The Good and the Bad of the Common Good

Townhall 

For the second time in the Trump presidency, the Right is debating the concept of the common good and how that concept fits within the American political tradition.

During Donald Trump's first term, the "common good" debate raged because the unorthodox president's nationalist instincts and policy prescriptions on issues such as trade and immigration clashed with the more globalist preferences of the Republican Party establishment. The debate is now raging once again; it seems, because JD Vance, the odds-on favorite to become the 2028 GOP presidential nominee, is seen as sympathetic to what might be called "common good conservatism" or "post-liberalism."

And that impression of Vance is correct. I would know, because I have long traveled in many of these same circles. I weighed in heavily during these debates the first time around; even proposing a novel theory of constitutional interpretation called "common good originalism."

But this second round of the "common good" debate has been less than edifying. On the anti-"common good" side, there have been way too many intellectual arsonists razing fields of straw men of their own making. And on the pro-"common good" side, there has been way too much inane trolling and stupid, low-IQ slop.

It is time to set the record straight about the common good. And the most obvious starting place is this: The common good is emphatically part of the American political tradition.

The Constitution's Framers explicitly identified the common good as the very reason for the charter's existence: The Preamble simply refers to the identical concepts of a "more perfect Union" and the "general Welfare." In The Federalist No. 57, James Madison wrote that the "aim of every political constitution" should be the cultivation and elevation of "men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society."

The common good refers to a collectively held good that is attainable only when the political entity's citizens flourish in harmony with one another. It is a collective good that is greater than the sum of its parts. In politics, it is an aspirational goal — a statesman's lodestar. Plato and Aristotle spoke of the common good. So too, for that matter, did the Bible. As God said to the Israelites assembled at Mount Sinai, "You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."

Unfortunately, the current idiotic discourse on the common good is doing a disservice to an important debate.

Many of the loudest conservative critics of the common good see in its invocation a rejection of individual liberty. But that's a false choice. The Framers cherished liberty and saw it as one of the most important components of the common good. It's just that there are other components too, like order and virtue. Some of the common good critics imagine the common good-ers to be closet monarchists or statists. But that too is rubbish: Madison, who more than anyone else was the father of our non-monarchist and non-statist Constitution, described the common good as the document's very "aim."

On the other hand, some of the common good's purported champions have turned out to be their very worst enemies. On X, some ostensible common good-ers have clamored, especially in light of the recent migrant invasion of Spanish exclave Ceuta, for "Franco Friday." That would be a reference to Francisco Franco, the 20th-century Spanish dictator. No American should be praising fascism, or any individual fascist, in the name of the "common good" -- period. Nor can the "common good" justify whitewashing antisemitism or any other sort of overt discrimination.

The most frustrating part of this online slop-fest is that there is a real debate to be had here.

In trade policy, America has in recent decades veered too far on the side of globalism and consumerism, at the expense of production and supply chain resilience. In immigration policy, America has in recent decades veered too far on the side of openness, at the expense of civic solidarity and cultural cohesion. And in the culture war, America has in recent decades veered too far on the side of amoral, "live and let live"-style permissiveness — from marijuana to surrogacy to transgenderism, and beyond.

How to balance individual liberty and dignity with the common good is one of the oldest questions in politics. But here's the thing: America's Founding Fathers had it right. They nailed it. Conservatives should recognize that, instead of rewriting the Founding or stanning for dictators.

But in order to do that, we need a real debate first.

Podcast thread for August 7

 

tired, yo.

The Art Of The Deal Is Doomed To Fail In Iran

American Thinker 

President Trump is a master deal-maker. Just ask him. And his balance sheet suggests he’s right. But his actions toward Iran have a major problem. There is no deal to be made. Let’s consider the situation.

In making a deal, both sides must gain something. Typically, neither side gets everything it wants.

If you are selling your house, you put it on the market at a price higher than what you are willing to accept. An offer comes in below that number, and at that point you start negotiation. There are many variations, but ultimately a deal will usually include a price lower than you had hoped for. The buyer will pay more than he wished to spend, but ultimately, there’s middle ground on which you can agree. Or there may be no deal, and the whole dance starts again with a different prospective buyer.

The basic issue in this deal-making is that both parties have related interests, and each is willing to give up a bit to get most of what is desired. Bookmark that idea.

This is where Donald Trump is operating under a delusion. He thinks that the mullahs and IRGC actually want peace where their people will prosper. The signatories to the Abraham Accords clearly operated within that framework.

But Islamists such as those ruling Iran don’t share any goals with us. That means that there isn’t any way to make a deal with them. There never has been.

