June 9, 2025

WELCOME TO PROTEST SEASON, WHERE THE CAUSE CHANGES BUT THE TACTICS STAY THE SAME:

(Classical reference in headline.)

Posted at 5:45 pm by Ed Driscoll

STEVE HAYWARD: The Tanenhaus Variations.

Other prominent nodes of the [William F. Buckley] story get fresh new details, including his time at Yale and as editor of the Yale Daily News (would he get that appointment if he was at Yale today?), and the runup and rollout of his famous first book, God and Man at Yale. (Among other things, we learn that T.S. Eliot didn’t like it.) Buckley’s support for Joseph McCarthy is explicated at length, revealing more about Buckley’s ambivalence toward the man himself rather than his cause. His ambivalent relationship with Nixon is well-covered, while his relationship with Ronald Reagan, the president with whom Buckley was clearly closer both personally and ideologically, receives strangely uneven treatment. For example, there is nothing on Buckley’s split with Reagan over arms control and U.S.-Soviet relations during Reagan’s second term, nor on many other details from Reagan’s presidency about which Buckley commented relentlessly. It is just at the point that the book loses steam completely, making the reader wonder if [Sam] Tanenhaus grew bored with the project or simply wanted to release the book on the 100th anniversary of Buckley’s birth. After 800 pages detailing the Buckley story from 1925 to 1980, the years from 1980 to his passing in 2008 are condensed into just 40 pages. This “definitive” biography is definitively unfinished.

We do receive major discussion of Buckley’s time in the CIA, his dazzling personal and precarious financial life, a roller-coaster that included a near-bankruptcy in the early 1970s (throughout which Buckley never cut back his extensive personal charity, the full scope of which is only hinted at in this book), and his most egregious and consequential mistake, championing the cause of convicted murderer Edgar Smith. Buckley’s public campaign on behalf of Smith resulted in Smith’s conviction being overturned, following which Smith committed another murder with the same MO as his initial crime.

Buckley’s gullibility toward Smith is a portal to one key aspect of Buckley’s character that Tanenhaus brings out well: he was drawn to interesting people, regardless of their ideology. This explains his friendship with numerous liberals like Ken Galbraith, Norman Mailer, and even further left figures like Allard Lowenstein. Tanenhaus thinks this explains why Buckley liked to hire liberal writers, or writers who became liberal in due course, for NR, such as Garry Wills, John Leonard, and Joan Didion. Here, Tanenhaus unwittingly, perhaps, reveals his subconscious disdain for conservatism. He says that Wills, Leonard, and Didion were the best writers NR ever produced. Can he really be so obtuse as to disregard Joseph Sobran, Keith Mano, George Will, Richard Brookhiser, or Charles Kesler (among others)—all NR discoveries? Apparently so, and it is only their ideological content that can explain why Tanenhaus would ignore their talent. Tanenhaus at one point said that Buckley did not always choose his friends and business associates well; might that observation include the choice of Tanenhaus as his biographer?

Read the whole thing.

Posted at 5:30 pm by Ed Driscoll

WAIT UNTL 2025-ERA GAVIN NEWSOM DISCOVERS WHAT GAVIN NEWSOM DID IN 2020!

UPDATE: From April of 2020:

As Jack Dunphy wrote in April of 2020: Crackdowns on Lone Surfers and Paddleboarders Threaten to Erode Respect for Law Enforcement Even Further.

UPDATE: Question asked:

MORE:

Posted at 5:14 pm by Ed Driscoll

RIP: Frederick Forsyth dies aged 86.

“Appalled at what he saw and using his experience during a stint as a Secret Service agent, he wrote his first and perhaps most famous novel,” the agent added.

That novel, The Day of the Jackal, was published in 1972 and propelled Forsyth to the status of a global bestselling author.

It has since been adapted into a film and more recently, a TV series starring Eddie Redmayne.

The popular novel remains the first and most enduring of his 16 thrillers and follows a hired assassin who targets Charles de Gaulle, the French president.

The TV adaptation marked the third to reach the screen, following one fronted by Edward Fox in 1973, and another that Forsyth disowns, with Bruce Willis in 1997.

Mr Lloyd said: “He will be greatly missed by his family, his friends, all of us at Curtis Brown and of course his millions of fans around the world – though his books will of course live on forever.”

* * * * * * * *

Lee Child, a fellow thriller writer, previously described The Day of the Jackal as “the book that broke the mould”.

Mr Forsyth was long known – alongside his books – for his outspokenness on political matters as a Conservative, a supporter of Brexit and a defender of traditional values.

He disliked the “woke” agenda and cancel culture, saying in 2023 that he would be “horrified” if they tried to make the TV adaptation of The Day of the Jackal “woke”.

