Quotes of the day

posted at 10:01 pm on July 9, 2014 by Allahpundit

Senior Obama administration officials told Congress on Wednesday that they were struggling to keep up with the growing influx of young migrants from Central America who are illegally crossing the Southwestern border.

The number of unaccompanied children picked up at the border since Oct. 1 is now 57,000, according to R. Gil Kerlikowske, head of Customs and Border Protection…

The “children continue to come across the border,” Craig Fugate, FEMA administrator, told the committee. “It’s a very fluid situation.”

***

“Look, for $8 million, we can put them all on a first-class seat back to their homes. That’s $8 million. That’s a first-class seat, one way, to each of their homes,” Coburn told CNN’s “Crossfire” on Tuesday.

“That’s $60,000 per child that we’re going to spend, in emergency money. Can we — first of all, that shows just how incompetent we — we can’t do that for $3(000) or $4,000 per child? That’s No. 1.

“No. 2 is, if we can’t do that, the Border Patrol is as bad as the V.A. And by the way, the vast majority of Border Patrol are not patrolling the border right now. They’re involved in the humanitarian crisis.”

***

Border state Republicans slammed President Barack Obama Wednesday for practicing “selective morality” in his policies towards migrant children coming to the United States, blaming the administration for failing to send the clear message that unaccompanied minors cannot remain illegally in the country…

“What about people in other parts of the world? Don’t they need this kind of relief? Aren’t they persecuted? What about the Middle East? What about Africa? This is selective morality that’s being practiced here,” McCain said on the Senate floor. “We want people to come to this country legally, we want them to come if they are persecuted. But we want [it in] an orderly fashion.”

***

President Obama’s request for $3.7 billion in supplemental funding amounts to an “admission” that he plans for the influx of immigrant children to “continue indefinitely,” according to Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas).

Cruz said that only five percent of the funding would provide for “boots on the ground” along the southern border. ”This is an HHS and social services bill that is entitled border security to make it appear as if it’s responding to the problem,” Cruz told National Review Online.

“But this supplemental bill is an admission by the president that he has no intention of solving this problem, and, indeed, that he anticipates it continuing indefinitely, because he is simply asking for money to deal with those kids who are coming after they’ve been brutalized, rather than taking the necessary steps to prevent them from coming here in the first place, to prevent them from being victimized,” he also said.

***

A number of conservatives on Capitol Hill are pushing back hard against President Obama’s request for almost $4 billion to manage the spike of immigrants — thousands of them unaccompanied minors — that’s hit the Texas-Mexico border in recent months.

But Graham, a long-time supporter of an immigration system overhaul, said a failure to provide the funds will exacerbate the crisis while handing Obama and the Democrats a political victory ahead of November’s midterm elections.

“If we do that, then we’re going to get blamed for perpetuating the problem,” Graham told reporters on Wednesday.

***

The White House needs to mollify progressive allies who are demanding payback from an administration that has long disappointed them on immigration. Some in the Democratic coalition are even contemplating a stay-at-home-in-November strategy if Obama does little beyond what they see as symbolic measures.

There are also worries among advocates that Obama will pull back if the influx of Central American children on the southwestern border erodes public support for the broader reforms. The White House on Tuesday asked Congress for $3.7 billion to address the growing crisis…

The program for so-called Dreamers, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, has covered about 600,000 undocumented immigrants. The scope of the changes now under consideration would be much broader. There are more than 6.4 million employed adults who are undocumented, 8.7 million people who had been in the country for at least five years as of March 2010, and 4.7 million parents or guardians of minor U.S. and foreign-born children, according to the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, a coalition of reform advocacy groups.

***

It is not clear, however, if Obama believes open borders will be the same hit with the American people that amnesty activists think it will be. Up till now Americans have voiced support for granting amnesty to those already in the country, but keeping out further waves if illegal immigrants.

But the current migrant crisis has exploded the amnesty lie. Americans are seeing first hand that amnesties only beget more amnesties. The only way for Obama to end the crisis is to start treating all migrants the way Mexican migrants are treated: by turning them away from the border.

But Obama’s base won’t let him do that.

So the crisis on the border will continue, more migrants will come to the United States, and Obama will continue to facilitate their entry into the country. Until there is a strong signal that Americans will not tolerate this politically, the status quo will not change.

***

1. Start deporting people. Far from being cold-hearted or “draconian,” deportations will save lives and restore much-needed credibility to the U.S. immigration system. The thousands of illegals who risk their lives and those of their minor children to cross our southwest border are doing so in large part because they believe once here, they will not be sent back. Here is where Obama’s actions speak louder than his words. Contrary to the Administration’s claim of toughness on deportation, interior removals have dropped by 40 percent over the past three years. In 2013, for instance, Obama’s Administration deported less than 0.2 percent of illegal aliens who had not committed a major crime. As John Sandweg, Obama’s former director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told the Los Angeles Times in April: “If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero.” No surprise that a plurality of Americans in the latest Rasmussen poll believe President Obama helped create the current crisis.

2. Halt foreign aid, work, and tourist visas for any country that refuses to assist in the repatriation of its citizens who have entered our country illegally. Ditto for countries that facilitate the transport of illegals to the U.S., as Mexico is currently doing. In egregious cases, we should consider suspending trade agreements and freezing the bank accounts of the political leaders of offending nations. If you abuse your relationship with America by effectively dumping your low-skilled workers here, you should suffer the economic consequences.

