The last hurrah

From a transcript of the SOTU 2016:

Should all of these be federal concerns?

Concerns of government at all, at any level?

But tonight, I want to go easy on the traditional list of proposals for the year ahead. 

Don’t worry, I’ve got plenty, from helping students learn to write computer code to personalizing medical treatments for patients. 

And I’ll keep pushing for progress on the work that still needs doing. 

Fixing a broken immigration system. 

Protecting our kids from gun violence. 

Equal pay for equal work, paid leave, raising the minimum wage. 

All these things still matter to hardworking families; they are still the right thing to do; and I will not let up until they get done.

The same questions could be asked of pretty much the rest of his speech.

We could also ask about the constitutional authority of the federal government to do these things, but that so often seems pointless.

Still, much of what he says, as so often, is good sense - or anyway better sense than what his opponents say.

Like this.

Priority number one is protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks. 

Both al Qaeda and now ISIL pose a direct threat to our people, because in today’s world, even a handful of terrorists who place no value on human life, including their own, can do a lot of damage. 

They use the Internet to poison the minds of individuals inside our country; they undermine our allies.

But as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands. 

Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks and twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages pose an enormous danger to civilians and must be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence. 

That’s the story ISIL wants to tell; that’s the kind of propaganda they use to recruit. 

We don’t need to build them up to show that we’re serious, nor do we need to push away vital allies in this fight by echoing the lie that ISIL is representative of one of the world’s largest religions. 

We just need to call them what they are — killers and fanatics who have to be rooted out, hunted down, and destroyed.

. . . .

If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our troops and the world, you should finally authorize the use of military force against ISIL. 

Take a vote. 

But the American people should know that with or without Congressional action, ISIL will learn the same lessons as terrorists before them. 

If you doubt America’s commitment — or mine — to see that justice is done, ask Osama bin Laden. 

Ask the leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, who was taken out last year, or the perpetrator of the Benghazi attacks, who sits in a prison cell. 

When you come after Americans, we go after you. 

It may take time, but we have long memories, and our reach has no limit.

Our foreign policy must be focused on the threat from ISIL and al Qaeda, but it can’t stop there. 

For even without ISIL, instability will continue for decades in many parts of the world — in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in parts of Central America, Africa and Asia. 

Some of these places may become safe havens for new terrorist networks; others will fall victim to ethnic conflict, or famine, feeding the next wave of refugees. 

The world will look to us to help solve these problems, and our answer needs to be more than tough talk or calls to carpet bomb civilians. 

That may work as a TV sound bite, but it doesn’t pass muster on the world stage.

We also can’t try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into crisis. 

That’s not leadership; that’s a recipe for quagmire, spilling American blood and treasure that ultimately weakens us. 

It’s the lesson of Vietnam, of Iraq — and we should have learned it by now.

Fortunately, there’s a smarter approach, a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power. 

It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies; but on issues of global concern, we will mobilize the world to work with us, and make sure other countries pull their own weight.

This is interesting, too.

[W]e forged a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open markets, protect workers and the environment, and advance American leadership in Asia. 

It cuts 18,000 taxes on products Made in America, and supports more good jobs. 

With TPP, China doesn’t set the rules in that region, we do. 

You want to show our strength in this century? 

Approve this agreement. 

Give us the tools to enforce it.

And while of course O's actual words here are quite right, I nevertheless disagree with him on Muslim exclusion and think it might actually help if Muslim governments and peoples around the world are made to face the fact that the Muslim world right now is fundamentally diseased, and others can and will treat it as such.

This is the world of Islam, today.

That’s why we need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion. 

This isn’t a matter of political correctness. 

It’s a matter of understanding what makes us strong. 

The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith. 

His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot I stand tonight that “to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.” 

When politicians insult Muslims, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid bullied, that doesn’t make us safer. 

That’s not telling it like it is. 

It’s just wrong. 

It diminishes us in the eyes of the world. 

It makes it harder to achieve our goals. 

And it betrays who we are as a country.

Oh, and Lincoln did not bridge any divides; he crushed those who opposed him with overwhelming and brutal military force.

And much that O asks for by way of "fixing democracy" and "bringing us together" - the stuff about congressional districts, voter ID, and the like - is actually transparently partisan, favoring Democrats and meant to do so.

The official GOP rejoinder was moderately interesting, though not really notable.

So have been the unofficial GOP attacks on that response that point up divisions in that party.

I hadn't realized Rush Limbaugh sided with the anti-immigration, protectionist, Main Street wing of the party ( - should I also be calling it the "white people's defenders wing," the "white pride wing," or something like that?).

Odd that Ms. Haley responds to the attacks by hitting out at the Wall Street wing that she seems to agree with on these points.

Trying to show she disagrees with everybody about something or other, it seems.

And she said what?

"We’ve never in the history of this country passed any laws or done anything based on race or religion," she added. "Let’s not start that now."

Immigration law before 1965 was for much of our history explicitly intended to maintain the racial and ethnic balances in our country.

In fact, a demographic policy encompassing immigration, taxation, and other aspects to ensure continued economically and politically desirable population growth as well as preservation of the racial balance could be imagined not only in the US but in the nations of Europe.

I would favor that though it directly opposes the open aim of the left to make euro-whites minorities in their own countries, here, in Europe, and throughout the world.