A Good Night for Conservatives

National Review Online

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Ted Cruz didn’t play the expectations game in Iowa. He said he was going to win the caucuses, and he did. What’s more, he did it even while bucking the conventional wisdom that candidates who seek to win Iowa must genuflect toward ethanol subsidies — and earning the hostility of Republican governor Terry Branstad for his refusal. Senator Cruz deserves congratulations for his performance.

He also deserves congratulations for stopping Donald Trump’s momentum. Trump is not finished by any means. Getting 40,000 people to caucus for him even though he had very little organization and had exuberantly defied all the normal rules of politics was an impressive achievement. Before the voting, though, many Republicans had been starting to resign themselves to nominating a non-conservative of low character. Having been beaten, Trump no longer looks unbeatable. Nor does it require low turnout to defeat him, as had been widely assumed.

Republicans who have been fearful to attack Trump should drop their reticence. Republicans who have flirted with backing him because they dislike Cruz should find a new, more honorable strategy. And all Republicans should shamelessly steal those portions of Trump’s message that are both right and resonant. They should stand for an immigration policy centered on the interests of the existing American population — which means that “comprehensive reform” that increases low-skilled immigration should be off the table. Then, too, Republicans should make a pitch to voters whose main economic concerns do not include capital-gains taxes.

Senator Cruz now needs to show that he can win in more hostile terrain, which will mean improving his showing among voters who consider themselves “somewhat conservative,” who have usually been the key to the Republican nomination, and voters who are not evangelical Christians. Senator Rubio, who is getting plaudits for placing third even after a Jeb Bush–affiliated organization spent millions attacking him, needs to show that he can actually win somewhere. And the three governors — Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich — need to show that they are still in the game.

The Iowa caucuses do not determine the race but they do clarify it. The odds that the Republican nominee will be a conservative have just increased.

The Extraordinary Generosity of Ordinary Americans

By Jeff Jacoby

Thursday, January 28, 2016

‘The Almanac of American Philanthropy” is something new under the sun: a sweeping reference guide to one of the most remarkable institutions of American life — private charity. Published by the Philanthropy Roundtable, and running more than 1,300 pages, it is the first definitive work on the history, variety, and impact of private giving in the United States.

The scope of American philanthropy is unparalleled anywhere on Earth. In 2014, Americans gave nearly $360 billion to charity, the highest total ever recorded. Most of it didn’t come from plutocrats and vast charitable endowments. Though the good works of private foundations, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or the Ford Foundation, draw plenty of notice, they account for only 14 percent of charitable giving in this country. And just 5 percent comes from corporations.

The overwhelming share of that $360 billion is donated by individuals. Not everyone gives, of course, but in this country those who don’t are decidedly in the minority. Nearly seven out of 10 American households donate to at least one charitable cause each year, at an average annual rate of about $2,600. Philanthropic giving is a quintessentially American behavior, and always has been. It is also a radiant example of American exceptionalism. The new Almanac ranks 14 leading industrial countries by the amount of charity their citizens give yearly (calculated as a percentage of GDP). Americans were by far the most charitable — roughly twice as generous as Canadians, Spaniards, and the Irish, for instance, and more than 20 times as apt to give as Germans and Italians.

As Karl Zinsmeister writes in the Almanac’s lively and enlightening introduction, “philanthropy is a huge part of what makes America America.” Huge in its moral and social impact, of course, but also huge as a matter of economics. The nonprofit sector in the United States employs 11 percent of the US workforce and supplies 6 percent of national GDP — and that doesn’t include the economic impact of nearly 8 billion hours of service by 63 million American volunteers, an impact that last year was worth an estimated $184 billion. America’s formidable “military-industrial complex,” Zinsmeister notes, isn’t nearly so formidable when compared with the American philanthropy complex: Nonprofits surpassed defense as a share of the US economy more than two decades ago.

For those raised to regard charitable giving as indispensable to meaningful lives and healthy societies, it can come as a jolt to discover not just that some people give little or nothing to charity, but that there are those who actually disparage charitable giving itself. In a 1964 interview, Ayn Rand said that her views on charity were “very simple: I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty.” John Steinbeck, whose political views were as far to the left as Rand’s were to the right, also disdained philanthropy. “Giving is a selfish pleasure, and in many cases is a downright destructive and evil thing,” he railed.

Rationalizations for not donating certainly aren’t hard to find. “Most People Shouldn’t Be Giving To Charity,” advises an essay at the Business Insider website. A writer at Slate makes “The Economic Case Against Philanthropy.”