3. Order U.S. financial institutions to stop remittances illegal immigrants wire back to their home countries. For decades, other nations have enjoyed the economic benefit of money made illegally here but sent there. Last year, remittances topped a whopping $51 billion, and almost half of that went to Mexico. The best way for people to fix their own countries is to work in their home countries and fight for political reforms there. The incentive to come here illegally will be greatly reduced if they can’t transfer money out of the country.

***

Director of the federal agency responsible for aiding the unaccompanied alien children illegally coming to the United States from Central America told a conference Tuesday that staffers should be reminded of Jesus Christ when working with refugees.

“Jesus was a refugee, and that’s a very good reminder to all of us,” Eskinder Negash, director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), said at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ 2014 Migration Conference in Washington, CNS News reported.

“I happen to believe in [the] refugee program, not just because Jesus was a refugee — because I was also myself a refugee,” Mr. Negash said, adding that people working with refugees “can only be successful and have a long impact on people when we actually start seeing ourselves [as] the people we want to serve.”

***

Via the Corner.

***

***


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9

You are welcome. What did you do to celebrate?

non-nonpartisan on July 10, 2014 at 3:07 AM

My husband and I spent the morning in San Francisco (after a doctor’s appt.) I enjoy photography but not of the usual sights of San Francisco, so hubs played taxi driver while I pointed and clicked. Then we spent quality time with my daughter. We don’t to see her too much. She’s one busy gal.

31giddyup on July 10, 2014 at 3:15 AM

31giddyup on July 10, 2014 at 3:15 AM

Sounds good! =)

non-nonpartisan on July 10, 2014 at 3:53 AM

CODE RED in Tel Aviv:

IDF @IDFSpokesperson · 46s

BREAKING: More rocket sirens right now in Tel Aviv

Israel i24News Live,…..but staff is in a bunker temporarily:

canopfor on July 10, 2014 at 4:28 AM

UHG,.linky:

http://www.i24news.tv/en/tv/live

canopfor on July 10, 2014 at 4:29 AM

Israeli-Palestinian conflict
3m

Rocket sirens sound over Tel Aviv, Israel – @IDFSpokesperson
End of alert
============

Gaza, PS
8m
IDF spokesman reports 365 rockets in less than 3 days, averaging 1 rocket every 10 minutes – @PaulaSlier_RT
End of alert

canopfor on July 10, 2014 at 4:30 AM

I24 News is back:

Israeli-Palestinian conflict
2h

White House ‘isn’t planning to dispatch’ John Kerry to talk cease-fire between Israel and Hamas – @WSJ
Read more on online.wsj.com
===========================

Failed Mideast Peace Effort Sidelines U.S. in Current Strife
Washington Doesn’t Plan to Dispatch Kerry to Region to Broker Cease-Fire

Updated July 9, 2014 7:08 p.m. ET
*********************************

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration’s two failed Arab-Israeli peace drives are looming large in the latest Middle East violence, current and former U.S. officials said, sharply limiting the White House’s ability to de-escalate tensions.

Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama’s top Mideast adviser, Philip Gordon, have been holding consultations with Israeli and Palestinian leaders in recent days to try to prevent further violence, senior U.S. officials said.

But with the crisis escalating just two months after formal U.S.-led peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians collapsed, the White House isn’t preparing to dispatch Mr. Kerry to the region to broker a cease-fire, these officials said.
The collapse of the diplomatic efforts prompted all three parties to lob recriminations. The Obama administration’s special Mideast envoy, Martin Indyk, resigned in June and returned to a Washington think tank.

Mr. Kerry, who spent the majority of his first year at the State Department working on a Mideast peace agreement, has turned to other pressing national-security challenges, such as Syria’s civil war, Iran’s nuclear program and Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. This week, he is in Beijing and will travel to Afghanistan to grapple with an election crisis.

“Our credibility in the region has been damaged by our failure to deliver a peace agreement,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast peace negotiator in the Clinton and George H.W. Bush administrations. He has publicly advised Mr. Kerry against returning to the region because of what he described as the U.S.’s limited ability to effect change at this stage.

The White House has publicly urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to resurrect peace talks, but without giving a sense of when or if the U.S. would re-engage in a significant way.

“I think it’s been clear that both sides haven’t…made the difficult choices needed to continue the peace process,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Wednesday. “When there is an absence of peace or a peace process, there is a vacuum left that at times is filled by violence. So that’s the circumstances we’re looking at now.”

Mr. Kerry’s aggressive push to forge a comprehensive peace agreement in less than a year was controversial when he launched it in July 2013.

Critics had said neither Mr. Netanyahu nor Mr. Abbas was committed to taking the steps to reach an agreement. They predicted there would be real costs if the talks collapsed, as the U.S.’s aggressive initiative raised expectations in Palestinian territories.

They also cited massive Mideast instability as further undercutting the likelihood of completing a deal in such a short time.

“Kerry misjudged the time required and the ability of either leader to deliver,” said Mr. Miller, vice president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Mr. Kerry and the White House say the Obama administration’s two major pushes to forge Mideast peace over the past six years were driven precisely by a desire to avoid the type of violence that is currently subsuming Israel and the Palestinian territories.

They said there is never going to be a perfect time for Israelis or the Palestinians to make the painful sacrifices that are required for peace.

“The United States remains prepared to assist the parties in bridging the substantive gaps that remain,” Mr. Gordon said in a speech delivered on Tuesday in Tel Aviv. “Our deep commitment has not waned, but it’s not our commitment by which peace will live or die. It’s yours and your Palestinian neighbors.”

International efforts to end the latest violence are seen as having limited potential because of the breakdown in the peace talks, said U.S. and Arab officials, which removed an essential tool to contain violence.

