Today’s Horserace Snapshot. . . [With Comment by John]

A few days ago, in “State of the Race,” I passed along the latest Bloomberg poll showing Trump surging back into a significant lead over Biden. Today it is CNN’s turn:

Trump’s support in the poll among registered voters holds steady at 49% in a head-to-head matchup against Biden, the same as in CNN’s last national poll on the race in January, while Biden’s stands at 43%, not significantly different from January’s 45%.

Looking back, 55% of all Americans now say they see Trump’s presidency as a success, while 44% see it as a failure. In a January 2021 poll taken just before Trump left office and days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, 55% considered his time as president a failure. Assessing Biden’s time in office so far, 61% say his presidency thus far has been a failure, while 39% say it’s been a success.

As before, some of the internals must be giving Democrats heartburn:

In the Biden vs. Trump matchup, the poll finds Biden faring worse than in previous CNN polls among the youngest voters, trailing Trump by a 51%-to-40% margin among voters younger than 35. . .

And when you add in third party candidates, Trump’s lead is even bigger:

Though I strongly doubt RFK Jr. will get above 10 percent—if that—in November.

JOHN adds: It seems to me that the third-party candidates are the most interesting joker in the deck in this year’s election. In the past, third-party candidates have generally faded as the election draws near. Six or seven months before an election, it is easy to tell a pollster you intend to vote for someone other than the major party nominees, but when it comes time, many will decide not to waste their votes. That will undoubtedly happen to some degree this year.

But this year’s major party candidates are seen as historically weak. Will that cause more voters than usual to stay with their minor candidate preferences? It could. I don’t expect Jill Stein or Cornel West to draw a significant number of votes, although one or both could hurt Joe Biden in a swing state if the vote is close enough.

But how about RFK Jr.? Might he hang on to a surprisingly large number of ballots? I think he could, given the weakness of the major party candidates, although like Steve I would be shocked if he gets into double figures. But he is also an unusual case: unlike Stein and West, he is drawing voters away from both Biden and Trump. As Kennedy’s support fades, I expect Biden to benefit somewhat, but perhaps not greatly, as some of those voters will migrate to Trump.

On the whole, I think the third-party candidates, especially Kennedy, make this election, which promises to be close, unusually hard to predict.

ONE MORE THING: I confess that I have paid zero attention to the appalling Ms. Stein, but it turns out that, although Jewish, she is pro-Hamas. In fact, she got herself arrested yesterday at a pro-Hamas demonstration in St. Louis. Might Stein become the favored candidate of the Democrats’ anti-Semitic wing? It seems she might. If she raises a little money and starts to get some traction, she might take away a more than nominal number of votes from Biden in states like Michigan and Minnesota.

Lesser of Two Evils

A year ago, it would have been hard for me to imagine anything that would cause me to sympathize with the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and its attendees. A more disgraceful event, and a more disgraceful group of people, are hard to conceive of. But last night, the dinner was beset by kill-the-Jews protesters, an even worse gang:


Reportedly, some of the kill-the-Jews gang even broke into the Washington Hilton where the event was taking place.

About the dinner itself, I have nothing to say. It is an event that reflects discredit on all who participate. Donald Trump had the right idea when, as president, he simply ignored it.

A certain irony, however should be noted: Joe Biden has repeatedly stabbed Israel in the back, in an effort to appease his party’s base. Yet he gets no credit from the fanatical anti-Semites among the Democrats. His party must view their convention–in Chicago!–with foreboding. Is there any doubt that a large group of anti-Semites will gather to disrupt the proceedings? The echoes of 1968 are obvious. Then, it was the Democrats who were home to the anti-war movement. And yet, it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, whose convention was destroyed by the Left.

The fiasco of the Chicago convention is often cited as one of the reasons why Richard Nixon won that election easily. (As a reminder of how much things have changed, Nixon carried California that year, while Humphrey carried Texas.) Let’s hope it happens again.

