Nate Beeler cartoon on Donald Trump and the Brexit.
Subscribe to National Commentary RSS feed
Houyhnhnms, the noble talking horses in Jonathan Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels,” had no word for “lie.” They did not engage in the petty subterfuge of politics and didn’t need a word to signify it. The closest they could come is the locution “to say the thing which is not.” But lying is much more complex than saying something that isn’t the case. A genuine lie — a lie in the moral sense — must be intended to deceive, and must be expressed to someone to whom the truth is owed. You aren’t lying if you misstate a statistic without intending to, or if you give a fake name to a prying stranger on the subway.
Following a meeting between a group of evangelical leaders and Donald Trump last week, Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, was interviewed by Pennsylvania pastor Michael Anthony. Dobson told Anthony that Trump had recently come “to accept a relationship with Christ” and is now a “baby Christian.”
In an unexpected 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law Monday, saying it placed an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions.
Monday the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right to abortion — and laid down a new framework for how courts should evaluate future legislation limiting it. For the first time, the court expressly held that laws limiting access to abortion must be evaluated on a cost-benefit basis, to see if health benefits to women outweigh the costs in making abortion less available. The cost-benefit scheme gives greater precision to the undue-burden test established in the landmark 1992 case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood. But it also raises the difficult question of how, exactly, costs and benefits should be determined if and when other states pass laws that limit abortion access while purporting to protect women’s health.
My husband, my children, some of my friends and I are exchanging texts as fast as our fingers will fly. It’s a victory: a victory for women in Texas. Of course I mean the Supreme Court decision in Whole Women’s Health vs. Hellerstedt.
WASHINGTON - There is plenty of evidence that the Obama administration less than two months before the November 2012 election tried to come up with a less damning explanation for the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans. Ben Rhodes was the author of a memo that sought immediately to elevate the anti-Muslim video as the official narrative. The president stuck to that cover story up through his Sept. 25 speech at the United Nations, long after we understood this was a planned attack, the outgrowth of the chaos festering in the wake of the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi.
Anger is clearly the buzzword of the 2016 presidential campaign, especially on the GOP side of the aisle. Google the word with Republican and, like me, you might get more than 24 million hits (vs. 606,000 when matched with Democrat).
The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. Although this may sound like a bureaucratic factoid from the other side of the ocean, it is not. This historic event will have serious negative consequences for the global economy, the politics of Britain and Europe, and the geopolitical interests of the United States.
Maybe it was those college courses on the history of Europe that soured me on the idea of a united continent. How could a conglomeration of nation states noted for invading each other, pillaging and warring against each other form a union? How could a continent with different languages, cultures and money become a united states of Europe modeled after the USA?