Yet anyone who doubts the amazing power of charity to work prodigies of good in the world need only open “The Almanac of American Philanthropy” to encounter a myriad of illustrations. The book ranges across four centuries of charitable accomplishments, documenting the fantastic profusion of philanthropic achievements that have advanced human health, alleviated poverty, promoted the arts, protected nature, deepened learning, supported religious communities, and fed the hungry at home and abroad. The charitable causes to which Americans have rallied and donated spans a mind-boggling spectrum — from abolishing slavery to combating smoking, from ministering to prisoners to encouraging transatlantic flight, from creating the Red Cross to caring for aged sailors, from protecting endangered species to building orchestras

. . . and on and on.

Zinsmeister refutes some common criticisms of philanthropy. To those who imagine that charity amounts to merely a drop in the bucket, he offers this perspective: The Gates Foundation alone — which is but a small sliver of US philanthropy — distributes more overseas assistance than the Italian government. And just one of the Gates endeavors, an overseas vaccine program, will save the lives of 8 million children. Yet as impressive as that is, it is dwarfed by the aid sent to the needy overseas by members of US religious organizations, which devote four and a half times as much to the effort as the Gates Foundation does.

“Indeed, private US philanthropic aid of all sorts sent overseas now substantially exceeds the official foreign aid of the US government,” Zinsmeister writes. Some drop. Some bucket.

Sometimes philanthropy is pooh-poohed because of its lack of uniformity and clear direction. But in the Almanac’s language, “a riotous patchwork can be a thing of a great beauty.” Consider Goodwill Industries, which provides workforce training to 26 million beneficiaries annually. Goodwill’s 3,000 stores take in more than $5 billion in revenue. And yet its operations are not standardized. Goodwill’s 165 regional branches are autonomous in policy and funding, and each has its own board of directors. Habitat for Humanity and the Appalachian Mountain Club are other philanthropies that embrace a nonmonolithic “patchwork” culture, and have achieved outstanding success.

There are those whose first instinct is to turn to government when a social ill appears. Of course there are some functions for which government is well-suited. But on the whole, private philanthropic problem-solving will always be more nimble, more innovative, more individualized, and more efficient than anything the government can do.

“In the United States I am even more struck by the innumerable multitude of little undertakings than by the extraordinary size of some of their industrial enterprises,” marveled Alexis de Tocqueville upon traveling through America in the 1830s. He wrote of his “daily astonishment” at the “immense works” carried out by the abundance of voluntary associations Americans formed.

Nearly two centuries later, the vast diversity of private charity in this country is as astonishing and fruitful as ever. Lord knows we get plenty of things wrong in these United States, but our culture of philanthropy remains a wonder of the world.

Ex-Spies Say That Clinton’s Illegal Server Triggered Widespread Devastation

By Deroy Murdock

Monday, February 01, 2016

Three veterans of American intelligence are horrified by the havoc that they believe former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton caused through her epic abuse of state secrets in the E-Mailgate scandal.

“If there really were SAP [special-access programs] material on her server, consider the implications,” a former U.S. intelligence officer tells me. He refers to the “several dozen” messages marked TOP SECRET/SAP that I. Charles McCullough III, inspector general for the intelligence community, reports were on the private server at Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., 267 miles north of the State Department. Special-access programs are America’s most clandestine activities. Their revelation could damage national security severely and possibly get people killed.

In the anonymous words of this one-time American intelligence professional, here is some of the devastation likely caused by Clinton’s exposure of SAP secrets:

1. Intel officers responsible for those programs must be alerted.

2. Once alerted that SAP was mishandled and on a system that has been attacked, it is only prudent to end those programs.

3. What does ending those programs mean? Depending on the SAP involved, it could mean redoing war plans, terminating ongoing covert actions, rethinking how the exposed covert actions must be done and executing on that new plan, or, if it reveals a source, removing that source from his environment.

4. That has a significant impact. Presume, if you will, that it was a source. If that source were providing intel of such value that it rose to the SecState, now we’ve lost that source.

5. Intel officers care about their sources, and for two reasons. One, we’re human beings. We don’t want those assisting us and our country to be hurt, even though we recognize the danger they are placing themselves in. Two, the business model doesn’t work very well if sources think they’ll be outed. The US intel community already has so much trouble in that regard due to Edward Snowden and Bradley [now Chelsea] Manning. This just compounds it. Think about the next meeting between a prospective source and a CIA case officer trying to recruit that source to risk his/her life for the United States: “Are you sure a high-level official won’t out me?”