Barr Back Story

In One Damn Thing After Another: Memoirs of an Attorney General, William Barr reveals his service for the CIA and his admiration for Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller and current FBI boss Christopher Wray. Barr also makes it clear that Obama and Biden were not in John Durham’s “crosshairs,” which calls to mind an episode not covered in the memoir.

In the Ruby Ridge siege of 1992, the FBI deployed massive military force against the family of Randy Weaver. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot dead Randy’s wife Vicki as she held her infant child. Snipers are trained carefully to “acquire” the target, so there is little chance the killing was accidental, as the FBI claimed. Attorney General William Barr spent two weeks organizing former attorney generals to defend Horiuchi, who already had government lawyers working on his behalf.

The shoot-without-provocation rules were approved by the FBI’s Larry Potts. When Clinton attorney general Janet Reno nominated Potts for deputy director of the FBI, William Barr told the New York Times Potts was “deliberate and careful” and “I can’t think of enough good things to say about him.” During his January 2019 confirmation hearings, James Bovard observed, “nobody is asking about Barr’s legal crusade for blanket immunity for federal agents who killed American citizens.”

Last August the FBI shot dead Craig Robertson for things he allegedly posted online. Barr’s support for Horiuchi may clarify where the former Attorney General and CIA attorney stands on the killing.  As the people might note, the FBI is good at killing 75-year-old woodworkers and women such as Vicki Weaver, who was not charged with any crime. The FBI proved adept at mounting covert operations against candidate and President Trump, and exploiting FISA to spy on Americans. On the other hand, when it comes to protecting the American people, the FBI is a bust.

The FBI failed to prevent the terrorist attacks of February 26, 1993, September 11, 2001, Fort Hood (2009), the Boston Marathon (2013), San Bernardino (2015), and Orlando in 2016. In 2024 moving forward, it’s all about memory against forgetting.

Rathergate: 100 proof fraud

The Daily Beast’s John Fiallo reports that Dan Rather returns to CBS News today 18 years after his involuntary departure. Fiallo writes (emphasis added):

The former CBS News anchor Dan Rather will make a brief return to the network Sunday, appearing in a live interview 18 years after his controversial exit. Rather, 92, is slated to be profiled on CBS News Sunday Morning through an interview with correspondent Lee Cowan, the network announced. The segment will, in part, promote the soon-to-be released documentary Rather, which chronicles the legendary newsman’s “rise to prominence, his sudden and dramatic public downfall, and his redemption and re-emergence as a voice of reason to a new generation,” the doc’s producers wrote in a statement. Rather’s falling out with CBS began with his 2004 60 Minutes II report about George W. Bush’s National Guard record that relied on documents CBS failed to authenticate—something the then-president skewered the network for. The incident shattered Rather’s reputation, despite the documents never being proven to be forgeries. The controversy, which was dubbed “Rathergate,” was dramatized in the 2015 film Truth. Rather’s return to CBS will air at 9 a.m. EST on Sunday.

The documents “were never proven to be forgeries” in roughly the same sense that Alger Hiss was never proven to be a Communist spy. Fiallo to the contrary notwithstanding, the proof is overwhelming. Indeed, there is no proof to support the authenticity of the documents. None. Zero. Nada.

Back in 2015, when the movie Truth was released, I saw that critics took the film as a historical account. Just ten years after the fact, Hollywood found it easy to rewrite history. Prompted by the reception of the film, John and I wrote the Weekly Standard story “Rather shameful.” It was published in the Standard’s October 12, 2015 issue.

In the story we cite the Thornburgh-Boccardi Report commissioned by CBS News, which CBS seems to have removed from the Internet. CBS seems also to have removed the fraudulent Rathergate story from the Internet, but the editor’s note we cite below can be viewed here (“A report issued by an independent panel on Jan. 10, 2005 concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the Sept. 8, 2004 broadcast about President Bush’s service in the National Guard”). The CBS News story on the firing of employees responsible for the story (employees other than Rather) is posted here.