Egypt’s new president, Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, has been seeking to broker a cease-fire between Israel and the militant Palestinian group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, from which dozens of rockets have been fired on Israel in recent days. Israeli officials are concerned the conflict could escalate because Mr. Sisi, a former general, doesn’t have influence with Hamas.

Mr. Abbas has also spoken with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and European Union foreign-policy chief Catherine Ashton in a bid to end the Israeli onslaught, senior Palestinian officials said. But they said only Washington has the influence with Mr. Netanyahu to curtail Israel’s military operations.

“The U.S. doesn’t have the luxury to be away from the Middle East,” said Maen Areikat, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s ambassador to Washington. “They don’t want to see the region drifting into chaos.”
(More)
=======

http://online.wsj.com/articles/failed-mideast-peace-effort-sidelines-u-s-in-current-strife-1404946094?mod=WSJ_LatestHeadlines

canopfor on July 10, 2014 at 4:38 AM

Gaza, PS
4m
Update: 2 rockets fall in open areas in Tel Aviv region following rocket sirens – @haaretzcom
End of alert
============

Haaretz.com @haaretzcom · 15m

UN nuclear agency: Material seized by Iraqi insurgents ‘low grade’ http://dlvr.it/6H1bf1

canopfor on July 10, 2014 at 4:54 AM

https://twitter.com/PaulaSlier_RT

PaulaSlier_RT @PaulaSlier_RT · 37s

#UN #SecurityCouncil is to meet today on #Israel/#Palestine hostilities

canopfor on July 10, 2014 at 4:55 AM

From a Countrymen,…whats there to add:

Live Blog: Decision on ground assault will be made within 2-3 days

July 09th 2014 – 08:46am

You have a lot of supporters here in Canada. May God be with you and may your civilians and soldiers be under God’s umbrella. We do hope you can finally put an end to these terrorists. We know you want peace but your enemies do not. God bless you.

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/36623-140708-gaza-israel-launches-operation-protective-edge

canopfor on July 10, 2014 at 5:00 AM

Stop firing rockets:

Gaza, PS
1m

Israeli air strikes kill 8 members of a family including 5 children in a pre-dawn Gaza raid, Palestinian officials say – @Reuters
Read more on reuters.com

https://twitter.com/Reuters

canopfor on July 10, 2014 at 5:02 AM

Jen Psaki
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
July 9, 2014
************

SRAEL/PALESTINIANS

Rocket Attacks / Diplomatic Engagement / Secretary Kerry’s Efforts / Humanitarian Issues / Continuing Peace Process / Call for Restraint / Path Forward / Regional Concern
Iran Involvement

TRANSCRIPT:

12:59 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone.
************************

QUESTION: Jen, thank you. So can we start with the Palestinian Israeli –

MS. PSAKI: We certainly can.

QUESTION: — fight over Gaza? Yesterday you took issue with my number. Today the Israelis acknowledged that they have waged, as of one o’clock this morning our time, they have waged 160 bombing runs over Gaza. Thirty-nine Palestinians have been killed, including a whole family, children and so on. Are you doing anything beyond just calling for restraint to actually bring about some sort of a de-escalation or a quiet?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first – I’ll give you a brief update on the Secretary’s diplomatic engagement, as well as the Administration, I should say. Secretary Kerry spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu this morning and he plans to speak with President Abbas over the next 24 hours. There’s a bit of a time change challenge, as you all know, given he’s in China. White House coordinator Phil Gordon is in Jerusalem and the West Bank today and has been meeting with key decision makers on both sides. He met today with President Abbas. And the Secretary, as I noted yesterday, has been making calls over the past 24 hours to world leaders as we continue to evaluate the situation and look for ways to stop the rocket attacks.

As I mentioned yesterday, and I want to reiterate, certainly no country should be expected to stand by while rocket attacks from a terrorist organization are launching into their country and impacting innocent civilians. At the same time, in the Secretary’s conversations, in the conversations of all of our senior Administration officials, they’ve been encouraging all sides to de-escalate the situation and certainly we don’t want to see any civilian casualties. That is one of the prominent reasons why it’s so important to move forward and de-escalate the situation on the ground.

QUESTION: Okay. He also made very clear time and time again Israel’s right to self-defense. And I asked you about the Palestinians’ right to self-defense. Let me ask you this: The population in Gaza, is it largely Hamas operatives or largely innocent civilians? And if there are larger Hamas operatives, then an argument can be made that they could be targets. But if they are largely civilians, then they should have, certainly, the right to self-defense –

MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, I would simply say there’s a –

QUESTION: — or to protection.

MS. PSAKI: — strong difference between attacks –

QUESTION: Right, I understand.

MS. PSAKI: — rocket attacks launched by a terrorist organization that is based in Gaza and the right of Israel to defend itself. At the same time, as you know, we work closely with the Palestinians. We work closely with the Israelis. And it’s important at this point in time to see if all sides can take steps to de-escalate.

QUESTION: How could you follow or do you have any means of following what is going on on the ground in Gaza in terms of the humanitarian suffering, people that lack water, lack the – of medical care, lack of food, things of that nature. Do you have anyone –

MS. PSAKI: How do we –

QUESTION: Do you have anyone on the ground in Gaza that can monitor the situation?

MS. PSAKI: Said, I think we are concerned about any humanitarian suffering around the world. As you know, that isn’t about sides. That’s about what’s right morally. But I think – do you have any more questions on this issue?

QUESTION: But – yes, I do. Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead.

QUESTION: You also mentioned that Mr. Gordon – Phil Gordon said yesterday in a speech at the peace conference, he said that the current Israeli Government is not committed to peace. Those were his words. Do you agree?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think it’s been clear that both sides haven’t taken the – made the difficult choices needed to continue the peace process. And when there’s an absence of peace or a peace process, there’s a vacuum left that, at times, is filled by violence. So that’s the circumstance we’re looking at right now.