“Touch wood, no one has yet called me out, saying my books are un-woke,” he told The Telegraph two years ago, adding: “Woke is stupid rather than sinful, but plain stupid.”

He also expressed disdain that JK Rowling was being attacked for her gender-critical views by the three former Harry Potter child stars that she was once close to.

He said he felt “particular anger on her behalf at the three young stars of the Harry Potter films – Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson – for disowning Rowling when she was attacked by trans activists”.

“These idiots were brought from nowhere to star in the films of her work and now they are against her. But without her, they’d be nowhere,” he added.

The original adaptation of The Day of the Jackal, starring Edward Fox, was of course, utterly brilliant filmmaking. As Roger Ebert wrote in 1973, “I wasn’t prepared for how good it really is: it’s not just a suspense classic, but a beautifully executed example of filmmaking. It’s put together like a fine watch. The screenplay meticulously assembles an incredible array of material, and then [Fred] Zinnemann choreographs it so that the story–complicated as it is–unfolds in almost documentary starkness.”

Posted at 4:45 pm by Ed Driscoll

KURT SCHLICHTER: The LA Chaos Is an Illusion and Trump Will Not Fall for It.

The left has two main options going forward. One is to become even more violent and see if they can provoke an overreaction – remember, they don’t have the combat power to achieve anything by force. Even if they increase their level of violence, this is still an information operation. However, they risk overplaying their hand and justifying a forceful reaction by Trump. If some criminal – a substantial number of the rioters are not political activists but common street thugs – decides to shoot a fed and the feds shoot back, normal people are going to cheer.

The second and more likely course of action is for the word to go out to dial back the disorder. It’s not working. It’s not having the desired effect. It’s also hurting the Democrats, who tacitly support the violence but want to maintain distance from it. It’s their city that’s in chaos, not Trump’s. The Democrats are united in whining about Trump not submitting like cowards to the thugs, but all this is doing is making them look weak. It’s not Trump‘s forces that are getting pushed around by the rioters; it’s the Democrats’ local cops who are. The Democrats have had nothing but problems lately, and the last thing they needed was to have several days of news footage making them look ineffectual while also blowing the Elon vs. Donald cage match off the front pages.

The only real question is whether or not Donald Trump and his team planned this. It’s working to his advantage  – the Big Beautiful Bill debate just stopped being about saving a few pennies and became about saving our country from foreign invaders. You have to wonder whether the Trump 2.0 administration specifically choose a super leftist city to spin up ICE raids knowing that there would be a riotous backlash that they could then co-opt to message strength. Did they make a conscious decision to provide America a clear and unequivocal choice?

All I can say is that I hope so.

Christopher Rufo adds: Trump Should Crush the L.A. Riots—with a Subtle Hand.

In short, the Left is giving President Trump all the visual symbolism he needs to advance his immigration agenda. Most Americans see chaos in the name of a foreign flag and find it repellent. Though Trump’s language about a migrant “invasion” has sometimes been dismissed as hyperbolic, it seems that the Left is intent on turning it into a material reality.

The question: How should the president respond? Many on the right may feel an instinctual reaction to “send in the troops.” While this concern for law and order is natural and merited, it must be pursued in a way that maximizes the chance for success and minimizes the chance for blowback. As the president considers his options, he might keep in mind a number of strategic points that, if implemented, will increase his leverage in the fight for large-scale deportations.

The administration must deny the Left a strong visual counterargument. It’s easy to see how scenes of militarization, abuse of demonstrators, or a violent death could reverse public sympathies and present the administration as abusing its authority. The language of politics is visual—and therefore emotional, which means that a single mistake can reverse the flow of opinion and imperil the president’s immigration agenda. Left-wing tacticians have trained their foot soldiers to bait law enforcement into confrontation and to play victim for the press, to great effect.

To prevent this scenario, Trump has a number of strategic options available to him. First, rather than sending in more troops to stop the fires, the president might be better advised to hold off. Right now, California governor Gavin Newsom has sided with the demonstrators, but if the riots spread further, this stance will cost him in public opinion, and eventually, he will have to assume the mantle of authority. The public will expect Newsom to restore order, and he’ll have to incur the risk of using force.

Second, the president should pressure local leaders to buy in to the task of quelling the riots. He could wait for Governor Newsom to request the National Guard or appear at a press conference with Los Angeles County officials, bringing state Democrats into the risk-reward calculus and creating the option for the president to shift the blame in the future if they fail to respond effectively. California Democrats are anticipating that Trump will assume all the authority and, therefore, relieve them of any responsibility. He should resist the temptation to be the only player on the field with skin in the game.

However this plays out, as America’s Newspaper of Record notes, illegal immigrants are have surprisingly pitched in to help out the GOP’s 2028 messaging campaign:

Posted at 4:30 pm by Ed Driscoll

ED MORRISSEY: Newsom Plans to Sue Trump to Remove Nat’l Guard.