Andrew Heyward was president of CBS News at the time of Rathergate. He hasn’t spoken much about the scandal for public consumption, but he talked about the film to the New York Times in connection with the release of Truth in 2015. Heyward told the Times that the film “takes people responsible for the worst embarrassment in the history of CBS News, and what was at the time a grievous blow to the credibility of a proud news organization, and turns them into martyrs and heroes. Only Hollywood could come up with that.” Let that serve as the epigraph for John’s and my 2015 Weekly Standard article.

“Proof” is relevant evidence. Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and the fact is of consequence in determining the issue. Query how many items of evidence you can spot supporting the fraudulence of the Rathergate documents.

* * * * *

When CBS’s 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast its lead story—reported by Dan Rather and produced by Mary Mapes—on the evening of September 8, 2004, it was given the anodyne title “For the Record,” as though it constituted little more than a disinterested historical footnote. In reality, the story was a bold fabrication about President George W. Bush’s long-ago service in the Texas National Guard, intended to damage him in his campaign for reelection against John Kerry.

Within hours of the broadcast, after CBS News posted online PDF copies of four memos highlighted in the segment, the story began to fall apart. The memos looked phony. By the following evening, CBS was in crisis mode trying to deal with the mess. As other news outlets followed up, the story continued to disintegrate. CBS nevertheless hung with it for nearly two weeks. The New York Times provided its own form of encouragement to CBS. In the words of the classic headline over its story of September 15, “Memos on Bush are fake but accurate, typist says.” Four Times reporters collaborated on the story.

On September 20, despite the Times’s best efforts, Rather conceded that his reliance on the documents in issue was “a mistake.” He apologized “personally and directly” for the error. The fiasco came to be known as Rathergate. In hindsight we can see that the Times got it half right; the story was fake, but it was also inaccurate.

The spin offered by the Times seems to have provided the idea behind the new film Truth, based on Mapes’s Rather-gate memoir, Truth and Duty. Starring Robert Redford as Rather and Cate Blanchett as Mapes, the film premiered to favorable reviews at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 12. The film opens in New York and Los Angeles on October 16. Unfortunately, the reviewers seem only vaguely aware of the material that CBS News, 11 years ago, twisted into “For the Record.” Students of the Hiss and Rosenberg cases have learned that the left simply does not relent in its efforts to rewrite history. Before the revisionist history peddled in Truth takes hold, let us review “For the Record” for the record, as it were.

Accepting the Democratic presidential nomination in the summer of 2004, John Kerry had saluted and reported for duty, harking back to his service in Vietnam. The Democrats and their allies were primed to make disparagement of President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard (TexANG) in the early 1970s one of the leading themes of their campaign. Through the kind of media magic that so often benefits the Democrats, CBS’s 60 Minutes Wednesday program had scheduled a segment attacking President Bush’s service for late September, but rushed it to air on the evening of September 8. The Kerry campaign was ready; it promptly unfurled a public relations blitz geared to “For the Record.” Dubbed Operation Fortunate Son (alluding to the Creedence Clearwater Revival song about the evasion of service in Vietnam by the privileged), the Kerry campaign operation anticipated and then sought to maximize the impact of the CBS report. As Matthew Continetti reported in these pages at the time (“Unfortunate Democrats,” September 27, 2004), the wreck of “For the Record” made for a troubled liftoff of Operation Fortunate Son.

“For the Record” opened with a reference to the attack earlier that year on Kerry’s service by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who had served with him in Vietnam. Rather noted that President Bush had been criticized for his military service as well, both for avoiding Vietnam and for shirking his duties. In May 1968, Bush had joined the TexANG, where he was trained to fly the F-102 interceptor jet, no easy task. But CBS had come to bury Bush, not to praise him.