So, since Clinton and her illegal, off-site server contained evidence of these beyond-top-secret initiatives, the safest course for the CIA and other agencies is to assume that these efforts were compromised and then to wind them down. Once terminated, these activities stop yielding information that keeps America secure and Americans alive.

Intelligence agencies also would relocate and possibly repatriate the relevant U.S. operatives whose covers Clinton likely blew. This would affect their careers. Those whom Clinton’s crimes have unmasked would become unable to serve overseas, lest hostile nations or actors find, exploit, or kill them.

Also, if Clinton’s server contained the identities of American agents, that could mean that, say, an undercover “diplomat” here and a “businesswoman” there might be ordered back to the United States at once. While these people might wind up stuck behind desks at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., at least they would be safe.

But how about their contacts in Somalia, Ukraine, or Venezuela? The friends and associates of American agents exposed via Clinton’s at-best gross negligence might awaken to loud knocks at their doors at 4:00 a.m., followed by one-way rides to Third World dungeons.

“To me, it’s offensive,” the former spook tells me. “If it were really SAP, Clinton was undoing all the hard work that my friends were doing. This is oftentimes intensive, painstaking, costly work, and her carelessness has now undone it. That pisses me off.”

This source uses an analogy from American industry to put Clinton’s misdeeds into everyday language.

“Imagine that you work at Pepsi, your 401K is tied to the performance of the company, and that performance is inextricably linked to the secret ingredient for Pepsi,” this intelligence specialist explains. “How would you feel if one of your superiors were just casual with that most sensitive of information? I think it would upset you. Now, for intel, multiply that by at least ten. We can have arguments over whether confidential material is unnecessarily classified; we generally don’t in mishandling cases, but I’d potentially be open to it. But with SAP, no way. This is so grossly negligent that either it is false or Hillary Clinton doesn’t care.”

Meanwhile, a veteran who worked in military intelligence for more than 25 years thinks that this first source may be too optimistic.

“As for damage done, my suspicion is that it is much worse than it looks,” he says, also anonymously.

“We need to consider that everything that was on that server has been compromised. There isn’t an intelligence service out there that isn’t interested in the actions of our senior people,” he continues. “Outside the president, the two most important targets for collection are SecDef and SecState. And that means everyone. Russia and China, certainly. Germany, France, South Korea, Japan, Iran, and Israel — I would guess — would all be interested as well. Very interested.”

The former military-intelligence man outlines how foreign spy agencies would handle the most sensitive information, after capturing it.

“The SecState is seeing a whole bunch of stuff. Virtually everything she does is classified — honest. There are all sorts of stuff that would fit under the generic heading of SAP. . . . Let’s assume this is a program about some particularly well-placed individual somewhere who is feeding us information. If I were a bad guy, and I got hold of this kind of information, the last thing I would do would be to roll the guy up.” He adds, “If it were one of my people, I might start feeding him, the source, slightly skewed information so as to mislead the U.S. But that is only the beginning. No matter what, the last thing I want to do is let the U.S. know that I know of this source. . . . So, from the U.S. side, everything that remotely touches that material, from the date of the compromise, should now be considered tainted.”

The former military spy echoes the first source: Breaches, such as what likely befell Clinton’s private server, are not just technical glitches. They hammer real people.

“More to the point, it affects other folks,” the ex-military-intelligence operative tells me. “Everyone who was remotely associated with the source is now on shaky ground. Compromises are expensive. They mean everyone who was derived from one source is also tainted. If the compromise happened a while ago, and we just found out, it could mean years of not only being misled by some other organization, but by now virtually all of the people in a given network have been compromised and either turned by the other side or are under close observation, and they are waiting to roll them up when we start acting. If this compromise, and it was a compromise, took place in 2012, then more than three years have passed since the compromise. That’s really a mess.”

This veteran thinks that Hillary Clinton cannot have it both ways: She’s either too brilliant to be as innocent as she asserts or too innocent to be as brilliant as she professes.

“Secretary Clinton has been seeing this kind of thing for a long time,” he says. “If she is competent to handle major decisions, if she is the highly capable person she claims to be, she would know what all this material was, without having some label stating it was secret.”

“If, on the other hand, someone could put reports in front of her describing these various things, again and again, without the appropriate labels, and she was not smart enough to recognize that this material was from classified sources, then she isn’t competent to be the president, or a departmental secretary. Or, of course, this is all lies. There are no other options.”

