www.dailycorinthian.com
Reece Terry, publisher
Opinion
Mark Boehler, editor
4 • Saturday, June 18, 2016
Corinth, Miss.
Heed Trump’s warning One of Donald Trump’s political skills is giving widely condemned speeches. His post-Orlando jeremiad fit the pattern, but the speech was a little like Wagner’s music as described in the famous Mark Twain line: Not as bad as it sounds. There is something so inherently inflammatory in Trump’s delivery that he could read the Gettysburg Address and some listeners would Rich wonder how he could possibly such a thing. Lowry sayThe kernel of Trump’s National speech was rather obvious: Review “The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here. That is a fact, and it’s a fact we need to talk about.” The reaction of much of the opinion elite was nearly instantaneous: Whatever we do, let’s not talk about that fact. Countless articles have been written on how much better we are at assimilating Muslim immigrants than Europe is, usually with back-patting over our openness and fluidity as a society in contrast to the self-defeating insularity of a country like France. The Islamic State model of inspiring “lone wolves” already here is dependent on loosely assimilated American Muslims susceptible to its hateful appeals. Disturbingly, it is finding takers. In six months, terrorists have killed more than 60 people on our shores; two of the perpetrators were the sons of immigrants, and one an immigrant herself. One of the reasons we have avoided the problems of a France may be sheer numbers. France has 50 percent more Muslim immigrants than we do, even though it is a much smaller country. Only 1 percent of the U.S. population is Muslim; 7.5 percent of the French population is. The Somali community in Minneapolis, seeded with refugees and then replenished with chain migration, has proved a rich recruiting ground for Islamist extremists. On the current trajectory, we will take in 1 million Muslim immigrants or more over the next decade. It can’t be out of bounds to ask whether that’s a good idea. Or it shouldn’t be. The immigration debate is so encrusted with unexamined pieties that any suggestion that we reduce the number or the composition of the current immigrant flow is taken as an attempt to kneecap the Statue of Liberty. At bottom, the Trump doctrine on immigration is that our policy should serve our values and interests, and the status quo fails on both counts. That said, his proposed Muslim ban is a mistake. It communicates a hostility to all Muslims and, besides, is unworkable. Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies outlines a more sensible course. He suggests a return to a Cold Warera ideological test for new arrivals, geared to the struggle against radical Islam. It would ask potential immigrants questions such as whether they support killing religious converts or homosexuals. Anyone answering “yes” would be excluded. Applicants could lie, but at least the exercise would send a signal about what constitutes a lowest common denominator of American civic life. Responsibility for Omar Mateen’s heinous act is all his own, but it is certainly relevant that his Dear Old Dad supports the Taliban and hates gays. He is exactly the kind of immigrant you would hope to deny the priceless privilege of coming here. Krikorian also proposes to reduce legal immigration. If we eliminated the visa lottery, tightened the criteria for family unification and accepted fewer refugees, we would diminish the number of low-skilled immigrants who have trouble thriving here, and at the margins, the number of new Muslim entrants. Donald Trump does the cause of immigration restriction a disservice by rendering it in caricature. But the questions he raises won’t go away, and they shouldn’t. (Daily Corinthian columnist Rich Lowry can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com.)
Prayer for today Lord God, my soul fills with gratitude for the blessings which I have received and enjoyed. Help me to conform to thy will concerning my duties. May I not try to resist thy providence. I pray that thou wilt bless my daily life, and make my home a place to dispense kindness and cheerfulness. Amen.
A verse to share “Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.” — Philippians 4:11
Hillary Clinton: The most qualified? “Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.” – Frank Sinatra, as Maj. Bennett Marco “His brain has not only been washed, as they say ... It has been dry-cleaned.” – Khigh Dhiegh, as Dr. Yen Lo These lines from the 1962 classic film “The Manchurian Candidate” came to mind after I listened to President Obama’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton. The president said, “I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.” Really? She would be equal to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and himself? Notice President Obama didn’t say she is “more qualified,” because that would diminish him and when it comes to narcissism, Obama and the Clintons make Donald Trump look like a shrinking violet. In his effusive praise
of Hillary Clinton, the president did not mention any specific accomplishments that Cal might qualify Thomas her for the office. That Columnist is because there are none. There is a lot of symbolism, of course, but no substantive results as secretary of state, an unremarkable single term as a senator from New York, and eight years as first lady when, in 1993, she couldn’t get the Clintons’ health reform legislation through a majority Democratic Congress. There is, however, a long list of dubious and possibly criminal “achievements.” Besides the questions surrounding Clinton’s use of a private server and whether secret government documents were compromised and possibly hacked by America’s adversaries, there is another issue the major media have completely ignored.