Ben Barnes, the Democratic former speaker of the Texas house and lieutenant governor, was interviewed by Rather. At the time of the interview, Barnes was, perhaps coincidentally, vice chairman of Kerry’s national finance committee and a top fundraiser for Kerry. Barnes implied that he had pulled strings to get Bush into the TexANG. Was this a case of preferential treatment? In its first half the segment answered the question in the affirmative. In its second half the segment drew on several documents that CBS posted online that evening. These documents portrayed Bush’s military service in an unflattering light, suggesting he had defied an order of his commanding officer (Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian) to report for his annual physical and that Killian had been pressured to “sugarcoat” his evaluation of Lieutenant Bush.

Online commenters almost immediately took issue with the authenticity of the documents. Writing under the pseudonym Buckhead on the Free Republic site, Atlanta attorney Harry MacDougald first alleged that the documents appeared to be fabrications created by a modern word processor, not typewritten documents from the old files of Killian as advertised. Many others followed up, and indeed the documents quickly proved to be word-processed forgeries. CBS was unable to identify a single witness to authenticate them. Rather’s source—Bill Burkett, a virulent Bush critic and former member of the Texas Army National Guard—finally confessed to the CBS anchor that he had lied about where he obtained the documents.

Coincident with Rather’s apology CBS commissioned an internal investigation. Former attorney general Richard Thornburgh and former AP head Louis Boccardi conducted the inquest. They interviewed witnesses and reviewed evidence. In early January 2005 they submitted their Report of the Independent Review Panel and posted it online, where it is still accessible and, as the reviews of Truth suggest, still required reading.

The documents on which the story was based supposedly came from the “personal file” of Jerry Killian, Bush’s commander in the TexANG, who had been dead for 20 years. But where did CBS News get them? Mapes testified that she and her team had been given six documents by Bill Burkett, but where had Burkett obtained them?

The report notes that Burkett gave three explanations, whose implausibility increased in each successive version. He told one intermediary that the documents mysteriously materialized in the mail. He then told Mapes that the documents were provided to him by one George Conn, but that Conn would never admit to being the source. Mapes made virtually no attempt to contact Conn or to confirm this story, which Burkett later admitted was false. That was the state of Mapes’s knowledge when the story aired on September 8.

In the crisis following the airing of the 60 Minutes Wednesday story, Burkett changed his story again, stating that he had actually received them indirectly from a “Lucy Ramirez.” We love Lucy, but she’s never been sighted, either before or since. In her 2005 memoir, Mapes described the Ramirez piece of the story as a “tale of bovine intrigue” because Burkett told her he picked up the documents as instructed by Ramirez from “a dark-skinned man” at the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo. “As a fittingly bizarre last touch,” Mapes wrote, “Burkett told our group that he had hidden the papers in his venison locker, close to 100 miles from his home.”

And the tale is bovine, in a tall tale sort of way. Mapes still pretends to believe Burkett. Drawing on the sense God gave them, the Thornburgh-Boccardi panel did not. Killian’s family, as it happens, said such files of his as Burkett purported to pass along never existed. The Thornburgh-Boccardi report drily observes: “It does not appear, based on information available to the Panel, that [Mrs. Killian] was asked whether her husband had personal files, used a typewriter or had a secretary.”

The Thornburgh-Boccardi report also notes that Mapes had learned in the course of her reporting that no influence was used to get President Bush into the TexANG. There was no line of aspiring pilots waiting to fly the difficult and dangerous F-102 in 1968. No pull was needed to secure Bush a spot to train as a pilot.

Mapes had been pursuing the story of Bush’s National Guard service since 1999, longer than Captain Ahab pursued Moby Dick. In 1999 Mapes had interviewed witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the TexANG’s needs for personnel, including TexANG Brigadier General Walter “Buck” Staudt and Major General Bobby W. Hodges. They “told her that, contrary to Barnes’ statement, no influence was used to get Bush into the TexANG and that Barnes himself” was uncertain anyone had “gotten [Bush] in.” Mapes’s 1999 notes reflected Hodges having told her that the group was “hurting for pilots.” Rather himself had been told in 1999 that there were several open pilot slots when Bush enlisted. Yet “For the Record” peddled the false narrative that was to be advertised in the Operation Fortunate Son ad campaign—namely, that Bush had “jumped the line.”