QUESTION: But he didn’t say both sides. He said the current Israeli Government is not committed to peace, and he went on to say –

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to parse his words –

QUESTION: — and he went on to say –

MS. PSAKI: — but we’ve – let me finish. We’ve consistently said that both sides didn’t make the necessary choices needed to continue the process.

QUESTION: Do –

MS. PSAKI: I think we have one more for you and then we’ve got to move on.

QUESTION: Okay. One more, I promise, yeah. And he also said that Israel continues to deny the Palestinians sovereignty, security, and dignity. Do you agree with that assessment?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to parse his words. As you know, there are difficult issues with –

QUESTION: But he –

MS. PSAKI: — let me finish, Said – with strong emotional feelings when it relates to these tough choices that need to be made around the peace process. Certainly, the Secretary, the President still believe, as is – as the President wrote in his op-ed, that that is the right path towards a stable and secure long-term Middle East. And that’s why we’re keeping the door open to a peace process in the future.

QUESTION: But you agree Mr. Gordon –

MS. PSAKI: I think we need to move on to other questions.

QUESTION: — Mr. Gordon speaks on behalf of the Administration?

MS. PSAKI: Samir, go ahead.

QUESTION: Iraq – Iraq?

QUESTION: No, let’s stay with Palestinian – yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Well, let’s do this process.

QUESTION: No, this – the Palestinian.

MS. PSAKI: Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: One more.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Lucas.

QUESTION: Do you know who’s supplying Hamas with these rockets?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any information to share on that, Lucas.

QUESTION: Because a few weeks ago the United Nations said that Iran had been fingered in delivery of rockets to Gaza and Sudan, and I was wondering if you had a comment on that.

MS. PSAKI: That is true, and has – those reports have been around for some time, I believe, but I don’t have anything specific or any confirmation from here.

QUESTION: Is this being brought up on the side during the ongoing nuclear talks in Vienna?

MS. PSAKI: Is the issue of –

QUESTION: Iran supplying Hamas with rockets?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of. The focus is on the nuclear issue. There’s plenty to discuss on that particular issue.

QUESTION: And how do you discuss just nuclear issues with Iran when all this is going on, them supplying rockets to Hamas or Syria, and also possible destabilizing efforts in Iraq?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as we’ve long said, Lucas, obviously resolving the nuclear issue and preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is not the only issue we have with Iran. But it’s such an important issue and it’s one that’s vital to our national security interests and to the security of the region that we feel a focus on that at these discussions is absolutely appropriate.

QUESTION: But would cutting off the supply line help with the conflict currently going on in Gaza?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think it’s clear, Lucas, that our concern and our condemnation of the rocket attacks has been consistent. And of course we’d be concerned about the suppliers, but I don’t have any more information to share on that.

Go ahead, Roz.

QUESTION: What specifically did the Secretary tell Prime Minister Netanyahu in his call?

MS. PSAKI: Well, they’ve been in close touch over the course of the last several days. They’ve been discussing the circumstances on the ground. Certainly, he commended him for his call for restraint this weekend when he was meeting with his cabinet, and they’re discussing a path forward. I think certainly Prime Minister Netanyahu is concerned about the threat that the rockets from Hamas pose to his own people. He’s spoken about that publicly. The Secretary is concerned as well, and so they’ve discussed that and they’ve had ongoing discussions.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary say to the prime minister that while it’s perfectly appropriate to defend against rocket attacks from Gaza, that any effort to launch an offensive is inflammatory?

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t put words in his mouth. What he’s conveyed is what I just said. And as you know, we’ve – we’re encouraging all sides to de-escalate the situation on the ground. But again, Israel has every right to defend themselves and take steps to defend themselves, as – and as we know, the aggression is currently coming from Hamas in Gaza.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary raise any concerns that the U.S. might have about Israel’s plans to call up 40,000 reservists? You don’t need 40,000 people to operate Iron Dome.

MS. PSAKI: Again, I don’t have anything more to read out from the call, so I think I’ll leave it at what I just said.

QUESTION: And then besides the time difference in trying to reach President Abbas, what would be the thrust of the Secretary’s message to him?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think it’s a similar discussion in terms of discussing the path forward and how to de-escalate the situation on the ground. Obviously, as you know, President Abbas has condemned a range of the attacks as well as the recent tragic events with the three Israeli teenagers. And the Secretary will simply have a discussion about the path forward.

QUESTION: President Abbas also noted today that this wasn’t just a matter of the Israeli Government engaged with Hamas, but that this was – and I’m paraphrasing here – an attack on the entire Palestinian people. Is that kind of language coming from Mr. Abbas appropriate?

MS. PSAKI: I didn’t see his specific comments, so I don’t have a comment on them.

Do we have more on this issue?

QUESTION: Yes, please. (Inaudible.)

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Go ahead in the back. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Regarding the Secretary Kerry contacts with the regional leaders, you said –

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Yesterday, you didn’t give any details. Do you have something to say today?

MS. PSAKI: I can give you a list of the meetings or the engagements, and certainly it’s a discussion about the circumstances on the ground. He spoke with Qatari Foreign Minister al-Attiyah, he spoke with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. I mentioned his call with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Those are the calls that he’s had today and he’s looking to speak with President Abbas in the next 24 hours.

QUESTION: So you think that regional power or regional countries have a role to play in the escalation of this, or you just asking the two sides?

