threat. But the Middle East is a better indicator of where her party has moved.

In 1992, the party of Bill Clinton chided the Bush administration for not being an “honest broker” and encouraging Arabs to believe the U.S. would deliver “unilateral concessions” from Israel. Though Mrs. Clinton’s allies have beaten back (for now) efforts to be more critical of Israel, the battle is a proxy for the party’s larger distrust of American force and the distancing from traditional U.S. allies that has characterized the two Obama terms.
This is Mrs. Clinton’s moment. So out goes Tammy Wynette, and all that 1992 Bill Clinton talk of getting “two for the price of one.” In the Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton, the left wing is back in charge. And it’s as much a repudiation of her husband as it is of Mr. Trump.

"The Battle against Islamism Has Not Yet Started"

by Ralf Ostner (interviewer) Global Review (Germany)

Global Review: Mr. Pipes, what do you think of Samuel Huntington's book Clash of Civilizations? Are religions the defining moments of culture, despite the Enlightenment and globalization? Where was Huntington right and where wrong?

Daniel Pipes: Huntington made some very major mistakes which have become increasingly evident in the two decades since he aired his thesis. For example, he thought U.S. tensions with Japan in the 1990s resulted from civilizational differences; a decade later, those tensions disappeared, replaced by far more severe problems with Europe, even though the United States and Europe form part of the same civilization. The real divisions, as always, remain political, not civilizational.

GR: Many people say that Islam is not a religion but a reactionary, totalitarian and repressive ideology comparable to fascism and communism; and that Islam cannot be reformed. Other people say that Islamism had nothing to do with religion and Islam. What do you say about relations between Islam and Islamism?

DP: Both these statements are silly. Of course, Islam is one of the major religions of the world; what is there to argue about? Islamism, a modern movement, however, shares much with fascism and communism. Islamism is a form of Islam. Denying this would be akin to saying that the Jesuits are not Christian.

GR: Some experts compare Islam with Confucianism and Hinduism. They note that in the 1950s, Confucian societies were thought unable to develop economically and socially, and that Confucianism was seen as an obstacle to progress; same with Hinduism in India. Today, however, East Asia and India are economic powerhouses and many people perceive Confucianism and Hinduism as drivers of this success story. Could the same happen with Islam, that it will also reform?
DP: Yes, it is possible that Muslim peoples will recover from today's predicament and go on to economic and political success. We have no way of predicting such things. And no civilization or religion stays permanently down.

The Hong Kong skyline: No one any more sees Confucianism as an obstacle to development.
GR: There is a broad spectrum of Islamists. Al-Qaida, the Islamic State, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, which want to occupy territory by military means and create an ever expanding state. And then the Muslim Brotherhood, the Turkish AK Party and the Iranian Khomeinists. Which of these Islamist groups are the greatest danger for the West and which of these concepts do you think will be the most successful?

DP: I worry the most about the subtle, infiltrating Islamists. When it comes to force, we can easily defeat them. But when it comes to our own institutions – schools, law courts, media, parliaments – we are far less prepared to defend ourselves.

GR: In the Western countries many Islamophobic parties and politicians are on the rise. Do you think this will help the spread of Islamism or will these parties help the counter-jihad? Hillary Clinton said that Trump and his anti-Muslim speeches are the best recruiters for the Islamic State. True?

DP: I do not recognize the term "Islamophobe" and do not know what it means except, in the immortal phrase of Andrew Cummins as a word "created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons."

Your question reverses the sequence of events. Islamist ideology breads Islamist violence, which starts the process and in turn inspires anti-Islamic sentiments. Anti-Islamic views might also inspire more Islamist violence, but that is incidental. The real dynamic here is Islamism creating anti-Islam parties. As Norbert Hofer has shown in Austria, they are approaching 50 percent of the vote and with it, political power.

GR: Focusing on the "Islamophobic" parties opposition to Islam ignores that they are largely semi-fascist. Geert Wilders says that the Koran is comparable to Hitler's Mein Kampf and that Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Can he be an ally in the fight against Islamism? Maybe Obama and Merkel are weak on Islamism, but do you support Wilders, Trump, Austria's FPÖ, Hungary's Fidesz or Jobbik?

DP: Anti-Islamic leaders and parties are unsophisticated and make many mistakes. I hope that, as they get closer to power, they will get more educated and serious. I do not support them but I do give them advice.
GR: The failed coup in Turkey helped Erdoğan establish his Islamist dictatorship. Do you think NATO will accept an Islamofascist dictatorship as a member state? Some experts say that Saudi Arabia is also a Islamist dictatorship, but a partner of the USA and the West. Therefore realpolitik will prevail. How do you think the relations between Erdogan-Turkey and the West will develop?

DP: As I understand it, NATO has no mechanism to expel a member state; if that is accurate, it has no choice but to work with Erdoğan. In the brief period since the coup attempt, Erdoğan has been very hostile to the West. Perhaps he will end up in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

Turkey's president Erdoğan (R) shakes hands with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg
GR: Besides Islamists, the West has to deal with Russia, China, and North Korea. How can it deal with all these challenges at the same time? Which counter-jihadi strategy do you find most promising?

DP: The strategic environment today is far easier than during the cold war; there is no determined ideological enemy with the tools of a great power at its disposal. The key is for the West not to go to sleep. Electing such leaders as Obama and Merkel, however, means going to sleep. The best counter-jihadi strategy is one that takes ideas seriously.

GR: It took the West two decades to get rid of fascism and 70 years to get rid of communism. How long do you think will it take to get rid of Islamism? Are we facing the zenith of Islamism right now or are we just halfway up the road and will it get even worse?

DP: The battle against Islamism has not yet started. I cannot predict how long it will take. It's still pre-1945 in communist terms and the 1930s in fascist terms. I see Islamism as having peaked in 2012-13 and showing signs of weakness.

GR: Will the bad experience with Islamism and secular military dictatorships in Muslim countries create a new democratic movement and a new Muslim spring in the future after a catharsis? Or do you think these countries are all failed countries which will disintegrate because they are incapable of changing course?

DP: Muslims are learning bitter lessons from the Islamist experience. I hope they will put these to good use, though so far there is very little evidence of this happening


No comments: