Trump is praying that the IRS doesn’t finish its audit before the election.
May 28, 2016 at 11:53am
Quite so, the secession ordinances listed quite a few grievances to justify dissolving the Union, but in most of them, slavery took pride of place. “States’ rights” primarily meant states’ rights to have slave codes, slave patrols, and even laws banning any speech or publication critical of slavery. The spark that set off secession was the electoral victory of the Republican Party, whose main goal was to limit the spread of slavery.
The 1787 Constitution did not forbid slavery. The Dred Scott decision not only upheld the institution, it also seemed to say that even free blacks had “no rights which the white man is bound to respect.” But equally, the US Constitution also did not protect slavery in perpetuity, as the Confederate Constitution did. In the CSA, abolition was permanently off the table.
May 28, 2016 at 9:59am
Simplelogic: No, in the real world. We were beginning to send aid to the British and Soviets against Hitler and thought to put the Japanese question on the back burner by relying on economic sanctions. When we froze Japanese assets (July 1941) we effectively cut them off from purchases of oil, thinking we could get them to cease their aggression against China. In effect, Tokyo was now looking at a fuel gauge that would inexorably drop down to “E” by December if they could not get us to turn on the taps again by negotiation. Failing that, they would have to seize the nearest oil wells, which were in the Dutch East Indies. This would mean relying on long supply lines running past Singapore, with the Philippines on the flank. When negotiations broke down because of our insistence that they clear out of China altogether, they felt they had no choice but to implement their plan of attack against the British, which would mean taking Singapore, and against the US, which would mean taking the Philippines. This in turn made no sense without the additional insurance of taking out the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. One thing led to another. Many people seem to think someone in Tokyo just said “Hey, let’s attack Pearl Harbor,” and everybody grinned and clapped and said “Great idea,” and so they did it, out of sheer malice. Not the case.
[-1] May 27, 2016 at 6:39pm
Good for a laugh, but give them time. Great physicists and mathematicians tend to be young. Great historians tend to be older. If you want to go beyond simple recitation of names, dates and bald facts, or military (or other) buffdom, or simple heroism-vs-villainy (inspiring though that might be),you will need to put in years of patient research and reflection.
I could have correctly answered those questions when I was a fifth grader.
This stuff is a disgrace.
May 27, 2016 at 6:28pm
The US Constitution provided for an end to the importation of slaves as early as 1808. There was nothing in it that would prevent the abolition of slavery, and indeed it was amended to prohibit slavery altogether in 1865.
The Confederate Constitution relegalized the African-Caribberan slave trade, and guaranteed slavery itself in perpetuity.
That most Southerners did not own slaves, or even that a few black people did, is hardly an argument against slavery as the main cause of the Civil War. In the South, as elsewhere,elites dominated the political conversation, and most of those elites owned slaves. Several of the secession ordinances explicitly declared the defense of slavery to be the justification for leaving the Union.
May 27, 2016 at 6:05pm
It would have been interesting. Trump’s main advantage over his Republican rivals was that he is not a traditional politician. Neither is Bernie Sanders. Perhaps it’s actually happening in some alternative universe. Sigh.
[-2] May 27, 2016 at 5:59pm
The usual take is that the use of atomic bombs was necessary “to shorten the war and save American lives.”
What is often overlooked is that these aims were not the same.
The home islands had virtually no air defense left, and had been cut off from overseas supplies of raw materials by American submarine warfare. Had the war gone on into 1946 or even 1947, millions more Japanese would surely have died, but there was no need for Americans to die at all. True, invasion plans had been made, but there were no irreversible orders to carry them out. They could easily have been cancelled.
However, prolonging the war would have been politically unpopular; already there were voices declaring that Pearl Harbor had been amply avenged and no more American boys should be sacrificed to make a point already made. In addition,the Japanese were already offering “conditional” surrender, while at the same time probing Soviet willingness to join them against the US. The bombs took the “Soviet card” off the table, while at the same time actually hastening Stalin’s last-minute military intervention against Japan. Ironically, this blow, and not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, may have been what hastened the Japanese decision to surrender (almost) unconditionally.
May 27, 2016 at 5:45pm
You might add that the reason Japan had only a few weeks’ worth of oil and steel left was that the US had been putting the economic squeeze on them for over a year, embargoing first this, then that, essential strategic material in an effort to force them out of China. Our final squeeze was freezing their assets, making it impossible for them to buy any oil at all. Our final demand was their total withdrawal not only from China proper but from Manchuria as well. As you suggest, it was Chiang Kaishek, seconded by the British, who encouraged the US to hang tough. We believed they would back down, a fatal miscalculation.
[-1] May 27, 2016 at 5:35pm
Pearl Harbor was a legitimate military target. It’s debatable whether or not Hiroshima was a military target. Actually, if it had been, it probably would have been bombed long before August 1945. It was chosen precisely because it was a pristine site, so we wouldn’t be bombing mounds of rubble, preventing proper damage assessment.
[-2] May 27, 2016 at 5:30pm
The attack on Pearl Harbor was not unprovoked. It was provoked by America’s having cut Japan off from its oil supplies. There were reasons for it; it was not a bolt out of the blue.
Simplelogic: No, in the real world. We were beginning to send aid to the British and Soviets against Hitler and thought to put the Japanese question on the back burner by relying on economic sanctions. When we froze Japanese assets (July 1941) we effectively cut them off from purchases of oil, thinking we could get them to cease their aggression against China. In effect, Tokyo was now looking at a fuel gauge that would inexorably drop down to "E" by December if they could not get us to turn on the taps again by negotiation. Failing that, they would have to seize the nearest oil wells, which were in the Dutch East Indies. This would mean relying on long supply lines running past Singapore, with the Philippines on the flank. When negotiations broke down because of our insistence that they clear out of China altogether, they felt they had no choice but to implement their plan of attack against the British, which would mean taking Singapore, and against the US, which would mean taking the Philippines. This in turn made no sense without the additional insurance of taking out the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. One thing led to another. Many people seem to think someone in Tokyo just said "Hey, let's attack Pearl Harbor," and everybody grinned and clapped and said "Great idea," and so they did it, out of sheer malice. Not the case.
May 27, 2016 at 5:27pm
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima might have been a war crime, or it might have been a legitimate act of war. Which, will probably be debated until the end of time. What it was not, was a “tragedy.” Obama and everyone else ought to stop misusing this word.
 May 16, 2016 at 7:18pm
“‘The government doesn’t really trust the people that much,’ one woman said. ‘So I understand why they would pick Hillary Clinton.’” Someone should correct her. You’d think a George Washington student would understand it’s the Democrats who are picking Clinton, not “the government.”
[-6] May 16, 2016 at 3:54pm
It’s not hard to find former Marxists who have veered conservative. Ronald Radosh and numerous others spring to mind, not just Horowitz.
Of the five “Marxists” you blame for Obama, only Davis is known to have been an active Communist. The rest were squishy leftists, not even doctrinaire Marxists.
[-8] May 16, 2016 at 3:49pm
If there were “violations of international and maritime law,” it’s possible they were initially committed by us, if, as we’re told, the ship drifted–or was steered–into Iranian waters. Even if there is no moral equivalence, there may be a legal one.
May 16, 2016 at 1:01pm
Hanover NH is not the sort of town where the police regularly shoot people for walking while black, or where police officers themselves are targets. Why anybodyin such a place cares about any of this is beyond me. But this is not the first time something like this has happened there. About thirty years ago liberal students built a shanty town there to protest apartheid, and the earliest generation of Dartmouth’s movement conservatives, the same cohort that gave us Dinesh D”Souza and Laura Ingraham, tore it down. Apparently tearing things down to make a political statement is a venerable tradition there.
May 16, 2016 at 12:43pm
Regarding Benghazi at least, “Monday morning quarterbacks” seems best to describe those who insist “we woulda, we coulda, we shoulda.”
May 16, 2016 at 12:41pm
Laser targeting and smart bombs have been around for forty years. In the Benghazi attacks, wouldn’t they have been as likely to confuse matters and kill more of our people than actually died? We have this touching faith in our military technology, yet somehow in a lot of real world situations it’s been less than reliable. It’s not stupidity to suggest that caution was in order, that people in Italy, let alone Washington DC, were not fully aware of how a very fluid situation was developing, and that the actual outcome was the best than could have been hoped for, once the attacks were under way.
 May 13, 2016 at 3:31pm
How so? He played no role in the British government’s decision to declare war over the invasion of Poland. Perhaps you mean his role in Britain’s decision to go on fighting even after the fall of France?
LLOYD, you are onto it. It was Britain's war guarantees to Poland that really started the European war not Munich.
It was Churchill's and FDR's conniving that expanded what was just another short and limited European war into a wider world war.
 May 13, 2016 at 1:42pm
Keeping the church out of the state, i.e., refusing to “establish” or promote or privilege any church or religion, is not the same as keeping the church out of politics. Churchmen can be as political as they like; they have been since colonial times.
[-2] May 13, 2016 at 1:31pm
Careful who you read out of the ranks of the “Founding Fathers!” If the Congressmen who wrote the 1st Amendment were not among the Founders, then neither were the same Congressmen when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. That will raise some eyebrows among those heavily armed Blaze devotees who take 1791 to be as foundational as 1787 or 1776.
If the 1st Amendment keeps the state out of the church, it follows that it keeps the church out of the state. That is, the Federal government cannot officially favor any particular church, or any particular religion, with tax exemptions, monopolies of office, or voting qualifications. It was never meant to keep churches and individual clergy out of politics. They can endorse causes, candidates and parties as they see fit.
Tax exemptions for churches are embedded in state tax codes, not in the Federal Constitution, though they have been held constitutional, on the grounds that they encourage charitable and educational endeavors and thereby save taxpayers money.
The Sunday exception in the veto clause doesn’t necessarily constitute an “establishment” of Christianity, it merely recognizes that Sunday is a day when most people do not transact business.
Churches, (true churches) are tax excluded. (always have been), 501c3's are tax exempt. and were created for the purpose of transforming a tax excluded church into a tax exempt, state incorporated entity with a churchy name.. Which BTW gave the government power over what the corporations/churches could do and say.