One retired intelligence officer did comment on the record — and how.

“I assume that the messages discussing SAP programs were known instantaneously by the Russians and the Chinese and were likely shared to some degree with other really bad actors — Iran?” Martha Sutherland tells me. She spent 19 years as an operations officer in the Central Intelligence Agency. “The only saving grace, in some weird way, is that Bibi and the Mossad probably had their eyes all over them as well!”

Sutherland is appalled by what we already know about Hillary Clinton’s behavior.

“The fact that she had a completely separate system for her chats with Sid Blumenthal and others is outrageous,” this former CIA agent observes. “And then the tie-in to the Clinton Foundation and the quid pro quo is another felony count. If I had cut and pasted classified documents and put them in an e-mail on my unclassified server to avoid a written record, I would have been frog-walked in handcuffs out of Langley, no questions asked.”

People keep demanding a smoking gun in this scandal. Sutherland explains that Hillary’s unencrypted, do-it-yourself server is, ipso facto, the smoking gun. It never should have been purchased. Its mere presence is the crime.

“It goes beyond having classified stuff without markings,” Sutherland says. “It is the fact that she maintained a shadow communications system, separate from the government mandated, secure system. And she was the BOSS! Its existence, the now damning news of SAP info. on it, and her continued denial that she did anything wrong are proof positive that Hillary and the Clintons still think they are above the law! Enough already — the BIG HOUSE for Hillary, not the White House, for goodness sakes!”

Grow Up, Donald Trump!

By Thomas Sowell

Friday, January 29, 2016

Of all the many things said about Donald Trump, what was said by Roger Ailes, head of the Fox News Channel, said it all in just two words: “Grow up!”

It is amazing how many people have been oblivious to this middle-aged man’s spoiled-brat behavior, his childish boastfulness about things he says he is going to do, and his petulant response to every criticism with ad hominem replies.

He has boasted that his followers would stick by him even if he committed murder. But is that something to boast about? Is it not an insult to his followers, if it is true? Moreover, his cockiness is misplaced, because he still does not have a majority among Republican voters, while you need a majority of all the voters to win any state in the general election.

Trump has a showman’s talent for telling people what they want to hear. But you can listen in vain for a coherent argument from him, based on facts and logic, much less an understanding of the inherent limitations of the office of president.

More than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke said: “Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state.”

In other words, the personal character of the people to whom you entrust the powers of government matters even more than what kinds of government institutions there are. There have been some good kings and some bad presidents, as well as vice versa.

In a world where the future of this country is threatened from within by increasingly angry polarization, and where external threats can become nuclear, are we really going to entrust the safety or this country to a man who still needs to grow up?

Is the fact that he loudly expressed our own disgust with the political establishment a sufficient reason to gamble the whole future of the country by putting him in the White House?

The White House is not a place for on-the-job training. You are supposed to be ready, or at the very least grown up, before you walk in the door. Aging happens automatically, but maturity is optional — and it is an option that Donald Trump has not yet chosen to exercise.

The issue that Trump raised about Ted Cruz’s having been born in Canada is not the first time he has tried to challenge where someone was born. “The Donald” was among those who tried to say that Barack Obama was not born an American citizen, and who disgraced themselves, while undermining other critics of Obama who had serious objections to his policies.

On the other hand, messianic demagogues have often spoken at least part of the truth. But they have also often led their followers to their doom, whether at Jonestown, Stalingrad, or innumerable other places. That is a very high price to pay for an exhilaration of the moment.

Donald Trump is not the only one who needs to act like an adult. With this country starting to unravel from within, while ruthless enemies overseas are developing both nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles to deliver them, we face problems that cannot be solved by candidates with glib words or by voters who vote for whoever meets their emotional needs.

If you don’t understand the issues, but want to do your patriotic duty, then stay home on election night, whether in the primaries or in the national election in November. Uninformed voters turn elections into a game of playing Russian roulette with the future of America.

Conservative candidates will also have an opportunity to show their maturity and their patriotism. This is not the first primary season in which the conservative vote has been split among so many Republican candidates that it virtually guarantees that someone who is not a conservative will win the Republican nomination.

At some point during the primary season, it becomes clear that some candidates have no real chance of winning the nomination, much less the general election. At that point they can either continue hanging on, keeping the conservative vote split, or they can withdraw and throw their support to some other conservative candidate who has a chance.

A lot of people need to grow up, and to do something for this country that has done so much for them.