The Rathergate memos had obviously been created recently on Microsoft Word rather than three decades earlier on a typewriter. But their content also revealed them to be fake. In a memo dated August 18, 1973, bearing the colorful subject “CYA,” Killian had supposedly documented Staudt pressuring Hodges and Hodges pressuring Killian to “sugarcoat” the evaluation of Bush. Staudt, however, had retired on March 1, 1972. Staudt was not on the scene or in a position to pressure anyone in the TexANG to do anything.

CBS portrayed Bush joining the TexANG to evade service in Vietnam, yet Mapes had been told by Killian’s son that Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam and was turned down because he didn’t have enough flying time. The Thornburgh-Boccardi report also quotes one of Killian’s authentic evaluations of Bush: “Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.” Contrary to the tenor of the fabricated memos, this is what Killian really thought of Bush.

The Thornburgh-Boccardi report states that the panel could not conclude with “absolute certainty” that the documents were fabricated. The only ground for uncertainty presented in the report, however, is metaphysical. The report includes the analysis of forensic document examiner Peter Tytell, a highly qualified expert on the issues raised by the typographic characteristics of the documents. Tytell examined the documents procured from Burkett and concluded that they were produced on a computer using a Times New Roman font.

According to Tytell, Times New Roman was designed in 1931 for the Times of London and was available mainly on commercial typesetting machines until the desktop publishing revolution brought it to personal computers in the 1980s. Tytell concluded it was not available on a typewriter in the early 1970s and that the Burkett documents must have been produced on a computer. The Thornburgh-Boccardi panel “met with Tytell and found his analysis sound in terms of why he believed that the documents were not authentic.” If the documents are not authentic, they are frauds.

The Thornburgh-Boccardi report establishes beyond a reasonable doubt not only that the documents were fake, but that the essence of “For the Record” was false. A scandal of the first order, “For the Record” was an attempt by a prominent organ of the mainstream media to influence the outcome of a presidential election with a false and fraudulent story just two months before Election Day.

If you look up “For the Record” online at the CBS News site now, you will find it prefaced with this statement: “A report issued by an independent panel on January 10, 2005, concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of this September 8, 2004 broadcast.” But that’s not the half of it. The Thornburgh-Boccardi report shows this confession of journalistic malpractice to be a considerable understatement.

Revisionist history commenced soon after the release of the Thornburgh-Boccardi report in 2005. Both Mapes and Rather wrote memoirs telling the Rathergate story from their perspectives. Despite Rather’s on-air apology, he and Mapes never backed down. She published Truth and Duty in late 2005, in the aftermath of the Thornburgh–Boccardi report. In her memoir Mapes stands by the story. She stands by the documents. She also proudly displays her political animus. Mapes bizarrely credits Karl Rove with masterminding “the Republican attack against the [60 Minutes Wednesday] story.” But those of us in the middle of the (independent) attack on the story on September 9 and the days following never heard from anyone in the Bush White House or from officials in the Republican party about defects in the CBS report. Of course, given her claim that the documents were authentic, Mapes had to absolve Rove of fabricating and planting them—“not that I believe Rove isn’t capable of that kind of dirty trick,” she writes.

In his 2012 memoir Rather Outspoken, Rather also stands by the story and the fabricated documents. He sees himself as a victim rather than a perpetrator. He seethes with hatred for Republicans and conservatives. He pleads guilty only to “putting a true story on the air.” According to Rather, “There is a through-line, a long and slimy filament that connects the ‘murder’ of Vince Foster to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and to the discrediting of the Killian memos.” That “slimy filament” is “a dirty thread” that “stretches all the way .  .  . to the birther movement.” To say the least, that’s quite a stretch.