It involves an institution known as Laureate Education, the parent company of Walden University, an online, for-profit school, which in its practices, critics of Trump University might say sounds like the allegations made against that school. Several students at Walden claimed to have been repeatedly delayed and given added costs as they tried to obtain their degrees, leaving them in considerable debt. A lawsuit was filed by the students, but a spokesperson for Walden told me the suits were “resolved” and the students have re-enrolled. Bill Clinton was paid an obscene $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 to serve as an honorary chancellor for Laureate International Universities. With the Clintons, the money tree never ceases bearing fruit. Are people seeking to buy influence with this amount of cash, or do they just like Bill and Hillary? The major media mainly
ignore such things because they function largely as an auxiliary to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. This and many other things from what conservative critics call “the Clinton crime foundation” ought to be red meat for Donald Trump. He should ask why the media are engaging in a near total blackout of Laureate Education and the enormous flow of money to the Clintons and their foundation from governments, institutions and individuals. Speaking of qualifications, perhaps no president, or presidential candidate, has been bought and paid for more than Hillary Clinton. She comes to this contest not with a long list of accomplishments, but with a trail of “receipts” and IOUs. If she becomes president, donors might reasonably be expected to collect on their investment. (Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@ tribpub.com.)
Brexit causes elites angst “Market Angst as U.K. Edges to Exit,” proclaims the headline on The Wall Street Journal’s lead story. The exit referred to is Britain’s departure from the European Union, a move that will be mandated if a majority votes “leave” rather than “remain” in the national referendum next Thursday. This outcome would be as astounding, to use the word Lincoln chose to describe the Civil War in his second inaugural address, to British and European financial markets and political insiders as Donald Trump’s victory for the Republican nomination has been to their American counterparts. The most recent polls have shown “leave” gaining ground and leading “remain” among British voters. There is reason to be skeptical about British polls. Pollsters there (with one exception, who flinched and didn’t announce his results) totally missed the Conservative Party’s victory in the May 2015 general election. But their big mistake, in retrospect, was oversampling young voters, who didn’t turn out in the numbers anticipated. That resulted in overstating the support for Labour. But in this election, the young tend to support “remain.” If they’re being oversampled now, “leave” is in a stronger position than current polling shows. The recent surge for “leave” seemed unlikely to
Reece Terry
Mark Boehler
publisher rterry@dailycorinthian.com
editor editor@dailycorinthian.com
Willie Walker
Roger Delgado
circulation manager circdirector@dailycorinthian.com
press foreman
elites. Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, the leftist Labour leader JerMichael emy Corbyn, Barone the Scottish NationalColumnist ists and the Conservatives’ 2010-2015 coalition partner Liberal Democrats all support “remain.” So do the president of the Bank of England and the financial leaders of the City of London. They all argue that Brexit would produce uncertainty and harm Britain’s economy. Exports to the Continent might be reduced. Financial firms might flee. All this is plausible but conjectural. Many of these same experts believed the euro would be a great success and urged Britain to join. Not many Brits are sorry Britain didn’t. Missing from the “remain” camp’s campaign of fear is any affirmative case for EU membership. That’s not a coincidence. When Britain’s Parliament and voters agreed to join in the 1970s, Europe looked shiny, bright and dynamic, Britain gritty, dull and stagnant. Now things are the other way around. Since the financial crisis, Britain has grown more than any other advanced country. Europe, with its stifling labor laws, overabundant welfare states and dodgy finances, has grown not at all.
These arguments aren’t advanced just by ragtag members of the UK Independence Party. The leaders of the “leave” campaign are Boris Johnson, the dazzling mayor of London for eight years until last month, and Michael Gove, who as education and justice secretary was the Conservatives’ most effective reformer. The argument they make most strongly for leaving is self-government. The European Union is an outgrowth of trade agreements made during the 1950s to prevent Germany and France from going to war again. The EU’s leaders, not democratically accountable, have pursued “an ever-closer union,” overriding sovereign states. It was a noble aim, originally, and has had good effects in pushing nations wishing EU membership to meet democratic norms. But it has failed to create a European consciousness that can replicate the best effects, so visible in Britain over the years, of allegiance to a nation-state. The lack of self-government is most visible in immigration. Britain must accept EU immigrants, more from Eastern Europe than it would like, and fears being forced to accept some of the nearly 1 million “refugees” that German Chancellor Angela Merkel, on her own, welcomed to Germany in August 2015. The dangers such young men – or, in time, their young sons – can cause have been visible in Co-
World Wide Web: www.dailycorinthian.com To Sound Off: E-mail: email: news@dailycorinthian.com Circulation 287-6111 Classified Adv. 287-6147
logne, Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino and Orlando, as they were in Madrid and London a decade ago. Johnson and Gove advocate an alternative for Britain, one advanced for America in these columns: a point system, to allow in only high-skill immigrants, as has been done so successfully in Australia and Canada. Self-government also means getting away from EU over-regulation, symbolized by its dictates on the shape of bananas. The Continental tradition of France and Germany is that anything must be regulated before it is allowed. The British common-law tradition is that things are allowed until the people’s representatives decide they must be regulated or banned. In Britain in April Barack Obama called on Britons to vote “remain” and promised that if they didn’t the U.S. would leave them “in the back of the queue” in trade negotiations – a shameful stance toward a valiant ally. Brexit is a choice for the British people, one we can live with and should respect whichever way they go. (Daily Corinthian columnist Michael Barone is senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics.)
How to reach us -- extensions:
Newsroom.....................317 Circulation....................301 news@dailycorinthian.com advertising@dailycorinthian. Advertising...................339 Classifieds....................302 com Classad@dailycorinthian.com Bookkeeping.................333
Editorials represent the voice of the Daily Corinthian. Editorial columns, letters to the editor and other articles that appear on this page represent the opinions of the writers and the Daily Corinthian may or may not agree.