MS. PSAKI: Well, they – certainly regional countries have a stake in the stability of the region. And so the Secretary’s simply reaching out and having a discussion about the path forward with these regional leaders as well.

QUESTION: So either Prime Minister Netanyahu or Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority president, did they ask for other regional or did they ask their – your – what you call it – being in touch with leaders to be involved in this?

MS. PSAKI: I would point you to them to answer that question. I think the Secretary feels it’s only natural to have these discussions with countries in the region and their leaders.

QUESTION: So there is another thing. Related to the – just to check with you, it’s like – you said this morning he had a call with Netanyahu –

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: — Prime Minister Netanyahu. This is the third call in the last four days? I mean, you said before, I think it was Friday and Sunday?

MS. PSAKI: That’s correct. I believe at least three calls in the last several days. And during those calls, he certainly reiterated our concern about escalating tensions and our willingness to — expressed our willingness to engage and helping to stop the rocket fire and restore the 2012 ceasefire as soon as possible. I mentioned the calls he’s had with foreign leaders.

Let me reiterate, just in response to Said’s earlier question, we are concerned about the safety and security of civilians on both sides and – whether that’s the residents of southern Israel who are forced to live under rocket fire in their homes and the civilians in Gaza. And that’s why we’ve called on both sides to do all they can to restore calm and to take steps to protect civilians, even as we’re working to resolve the circumstances here.

QUESTION: Yes, please. My last question: Regarding the rocket attacks, in the last two days, the – in relation to Iron Dome statistics, almost that – just 20 percent of those rockets were intercepted. Did Israel ask U.S. for more help to – regarding the rocket attacks?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of any additional requests. As you know, we are – we provide a significant amount of security assistance and provisions to the Israelis.

canopfor on July 10, 2014 at 5:16 AM

Ugh, again, linky:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/07/228980.htm

canopfor on July 10, 2014 at 5:22 AM

Last night Noah Rothman retweeted this article attacking the HotAir comment section and said the article is “valuable commentary.” The article suggests that “racism” is common in the comment section:

http://politicalomnivore.blogspot.com/2014/07/brand-damage-at-border.html?m=1

Noah Rothman and people like the author of the above article love to lecture others on the need to be compassionate, but where is THEIR compassion for the Americans who are being hurt by the ongoing illegal alien invasion?

bluegill on July 10, 2014 at 5:32 AM

Here is where the author says Noah retweeted it:
https://twitter.com/omnivoreblog/status/487059275311624192

bluegill on July 10, 2014 at 5:35 AM

Looks like Noah might not have retweeted, but instead just responded to it approvingly.

bluegill on July 10, 2014 at 5:36 AM

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Belated Happy Birthday Giddyup.

Big country concert starts today down the road. I don’t know what stars are there. I guess I could look it up. Personally I’m doing laundry.

The EPA made the landlord put in an expensive water system so our lot rent is going up $20. I guess I’ll have to drop my cable. It’s well water. I don’t expect it to be better and nobody drinks it anyway and they probably still won’t.

crankyoldlady on July 10, 2014 at 5:43 AM

Here is Noah’s response: https://twitter.com/noahcrothman/status/487057831821320192

bluegill on July 10, 2014 at 5:45 AM

country Concert

crankyoldlady on July 10, 2014 at 5:50 AM

crankyoldlady on July 10, 2014 at 5:51 AM

Never mind. It’s countryconcert.com

crankyoldlady on July 10, 2014 at 5:55 AM

Morning all
Will mika be happy with the gop bashing by obama?
you betcha

cmsinaz on July 10, 2014 at 6:02 AM

Gop talk of impeachment is the new squirrel for the lsm
Along with Sarah palin

cmsinaz on July 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM

Mika thinks dear leader did enough by talking with Perry instead of going to the border
180 from yesterday

Must have gotten her daily email from Valerie

cmsinaz on July 10, 2014 at 6:10 AM

Via drudge, WH bowling alley renovation canceled

cmsinaz on July 10, 2014 at 6:19 AM

Perry was on CNN this morning. He was just saying what we’ve heard before and I didn’t hear much of it.

crankyoldlady on July 10, 2014 at 6:23 AM

Nagin has no party affiliation
who knew
/

He would have been called the conservative republican former mayor if he was from the right

Double standard big time

cmsinaz on July 10, 2014 at 6:23 AM

Ill take Perry over obama anyday col
:)

cmsinaz on July 10, 2014 at 6:32 AM

Both Perry and Jindal would make excellent presidents. They both know how to run things. Of course it will be a long time until we once again have a democracy but I hope when we do these guys will still be around.

crankyoldlady on July 10, 2014 at 6:51 AM

He would have been called the conservative republican former mayor if he was from the right

Double standard big time

cmsinaz on July 10, 2014 at 6:23 AM

The local channels do that. You find yourself wondering what party people belong to.

crankyoldlady on July 10, 2014 at 6:54 AM

Ted Cruz threw out an important point yesterday.

The administration is demanding $4B to help illegals who are fleeing from gang violence in Central and South America. If that’s the issue, what about the children fleeing gang violence in Chicago, New Orleans, or Detroit?

Shouldn’t we be taking care of our own before worrying about these filthy invaders?

Happy Nomad on July 10, 2014 at 6:55 AM

Mika thinks dear leader did enough by talking with Perry instead of going to the border
180 from yesterday

Must have gotten her daily email from Valerie

cmsinaz on July 10, 2014 at 6:10 AM

Mika is a good foot soldier. The rat-eared wonder said:

“This isn’t theater, this is a problem. I’m not interested in photo ops.”

(Even as the WH picture of the day was him out on his date with Hickenlooper.)

By this morning I’m sure she got the memo that the POTUS doesn’t need to go to border to be fully briefed. BTW notice that the Dems are still referring to this as “a problem” and not a crisis.

Happy Nomad on July 10, 2014 at 6:59 AM

crankyoldlady on July 10, 2014 at 6:51 AM

ditto

Happy Nomad on July 10, 2014 at 6:55 AM

great point….

whose back pocket is that money really going to….when you hear the IRS sent out over 3 billion to folks who shouldn’t have received it, i don’t want to give one more dime to any govt activity….they have to make do with that they have now….

cmsinaz on July 10, 2014 at 7:00 AM

Happy Nomad on July 10, 2014 at 6:59 AM

indeed….they are using ‘refugee’ more as well…

cmsinaz on July 10, 2014 at 7:11 AM

When the government officials are breaking the law I think we have right to fight back. It’s time we stopped trying to deal with these criminals through legal means. Legality means nothing to them and it’s a waste of time.

crankyoldlady on July 10, 2014 at 7:16 AM

By this morning I’m sure she got the memo that the POTUS doesn’t need to go to border to be fully briefed. BTW notice that the Dems are still referring to this as “a problem” and not a crisis.
Happy Nomad on July 10, 2014 at 6:59 AM

Yep, you’re right.

I don’t believe Democrats see thousands of illegal aliens streaming into this country as a negative. They’re only forced to feign concern now that the pictures of the mess have been circulating.

bluegill on July 10, 2014 at 7:19 AM

Legality means nothing to them and it’s a waste of time.

crankyoldlady on July 10, 2014 at 7:16 AM

this

cmsinaz on July 10, 2014 at 7:20 AM

cmsinaz

saw the clip on Sarah. wall street journal can’t stand her. joe hates her. at the end of the segment he wants jesse ventura (suing chris kyles widow) and Sarah, to go away.

renalin on July 10, 2014 at 7:32 AM

renalin on July 10, 2014 at 7:32 AM

sigh

she’s too extreme for them…

cmsinaz on July 10, 2014 at 7:41 AM

just read KJs take…..

read it y’all

cmsinaz on July 10, 2014 at 7:45 AM

Last night Noah Rothman retweeted this article attacking the HotAir comment section and said the article is “valuable commentary.” The article suggests that “racism” is common in the comment section:

http://politicalomnivore.blogspot.com/2014/07/brand-damage-at-border.html?m=1

Noah Rothman and people like the author of the above article love to lecture others on the need to be compassionate, but where is THEIR compassion for the Americans who are being hurt by the ongoing illegal alien invasion?

bluegill on July 10, 2014 at 5:32 AM

Here is Noah’s response: https://twitter.com/noahcrothman/status/487057831821320192

bluegill on July 10, 2014 at 5:45 AM

The Political Omnivore’s completely airheaded commentary there reveals that he truly is a stupid, anti-rational human being, like Obama. I can see he probably thinks he is as smart as Obama thinks of himself, too lol You just can’t reason with people who are so driven by emotion like that.

I hadn’t read Noah’s piece about Glenn Beck here until after I saw TPO’s insane article. All I can say is, wow, Noah is even less intelligent than I thought.

non-nonpartisan on July 10, 2014 at 8:00 AM

cmsinaz on July 10, 2014 at 7:45 AM

Thank you, ma’am! Here ’tis…

“The president needs to understand that the single most important thing that he can do is put the National Guard on the border to coordinate with local law enforcement, with state law enforcement, with the border patrol…” – Texas Governor Rick Perry

My take: Obama on Illegal Alien Invasion: “It’s Congress’ Fault!”

kingsjester on July 10, 2014 at 8:18 AM

What’s really discouraging about the terrorist situation and illegal invasion from the south, is there’s a year and a half before we the people get to decide if a change in regime will occur or not. Even then, it’s a cr*p shoot with the choices we are likely to have. It may be better to pull the plug now and wait for the end.

Kissmygrits on July 10, 2014 at 8:45 AM

What’s really discouraging about the terrorist situation and illegal invasion from the south, is there’s a year and a half before we the people get to decide if a change in regime will occur or not. Even then, it’s a cr*p shoot with the choices we are likely to have. It may be better to pull the plug now and wait for the end.

Kissmygrits on July 10, 2014 at 8:45 AM

We need to stop pinning our hopes on this or the next election. They may not come off and even if they do they surely won’t be legal.

crankyoldlady on July 10, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Elian Gonzalez.

They had to send him back, because families had to be together. Families had to be reunited.

Couple that with it’s not cheaper to keep ‘em.

*shaking my head*

Fallon on July 10, 2014 at 9:19 AM

1. Start deporting people.
2. Halt foreign aid, work, and tourist visas for any country that refuses to assist in the repatriation of its citizens who have entered our country illegally.
3. Order U.S. financial institutions to stop remittances illegal immigrants wire back to their home countries.

These are the things our representatives need to work on, particularly # 1 & 2.

#1 would give the American people some hope the system is still partially functioning.

A rigorous implementation of #2 would provide the stick that has some true leverage.

Works for me…………

geezerintraining on July 10, 2014 at 11:55 AM

bluegill,

Thanks for posting Omnivore and Noah’s twitters. For Noah to call Omnivore’s post “valuable commentary” was a bit much.

I’m beginning to wonder if Noah sees part of his work as “enlightening” us. Patronizing and self-righteousness is the MO of the GOPe and the Left.

INC on July 10, 2014 at 4:42 PM

I’m beginning to wonder if Noah sees part of his work as “enlightening” us. Patronizing and self-righteousness is the MO of the GOPe and the Left.

INC on July 10, 2014 at 4:42 PM

When I saw Noah’s ridiculous tweet and then read TPO’s stupid article, that was the exact conclusion I drew-Noah believes we need saving, and he, like Glenn Beck, thinks he’s one of the right ones to do it lol

People with messiah complexes are always annoying, and moreso when they come from the right.

non-nonpartisan on July 10, 2014 at 5:11 PM

non-nonpartisan on July 10, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Yes, except I don’t think Noah’s coming from the right. He’s on the Left side of the spectrum. He’s come here to tell us what it really means to be a conservative and to set us straight on a variety of issues.

INC on July 10, 2014 at 5:20 PM

Yes, except I don’t think Noah’s coming from the right. He’s on the Left side of the spectrum. He’s come here to tell us what it really means to be a conservative and to set us straight on a variety of issues.

INC on July 10, 2014 at 5:20 PM

I don’t agree that he is coming from the left. I see him more like this

Patronizing and self-righteousness is the MO of the GOPe and the Left.

INC on July 10, 2014 at 4:42 PM

I consider that the mushy middle.

However we describe him, I do think you’d agree with me he believes he is coming from the right-he’s a “wise” conservative with much to teach us, in his own eyes.

non-nonpartisan on July 10, 2014 at 6:24 PM

I do think you’d agree with me he believes he is coming from the right-he’s a “wise” conservative with much to teach us, in his own eyes.

non-nonpartisan on July 10, 2014 at 6:24 PM

I do agree with that.

He’s coming from the Left of center–not the far Left–but anyone who writes this:

On issues ranging from same-sex marriage, to abortion, to divorce, to immigration reform, to gun ownership rights; the GOP is a coalition party where widely divergent views on these and other matters are condoned and debate is encouraged.

has never read the GOP platform.

INC on July 10, 2014 at 6:47 PM

GOP 2012 Platform on marriage:

A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage

That is why Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle—in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts—makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so….

Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage

The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity….

INC on July 10, 2014 at 6:50 PM

GOP 2012 Platform on abortion:

The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the nonconsensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions—gender discrimination in its most lethal form—and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia. We call for a ban on the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

We also salute the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose life, and we take comfort in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

And on the topic of abortion Noah also needs to read this:

How the Republican National Platform Has Remained Pro-Life

INC on July 10, 2014 at 6:55 PM

GOP 2012 Platform on immigration reform. This section is quite long so I’ll only quote excerpts.

The Rule of Law: Legal Immigration

The greatest asset of the American economy is the American worker. Just as immigrant labor helped build our country in the past, today’s legal immigrants are making vital contributions in every aspect of our national life. Their industry and commitment to American values strengthens our economy, enriches our culture, and enables us to better understand and more effectively compete with the rest of the world. Illegal immigration undermines those benefits and affects U.S. workers. In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, human trafficking, and criminal gangs, the presence of millions of unidentified persons in this country poses grave risks to the safety and the sovereignty of the United States. Our highest priority, therefore, is to secure the rule of law both at our borders and at ports of entry.

We recognize that for most of those seeking entry into this country, the lack of respect for the rule of law in their homelands has meant economic exploitation and political oppression by corrupt elites. In this country, the rule of law guarantees equal treatment to every individual, including more than one million immigrants to whom we grant permanent residence every year. That is why we oppose any form of amnesty for those who, by intentionally violating the law, disadvantage those who have obeyed it. Granting amnesty only rewards and encourages more law breaking.When Americans need jobs, it is absolutely essential that we protect them from illegal labor in the workplace. In addition, it is why we demand tough penalties for those who practice identity theft, deal in fraudulent documents, and traffic in human beings….

The current Administration’s approach to immigration has undermined the rule of law at every turn.…It has created a backdoor amnesty program unrecognized in law, granting worker authorization to illegal aliens, and shown little regard for the life-and-death situations facing the men and women of the border patrol….

…In order to restore the rule of law, federal funding should be denied to sanctuary cities that violate federal law and endanger their own citizens, and federal funding should be denied to universities that provide instate tuition rates to illegal aliens, in open defiance of federal law.

…To that end, while we encourage the retention and transmission of heritage tongues, we support English as the nation’s official language, a unifying force essential for the educational and economic advancement of—not only immigrant communities—but also our nation as a whole.

INC on July 10, 2014 at 7:06 PM

GOP 2012 Platform on the Second Amendment–what Noah euphemistically called “gun ownership rights.” (What conservative ever used that term? It’s a sanitized version of the phrase gun control.)

The Second Amendment: Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the lawabiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a lawabiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the illconsidered Clinton gun ban. We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as “Fast and Furious,” conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border. We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration’s Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle. We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority.

INC on July 10, 2014 at 7:11 PM

I realize that the GOPe could care less about the platform and undermines parts of it at every turn, but it defines the Republican Party until 2016.

Until then, Phyllis Schlafly declared of the 2012 platform:

The Republican Party platform may be the best one ever adopted. The party has long since learned that fiscal, social and sovereignty issues cannot be ignored or separated, but must be addressed as all part of a national campaign.

The media may have forgotten (or chosen to forget) that Ronald Reagan’s big victories, including his 49-state victory in 1984, were based on a three-legged stool of dealing directly with all three clusters of issues.

And this is why:

Altogether, the 2012 Republican Platform is an excellent document written by grass-roots conservatives. It is a true reflection of American values.

INC on July 10, 2014 at 7:18 PM

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

Ronald Reagan
Let Them Go Their Way
March 1, 1975
2nd Annual CPAC Convention

INC on July 10, 2014 at 7:23 PM

He’s coming from the Left of center–not the far Left–but anyone who writes this:

On issues ranging from same-sex marriage, to abortion, to divorce, to immigration reform, to gun ownership rights; the GOP is a coalition party where widely divergent views on these and other matters are condoned and debate is encouraged.

has never read the GOP platform.

INC on July 10, 2014 at 6:47 PM

I don’t believe we are going to agree about this. I think my spectrum is broader than yours when it comes to saying who’s in the right, left, and center. For an example, I can’t stand McCain, but I would not say he is coming from the left overall even though he does on certain issues. I know some categorize him differently than me, and I am ok with that. =)

non-nonpartisan on July 10, 2014 at 7:26 PM

non-nonpartisan on July 10, 2014 at 7:26 PM

It looks like we won’t. I simply am tired of having the term conservative redefined until it is meaningless and having assumptions made about the Republican party. Pale pastels and Dem-lite is where this is going.

INC on July 10, 2014 at 8:07 PM

It looks like we won’t. I simply am tired of having the term conservative redefined until it is meaningless and having assumptions made about the Republican party. Pale pastels and Dem-lite is where this is going.

INC on July 10, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Who should get to define what “conservative” means? I have my own definition of “conservative” that works best for me, which is, “the tendency to believe in less government control overall.” So what if no one else would agree with me-why should, or how does that affect me or anyone else?

I think am sure it’s a relatively pointless endeavor to argue about in the big scheme of things. I can easily think of better ways to spend my time than to worry about how people “should” be labeled. When someone starts to get upset about it, I take it as a sign they’ve gotten carried away.

And with that said, don’t forget that I find Noah to be a squish, and that I do not want the GOP to be Dem-lite. =)

non-nonpartisan on July 10, 2014 at 8:42 PM

non-nonpartisan on July 10, 2014 at 8:42 PM

How about beginning with Russell Kirk as the starting point? He authored the classic The Conservative Mind.

From the Heritage Foundation.

Russell Kirk was a prolific author, essayist, lecturer, and critic best known for The Conservative Mind (1953). Kirk made conservatism intellectually respectable in the modern era and christened the conservative movement with its name. In the following speech, delivered at the Heritage Foundation in 1987 [date below intro is 1986], Kirk enumerates ten principles of conservatism. The list, which he did not intend to be exhaustive, emphasizes an attitude—not a “fixed doctrine”—toward tradition, private institutions, and prudence which he calls “the negation of ideology.”

Kirk’s first point is that “the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order”—all things are not relative. As such, he emphasizes “custom, convention, and continuity,” for conservatism is “an attitude sustained by a body of sentiments,” in other words, a “persuasion.” At the same time, “conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.” This enables a healthy balance between the possibilities of the past and the future.

Kirk stresses that conservatives “pay attention to the principle of variety” and its benefits in private institutions. On a related note, conservatives understand the importance of “voluntary community” as the alternative to big government and espouse the belief that “freedom and property are closely linked.”

Kirk returns time and again to the imperfectability of human beings, which renders utopian schemes of government impossible. Given the obdurate permanence of human nature, “the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.” While conservatives reject progress for the sake of progress, they do understand that “permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.”

Kirk’s sobriety and skepticism indict as dangerous folly the historical evolution propounded by Progressivism as well as of all ideological thinking and utopian planning. There lies the great division of modern politics. Opposed to the willful ideologues are those who “recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties to the order spiritual and the order temporal.”

INC on July 12, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Kirk wasn’t just making things up as you’ll see from his speech. These principles were based on his own historical analysis of conservative writers.

“Ten Conservative Principles”

Russell Kirk
Lecture at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., March 20, 1986

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries. After some introductory remarks on this general theme, I will proceed to list ten such conservative principles.

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order….

INC on July 12, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Kirk:

What particular principles conservatives emphasize during any given time will vary with the circumstances and necessities of that era. The following ten articles of belief reflect the emphases of conservatives in America nowadays.

(1) First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent….

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

INC on July 12, 2014 at 7:26 PM

(2) Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.

Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to be gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.

INC on July 12, 2014 at 7:28 PM

(3) Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste.

INC on July 12, 2014 at 7:31 PM

(4) Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.

INC on July 12, 2014 at 7:32 PM

(5) Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

INC on July 12, 2014 at 7:35 PM

(6) Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

INC on July 12, 2014 at 7:36 PM

(7) Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic leveling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.

…For the institution of several property—that is, private property—has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny.

INC on July 12, 2014 at 7:38 PM

(8) Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.

For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity.

INC on July 12, 2014 at 7:40 PM

(9) Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.

The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

INC on July 12, 2014 at 7:42 PM

(10) Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. [see Hegel and derivatives, such as Marx] When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that give us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old….

INC on July 12, 2014 at 7:45 PM

The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.

INC on July 12, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Russell Kirk wrote, “At heart, all political problems are moral and religious problems.” I wholeheartedly agree.

I brought Kirk into this discussion, because agree or disagree with him on various aspects, he provides a historical analysis and starting point that is sorely lacking today.

People define conservatism willy-nilly according to their own lights–an activity that is the antithesis of conservatism. Concepts of an enduring moral order, the value of custom, convention and continuity, the humility of recognizing we are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, and the importance of prudence have been largely lost. I’d guess that less than half of the list that Kirk thought to be historic conservative principles are even in the mix of the thinking of those who claim to be conservatives.

The roots of conservatism have been cut and poisoned, yet we expect the trunk and branches to prosper. The leaves of our nation wither, yet we haven’t thought to consider why.

INC on July 12, 2014 at 7:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9