The Thornburgh-Boccardi report found that “certain actions” could support charges that political motivations prompted CBS News to report and air “For the Record,” yet the report ultimately refrained from concluding that political bias was responsible for its faults and errors. The Thornburgh-Boccardi panel, however, did not have to contend with the Mapes and Rather memoirs. The memoirs demonstrate intense antipathy toward Republicans. They reiterate the falsehoods and absurdities of “For the Record.” And they now have the best of Hollywood to lend support to their efforts.

In late November 2004, Rather announced that he would step down as anchor and managing editor of the CBS Evening News effective the following March, on the 24th anniversary of the night he succeeded Walter Cronkite. He was to continue to work full-time at CBS News as a correspondent for 60 Minutes. He made the announcement in advance of the Thornburgh-Boccardi report and was never disciplined in connection with the story. CBS subsequently announced his departure from the network on June 20, 2006, before his contract expired.

Every good story needs a hero and a villain. Mapes is the hero of her own story, both the story told in the film and the memoir on which it is based. The film must get the old hate on for President Bush, of course, and it reserves some scorn for the blogs that helped expose her derelictions, but it serves up corporate CBS/Viacom as the villain. CBS/Viacom supposedly commissioned the Thornburgh-Boccardi investigation and fired Mapes in deference to the political powers that be (or were) for base commercial reasons. CBS terminated Mapes’s employment on January 10, 2005, following the submission of the Thornburgh-Boccardi report to management. Mapes quotes CBS News president Andrew Heyward telling her concisely: “[T]he report is out. It’s very bad. You’re being terminated.”

A reasonable person would conclude that Mapes was fired for appalling professional misconduct, which disgraced and betrayed her colleagues (including Rather) and the company for which she worked. If Mapes is the hero of Truth, we should note that Truth is a production of Mythology Entertainment. Truth—and the truth—are indeed out there somewhere.

Screams before silence

Sheryl Sandberg has fronted the documentary Screams Before Silence that was posted to YouTube on April 26. The documentary highlights the sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas during and after its October 7 massacre. The trailer is below.

Click on “Watch on YouTube” to be taken to the 56-minute documentary.

Last year I saw more than a glimpse of the crazed sexual violence in the atrocity video compiled by the IDF for restricted showings to journalists and others. I viewed it courtesy of Jewish Community Relations Council executive director Steve Hunegs and wrote about it here. The showing of the video was introduced by Consul for Political and Commercial Affairs Itai Biran of Israel’s Chicago-based Midwest Consulate. Mr. Biran told me before the showing, “We need to fight for the truth. We’re fighting for the very basic truth.” Sad to say, that observation applies even more so today.

What’s it all about? Jewish Journal proprietor David Suissa doesn’t exactly answer the question, but rather offers notes toward an answer:

It’s the humiliation.

The glee.

The intention.

To describe the horrible and unspeakable sexual violence committed by Hamas on Oct. 7, we don’t need adjectives like horrible and unspeakable.

Even verbs like “rape” can’t do the trick.

To do justice, it is the nouns that count.

The nails in the groins.

The breast on the ground.

The stains in the sweats.

The branding on skin.

The bullets that hit faces.

The legs on the pick up.

The screams.

The unknown.

The terror.

Maybe, above all, the videos.

The videos they couldn’t show.

From the rapists themselves.

Videos for the planet.

Videos, videos, videos.

Videos of cruelty.

Pride.

Eagerness.

Videos they couldn’t show.

In the new film “Screams Before Silence,” that is what I remember most— not the adjectives but the nouns.

The victims.

The flowers.

The tears.

The memories for all nights.

Oct. 7.

The humiliation, the glee, the intention.

The evidence.

The silence.

Suissa’s Jewish Journal column is titled “Screams Before Silence.”