Did these ‘protests’ interfere with the ability of ICE to execute their legitimate law-enforcement operations? They did indeed. Did Newsom or Karen Bass take action to restore order and allow those operations to proceed? They most certainly did not. Instead, Bass insisted that the city would not do anything to assist ICE in terms of their operations or protection, and Newsom refused to act. Instead, Newsom and Bass have insisted that ICE stop its legitimate operations in California rather than enforce the law. Their inaction and rhetoric attempted to leverage the violence directed at ICE as a way to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from ‘execut[ing] the law of the United States.’

Reuters spoke with four legal experts who cast doubt on this provision, but it exists clearly and explicitly in statute and in precedent. The rhetoric from Newsom and Bass — including Newsom’s remarks to Tom Homan that the NYT includes as context for this legal effort — makes it clear that Democrat leaders in California intend to prevent the federal government from executing federal laws in their jurisdiction. Newsom has taken the George Wallace/Orval Faubus position in history, and while he might find a federal judge to temporarily agree that Newsom can dictate terms of federal law enforcement in California, that won’t last long. Trump has both the law and precedent on his side here, and he will accelerate this to the Supreme Court before removing a single National Guard troop from LA.

Speaking of states’ rights issues, this ABC News employee is suddenly a big fan: The View’s Whoopi Questions Whether Trump Admin Is Now ‘Pure Fascism’ After Weekend of LA Protests. “What ever happened to states’ rights?” the ABC moderator asks.

Following a weekend of protests over ICE raids in Los Angeles being escalated by the Trump administration sending in the National Guard, “The View” host and moderator Whoopi Goldberg wondered on Monday morning if the country is now experiencing “pure fascism.”

“What ever happened to states’ rights? I thought that was what you do,” she said, kicking off the day’s Hot Topics. “Because you tell the state ‘This is what we’re thinking of doing,’ you know, you don’t just send people in. You don’t just send troops in.”

Each of the hosts agreed, and as the conversation progressed, Whoopi also called out Trump’s reinstated travel ban.

“None of the countries that are on this ‘you can’t come in here’ list seem to have done anything of note to keep them from coming in,” she said. “So, what is it? Are we about state’s rights? Are we about keeping people in or out? Are you out because you got here in a different way, because you fled the nation you live in?”

“So what is it? Is this just pure fascism that’s happening?” she added. “Is this what’s going on?”

Well, it can’t be “pure fascism,” since Whoopi Goldberg and ABC are both still very much on the air to disagree with Trump’s decisions, despite her paranoia at the beginning of 2024 that “That If Elected Again Donald Trump Will ‘Disappear’ Journalists And ‘Gay Folks.’”

As VDH asks today, “Why Is Governor Newsom Going Full Jefferson Davis? What triggered the American Civil War were state officials who refused to honor federal law and instead boasted of their open defiance of Washington.”

Back in May of 2016, he similarly explored: The Nihilism of Sanctuary Cities.

The apparent principle of sanctuary cities is akin to roulette. The odds suggest that most illegal aliens detained by officials are not career felons and thus supposedly need not be turned over to ICE for deportation. On the chance that some of their 10,000 released criminals will go on to commit further crimes in the manner of Juan Lopez-Sanchez, officials then shrug that the public outcry will be episodic and quickly die down, or will at least not pose political problems as great as would come from deporting aliens.

Yet the idea of a sanctuary city is Confederate to the core, reminiscent of antebellum Southern states picking and choosing which federal statutes they would abide by or reject. Even before the Civil War, the Nullification Crisis of 1832-33 pitted South Carolina against a fellow southerner, President Andrew Jackson, as the state declared that federal tariff laws were not applicable within its confines. Jackson understood the threat to the union, and promised to send in federal troops before South Carolina backed down.

The problem with legal nullification is always the enduring principle, never just the immediate landscape, of its implementation.

Sanctuary cities are careful to employ euphemisms rather than explicit references to illegal immigration. But not labeling San Francisco as an “illegal alien sanctuary” or even an “immigration sanctuary” only institutionalizes the idea of any city becoming a “sanctuary” from any federal law it finds convent. If sanctuary cities continue to flaunt federal immigration laws and if the federal government does not cut off federally earmarked funds to such offenders — or if ICE does not, in Jacksonian style, threaten to use force to arrest and deport illegal aliens — then the concept will spread, and spread well beyond matters of immigration law.

Hence the Bad Orange Man, and Karen Bass’s Orwellian doubletalk in response:

She’s never going to change, no matter what the consequences: OMG, Her Face! CNN Confronts Karen Bass with Trump’s Approval Ratings with Deportations and LOL (Watch).

<