Trump is constantly trumpeting that the Iranians “desperately want to make a deal.” To quote the late great Rush Limbaugh, “Barbra Streisand!’

Let’s look at key tenets of Islam. First is the imperative of jihad. Islamists will declare that it’s a peaceful effort to convert others. That lie was finally put to rest on 9/11 when the Twin Towers fell, and Muslims celebrated. Which brings us to taqiyyah.

Taqiyyah is the idea that Muslims are free to lie to “infidels.” Again, this is theoretically to be used in limited circumstances, but by now it should be clear that it has no actual boundaries. If a lie serves to advance an Islamist’s goals, then it’s just fine. At which point we must note that this clearly identifies Islam as Satanic.

A very brief aside is in order here. Muslims will claim that Yahweh’s archangel Gabriel gave the Qur’an to Mohammed. This cannot be true, since Gabriel would never condone anything contrary to what Yahweh had already given the children of Israel in Torah. Lying is repeatedly condemned there, so taqiyyah is from Satan, not Yahweh. And Muslims regard Torah/Tawrat, Psalms of David/Zabur, and the gospel of Jesus/Injil as Holy Scripture. (For the full backstory, read The Unseen Realm or Supernatural by Michael S. Heiser, PhD., or watch this video.)

Seventy percent of Iranians are Persians. They want to live free and be prosperous. But they don’t have any guns and have no way to get any. The IRGC has the guns, and 35,000 dead Persians testify to the IRGC’s utter disregard for human life. Which brings us to our next step.

Donald Trump fully subscribes to the principle that the Declaration of Independence expounds, that everyone is endowed by God with the “unalienable right...to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He firmly believes that Iran should be governed by that same idea, and that the bulk of Iranians want it. He’s right. But it doesn’t matter.

Thirty percent of Iranians are Islamists, governed by the mullahs and policed by the Revolutionary Guard Corps. None of them care one whit for Jefferson’s ideals. They’re happy for every institution of American greatness to be pulled down to allow the uninformed masses to govern by emotion. Your life is worth nothing. And this is in perfect sync with jihad.

Of course, the multiple-sexual-perversion leftists will survive only as long as the Islamists allow them. Jihadis will happily redecorate the Ambassador Bridge with rope tassels terminated in the corpses of those infidels. Their multicolor hair will just make the display more impressive.

The bigger problem for Trump is not the absence of a clearly defined enemy. He’s got all the gunsights and laser target designators he needs. What he doesn’t have is an understanding that his opponents aren’t afraid to die. In fact, they actually want to die, because dying during jihad will supposedly transport them to the most orgiastic forever after imaginable.

But dying for jihad isn’t the end. Just review the history of the Middle East, North Africa, and Southern Europe. The doctrine of Dar al-Islam holds that once territory has been Islamic, it is properly Islamic forever.

That is partially why Israel is such a thorn in their side. The Jews have a long prior historical claim, but since Muslims held that land for a time, they believe it’s theirs forever.

Ditto for Spain. The Moors held most of that country until Charles Martel started the process of kicking them back to North Africa. The recent problems in Spain are just a “Reconquista” by these Stone Age pagans.

Put bluntly, every “pause” or “cease-fire” in the Iran war is an excuse for the Iranians to clear out collapsed tunnels to prepare more rockets and drones for the next volley. They don’t care what we do. There will always be another rat to crawl out from under the rubble to begin the next assault.

That’s what happened since the moment the warlord Mohammed first cloaked his bloodlust in religious garb. Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Accords, and then told his Arabic-speaking audience to remember the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Our drive-by media didn’t report on that comment, but it is telling.

The Treaty of al-Hudaybiyyah was signed with the Quraysh of Mecca, guaranteeing peace for ten years. Two years later, when Mohammed had gained enough strength, he broke the treaty without warning and wiped out the defenders of Mecca, claiming it for himself. This is the example the Islamists follow.

Put simply, the only good Islamist is a dead jihadi. I know that sounds harsh, but history proves it to be true. Jihadi Islam is such a deep and destructive evil that it cannot be tolerated. America is not the policeman for the world, but when Iran declared war against us forty-seven years ago, it started a series of events that have only two possible outcomes.

Either we kill all the Iranian zealots, utterly preventing them from attacking us, or they will persist. The first is distasteful, because unlike them, we actually value human life. The second is untenable.

The key question must be what the legitimate military targets are. It cannot be based on whether there will be collateral civilian casualties. Those are part of every war, and are, unfortunately, largely unavoidable. IRGC installations are obvious, since those are where parts of the anti-civilization army house its men and materiel. A few fuel-air (MOAB) bombs in selected locations would nicely delete those from the target list. But there is more, and to Western sensibilities, this is troubling.

We’ve already taken out a few mullahs with selective strikes. But the bulk of the “religious” fervor against us is at a more local level. The neighborhood imams with their morality police are all through the country. They are just as much a part of the military as the men in IRGC uniforms.

And let us not forget that in Iraq, the Islamists were very happy to store munitions inside mosques, since we Westerners think about them as “Islamic churches,” making them safe havens. But churches are not places of military action, and that’s what the mosques were in Fallujah and other anthills of pestilent insurgent activity. We have no reason to think that mosques in Iran are any different.

The concern is that if we attack a mosque, we will kill innocent civilians. Once again, Rush is right. Gaza is our example. Hamas was an Iranian proxy army that was happy to put “civilians” in harm’s way as “human shields.” But as the bloody melodrama on the Mediterranean coast played out, it became very clear that there were no innocent civilians. There were only fighters and collaborators. All the moderates had been killed long before Israel finally salted the earth with the blood of the militants. And as the rats were being pulled out of their holes, we learned that even hospitals were being used as armories.

We cannot allow the Islamists to have any safe havens. I’m sure that the Mossad has information that will allow us to identify every armory and place of incitement. We took out the chief mullahs, but that just allowed others to ascend the stage and continue the war.

Our only effective attack must be to take out as many Imams and IRGC as possible as quickly as possible. And since most will be in the mosque during the long prayer on Friday, that makes mosques a target-rich environment. Mosques are just buildings housing lots of high-value targets with a low likelihood of collateral damage to innocents.

Targeting bridges and power plants misses the problem. That hurts the seventy percent that would actually make peace. Instead, we must erase the people who are trying to remove us from the face of the earth. As Jesse Pinkman said in Breaking Bad, it’s time to “catch that fly and subtract his ass.”

Mr. President, are you listening?

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

The Average Man Rejected Socialism. White Affluent Liberals Chose It For Him

The Federalist 

Socialist Abdul El-Sayed narrowly defeated Rep. Haley Stevens by roughly a point with nearly all votes counted in Michigan’s Democrat primary for U.S. Senate.

El-Sayed campaigned on things like Medicare for All, investing in “affordable” housing, and abolishing ICE. He previously called for defunding the police. His campaign website says he believes “in an economy built by and for working people.”

But the coalition that helped El-Sayed cinch the Democrat nomination is not the constituency his rhetoric implies he cares about. His victory was not the result of support from the low-income or rural voters or groups traditionally thought to constitute working-class communities (which his policies claim to focus on). Instead, younger, wealthier, and “educated” voters in college towns spurred his campaign to victory.

The New York Times’ Reid J. Epstein wrote Wednesday that El-Sayed “was strongest in communities with young voters, college students and educated and wealthy white voters. That coalition carried him through the primary.”

USA Today wrote that El-Sayed won “the most liberal voters and White voters with college degrees” and “swamped Stevens among younger voters and in college towns like Ann Arbor and East Lansing” while also leading in Arab neighborhoods.

In contrast Stevens “showed strength among Black voters in Detroit and Flint and carried most of the state’s interior rural counties, aside from a few with college towns and resort communities,” according to Epstein, while USA Today wrote Stevens’ support came “from Black voters in Detroit and from seniors. She did well in working-class communities in the suburbs, and she carried many of the more conservative and predominantly White rural counties.”

In other words, El Sayed won over voters who are more insulated from the consequences of his socialist policies. And none of this is unique to El-Sayed’s win.

Socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier narrowly beat incumbent Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., after performing best with younger voters, college-educated precincts, and higher-income areas. Espaillat won low-income areas and majority-Hispanic precincts.

Brad Lander (a Mamdani-backed candidate) unseated Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., after winning high-income areas and college-educated areas while Goldman performed better in low-income areas.

All of these candidates campaign as though they are for the working people and the poor, and yet they get most of their support from affluent leftists and wealthy people, while being rejected at the ballot box by those they claim to represent.

Affluent voters can champion candidates who support defunding the police, for example, because when things become dangerous, they can pack up and leave. But low-income residents don’t have that same luxury and are instead left to deal with unsafe streets and communities. Or take government-run grocery stores: Affluent voters can champion the idea because if local businesses fail to compete with a subsidized food store, the affluent voters can just go shop at Whole Foods or somewhere else. But locals without cars or disposable income may be left with nowhere to shop.

Affluent voters can throw their support behind open-border globalists who want to abolish borders, ICE, and immigration enforcement because it won’t be their housing supply that is squeezed by tens of millions of illegal aliens pining for the limited apartments. It’s not their communities that are transformed into Third World hellscapes. It’s the low-income communities most affected.

As with every form of socialism ever, the socialism of the Democrat Party is authoritarian slavery dictated by self-appointed elites.

A DSA Member Tried Debating a Venezuelan Immigrant. It Went About How You'd Expect.

Townhall 

When confronted with reality, the utopian vision of socialism always comes crashing down. 

That’s what unfolded on Tuesday as Daniel Di Martino, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, economist, and immigrant from Venezuela, faced off against Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) member Frances Gill on Fox News’ “The Story” with Martha MacCallum. 

The pair covered a wide variety of topics, including the practical reality of socialism, primarily as Di Martino witnessed in Venezuela, American sanctions on the country, as well as the apprehension of the country’s tyrant Nicolás Maduro. The debate did not go well for Gill.

Di Martino began by pointing out that government can’t run a business. Everywhere it has tried, its pursuits are not profitable, not efficient, and always leave Americans worse off, citing examples including the VA, Amtrak, and USPS.

They went on to discuss the apprehension of Venezuelan tyrant Nicolás Maduro. Gill attempted to argue that it’s hypocritical of the U.S. to expend so many resources trying to harm a socialist country, citing sanctions imposed on Venezuela and the earlier military operation in January. She proudly proclaimed that any democratically elected leader should not be kidnapped. 

Di Martino quickly asked her if that were the case, why the DSA supports ousting and arresting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The question was met with silence.

Several other clips simply showcased how warped the worldview of the Democratic Socialists was, as she condemned the United States, claiming that every president since the founding was evil, touted the supposed efficacy of the VA, and even argued that greater public schools require more funding, even though record levels of funding have yet to yield any results.

This is what the conservative movement is up against, an ideology that is increasingly detached from economic and political reality. It is the movement reshaping the Democrat Party from within, and one Republicans risk losing to in November if they fail to mount a compelling alternative.

Trump Blisters Treasonous 'Washington ComPost,' Reports He's 'Extremely Happy' With Pete Hegseth

RedState 

When news broke that the U.S. is running low on munitions because of the Iran conflict, the media pounced.

President Trump responded Thursday morning, writing in a social media post that we have "massive amounts of 'munitions,' especially of certain types" and that "The 'leakers' of these treasonous statements are being hunted down."

Meanwhile, as our Nick Arama wrote, the Washington Post got in on the act by breathlessly reporting Tuesday on a supposed angry confrontation between Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth at Camp David, wherein the president allegedly “boiled over” and berated his Secretary of War for being unprepared.

The Post thought they had a real scoop:

EXCLUSIVE: President Donald Trump’s frustration over the Iran war boiled over at Camp David last week, where he demanded answers from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on why he had apparently been misled on extreme munitions shortages that now threaten to limit military options with Iran.

The only problem with that story is that it’s complete hogwash, WH Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday. She was there, she added, and it “literally never happened.”

In a Thursday Truth Social post, meanwhile, the president came out in full-throated defense of his Pentagon chief and blistered “The Washington ComPost.” 

“The Fake News,” he wrote, “as usual, is spreading false and completely unfounded rumors”:

Trump called the biased coverage based on anonymous individuals "treasonous":

🔥 BREAKING: President Trump just DESTROYED Fake News reports that he’s UNHAPPY with SecWar Pete Hegseth, which fueled false rumors Hegseth could be ousted

“Their reporting is TREASONOUS.”

Pete is CRUSHING IT for America 🇺🇸

“The Fake News, as usual, is spreading false and completely unfounded rumors. I am extremely happy with the job that Pete Hegseth is doing. Everything has been extraordinary, including our attack on Venezuela, where the result was accomplished in less than one day, allowing us to bring one of the worst criminals anywhere in the World, Nicolas Maduro, to Justice!”

“Likewise, Iran, where the country has been decimated for the purpose of NOT ALLOWING IT TO EVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON, is going very well!”

“Pete is highly respected within the Military, and has made tremendous improvements, including getting rid of DEI, and increasing recruitment to historic levels.”

“This rumor was started by The Washington ComPost, one of the worst Media Outlets in the business, despite our telling them their story is completely FALSE. In actuality, I really believe their fake “reporting” is treasonous! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

And so the tradition of quoting anonymous “people with knowledge of the situation” continues over at the Post. Perhaps they need a reminder of their own slogan: “Democracy dies in darkness.”

Trump's Newest Executive Orders on Birthright Citizenship Should Have the Left Terrified

Townhall 

President Donald Trump has once again set birthright citizenship in his crosshairs as he has signed two executive orders to protect the value of American citizenship after an abhorrent ruling from the Supreme Court struck down an earlier executive action to end the practice.

One of the new executive orders penned by the Trump administration has limited the scope of applicable individuals entitled to birthright citizenship status as laid out in the Trump v. Barbara Supreme Court case from late June. The action prevents birthright citizenship from applying to children born of foreign diplomatic staff currently working in the U.S. on behalf of their home country, Children of individuals who are classified as alien enemies, individuals born in U.S. territories, and children of birth-tourism schemes.

Trump stated that the new order will give his administration a chance to crack down on the issue "in a much more forceful manner" while expressing his displeasure with the Court's erroneous ruling.

The second order has directed government authorities to work diligently to end the practice of birth-tourism across the United States. Birth-tourism rose to prominence once again in American politics after two Texas hospitals were found to be advertising the practice on billboards in Mexico in exchange for thousands of dollars. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and members of the Trump administration have taken aim at the hospitals with a slew of investigations in hopes of closing the shady practice down.

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas Aaron Reitz has called the birth-tourism scheme by the Texas hospitals “a scam in which the scammers stand to make millions and millions of dollars trading in American citizenship.”

Reitz says that the actions of the Texas hospitals are “highly alarming,” but federal prosecutors have yet to receive a criminal referral.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller’s statement promoting the new executive order indicates that the Trump administration will likely pursue a greater crackdown on the issue.

“Birth tourism is, by definition, a fraud on the American system, the American taxpayer, the American visa,” Miller told the press pool. “If you're telling a consular officer you're here as a tourist, but your true purpose and intent is to go to a baby mill, give birth, and try to mint an American citizen while you’re here, then you’re committing a fraud against the American government— and by definition that visa can, and should, and will now be denied.”

News of the birthright citizenship and birth-tourism crackdowns come as the Trump administration has set record numbers for deportations with Sec. Markwayne Mullin at the helm of the Department of Homeland Security.

♦️𝐖³𝐏 𝐃𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝

 

W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

posted by DarkGoldenMan

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time. 

 

More Evidence Iran May Be Reaching the Economic 'Tipping Point'

RedState 

Iran has dealt with sanctions for many years. 

But it hasn't had to deal with military action, a naval blockade preventing ships from getting in or out, its oil sales being cut off, its money being frozen and seized by an ever-vigilant Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and his team, currency collapse, and inflation through the roof - all at the same time - before 2026.

There's more evidence in the worsening situation that Iran is reaching a tipping point, with reports of Iranians stealing bread, cheese, meat, and other basic groceries. 

An investigation published Wednesday by the Iranian newspaper Jahan-e Sanat described supermarket workers encountering customers who allegedly concealed inexpensive food items or ate packaged products inside stores without paying. [....]

These are anecdotal, but they align with hard data,” Miad Maleki, an associate fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital.

“Iran is already inside the tipping zone,” Maleki said. “But a genuine ‘tipping point’ wouldn’t be a single dramatic event. It would look like what’s already unfolding in slow motion: currency collapse, World War II-level food inflation and now theft of staples, reaching a threshold where basic caloric/nutritional access breaks down for a large share of the population, not just the poorest.”

The inflation numbers were bad. 

The Statistical Center of Iran data cited in separate reports showed point-to-point inflation of 113.8% for food and beverages and 112.5% for food items in March compared with the same month a year earlier. Bread and cereal prices increased 140%, while milk, cheese and egg prices rose 116.8%

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian admitted there were "difficulties and problems," The NY Post reported in the story linked above.

“The enemy is exerting pressure in an attempt to provoke the people into protesting,” Pezeshkian said, according to an account of his Aug. 5 address published by Iran’s state-affiliated Press TV.

Maleki said worsening food insecurity could become a trigger for renewed demonstrations, pointing to Iran’s November 2019 protests following a sharp government-imposed increase in gasoline prices.

“The regime’s own history proves it, because its most dangerous moments have been economic, not ideological,” Maleki said.

As we reported, according to the resistance, people want revenge and are storing up weapons like bricks, rocks, and clubs, as well as going about acquiring firearms, to be prepared when they make their move. 

On top of that, as RedState wrote, what's left of Iran's leadership is in chaos, with it not even being clear who is in charge because the "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei hasn't been seen since the military action started. Even the Iranian president's attempt to meet with him was a wild cloak-and-dagger exercise which didn't convince anyone that Khamenei is even alive. 

If the people were able to rise up and take out their own leaders, that would be the best solution for regime change. You might be able to argue away many things, but this economic collapse just might finally move them there.