The Power of Weakness

Modern liberals have distilled the true essence of Marxism, which is the idea that every human relationship is exploitative. Lenin summed it up as “who/whom”–who is doing what to whom?

Of course this idea is ridiculous. Most human relationships, whether personal or economic, are not exploitative. But Marx’s idea has a perennial appeal to the discontented, and is endlessly malleable to suit the neuroses of the day. Thus, modern Marxists have no interest in the purported oppression of the “proletariat.” Far from it! But the Marxist model can easily be made to fit other preoccupations.

That is the background to Elon Musk’s tweets of yesterday, which are getting a lot of attention:


Modern liberalism is all about who is oppressed, and weakness (or alleged weakness) is equated with oppression. Thus, women are oppressed because…hard to say why, these days. Blacks are oppressed because they go to jail more often than any other race and make less money, on average, than Asians, whites and Hispanics. Of course, whites are not oppressed because they make, on average, less money than Asians and less money than, for example, Nigerian-Americans and Ghanian-Americans. Which suggests that there is a political filter through which “oppression” is viewed.

To continue: “trans” people are oppressed, I guess because they are sad. And in foreign policy, “Palestinians”–I don’t think there is any consistent usage there–are oppressed because they are weak and generally pathetic. Since weakness of any sort, real or imagined, is equated with oppression, right-thinking liberals are on the side of women, blacks, “trans” people, “Palestinians,” or whoever, regardless of what the question is, and regardless of what the relevant facts might be. If you are a Marxist, everything is simple.

Elon’s point is correct: it is ridiculous to take the side of the “weak” regardless of the facts. As he says, through human history the more common assumption has been that one should take the side of the strong. I think that is still true in some (maybe most) cultures. Thus, we had Osama bin Laden, who will soon be a hero to liberals if he is not already, saying that people instinctively side with the “strong horse,” which he thought was al Qaeda rather than America. He was right as to his own culture, and probably as to others.

Elon made a mistake in his first tweet when he questioned whether “the oppressed are always the good guys.” That implicitly accepted the Left’s false assumption that the weak are always oppressed. It opened him up to responses like this one (this is from NotTheBee, by the way.)


No one deserves to be oppressed, but weak people and groups may deserve to be weak. In fact, they likely do deserve to be weak.

Thus, to take the instance that is most relevant at the moment, the Arabs who live in Gaza and the West Bank are weak despite being the beneficiaries of countless billions of dollars in aid from the West. They are weak because, despite that largesse, and despite the almost absurdly generous treatment they have been accorded by Israel–not Egypt or Jordan–they have the worst culture of any group of people in the world. Not only that, they have deliberately used weakness as a business plan, raking in billions in foreign aid by keeping people penned up for generations in “refugee camps,” while diverting as much money as possible to tunnels and weapons for terrorist attacks.

The same is true of some other “oppressed” groups. For example, American blacks are indeed arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of crimes in disproportionate numbers. That is entirely because they commit serious crimes in disproportionate numbers. So failure in life is not necessarily due to oppression or exploitation. In fact, it is rarely due to oppression or exploitation.

The truly oppressed these days are, for example, Nigerian Christians who are murdered, kidnapped and raped by Muslims; Uighers who are condemned to slavery by the Communist Party; Israelis who are murdered by “Palestinian” terrorists or forced to flee their homes by Hezbollah’s rockets; and, on a vastly smaller scale, conservative faculty members and Jewish students who are forced into literal or figurative hiding by campus liberals.

Marx was a bad man and a terrible scholar. What he was, was an irrational and hate-filled political activist. His 21st century adherents, whether they know it or not, are following in his footsteps.

How Reagan Handled the Campus

A lot of young conservatives today like to disparage “Zombie Reaganism,” without actually knowing very much about him. But is there any political leader right now speaking as clearly as this?

Though I’ll my mischievous suggestion for the day: