Clinton’s Chronic Condition -- Secrecy and Dishonesty

by Rich Lowry

I wrote about Clinton’s pneumonia diagnosis today:

Bill and Hillary have a way of treating the credibility of their allies as a disposable commodity, in this case including the credibility of a protective media. 

The press had worked itself into a lather in recent weeks about the illegitimacy of inquiries into Hillary’s health. They were re-paid by Clinton leaving reporters behind without notice at the September 11 memorial; nearly collapsing when she was out of their view (the incident was captured on video by a bystander); giving them a wave and a misleading “feeling great” outside of Chelsea Clinton’s apartment, where she had gone to recover; leaving them behind yet again to go to her home in Chappaqua and see a doctor.

The Problem With Every ‘Intellectual’ Defense of Trump I’ve Ever Read

by David French

So the anonymous guy who wrote the now-famous “Flight 93” essay — you know, the “intellectual” defense of Trump that’s been talked about endlessly for the last eight days — is now back with a “restatement,” where he responds to the multiple critiques of his first piece. I have the same problem with the restatement as I had with the first essay, and it’s the same problem I’ve had with every single allegedly intellectual defense of Trump I’ve ever read. 

Simply put, these folks don’t defend the real, live Donald Trump. They create someone else entirely — we’ll call him Fake Trump — and defend Fake Trump against all comers. Fake Trump, for example isn’t going to embroil us in foreign wars. But Real Trump supported both the Iraq invasion and the Libyan intervention (Flight 93 dude calls Libya “perhaps the worst security policy mistake in US history”), and during this campaign (just last week!) has supported indefinite foreign occupation for resource extraction. 

Fake Trump is going to put a stop social justice crusading and defend life. Real Trump at best doesn’t care about religious liberty or abortion and at worst not only declares that Planned Parenthood does “wonderful things,” he’s arguably one of the sexual revolution’s most ardent practitioners. 

Fake Trump, to quote Flight 93 dude again, is “mounting the first serious national-political defense of the Constitution in a generation.” This is spit-out-your-coffee hilarious. Real Trump doesn’t know the slightest thing about the Constitution, but he’s more than happy to suppress your free speech rights if it means the media is more compliant, and he’s more than happy to take your home from you if he can replace it with a Trump casino. 

Fake Trump is finally going to implement a sensible immigration policy (indeed, I’ve written that the latest iteration of his policy has some very good elements), but Real Trump has been all over the map. His own business practices contradict his alleged immigration philosophy, he’s signaled that he’s for touchback amnesty, he’s gone after Republicans (namely, Mitt Romney) for being too hawkish on immigration, and even if he gets to build his wall, he’s talked about including a big, beautiful door. 

Fake Trump has an ideology. Real Trump has a will to power. We can only count on Trump to say what he needs to say and do what he needs to do to advance his own interests. He will pivot instantly and shamelessly to whatever position he needs to take in that moment to get what he wants. “I alone can solve this” is the core of his belief system — and he “solves” things not through the application of real ideas to real problems, but rather through the alleged awesome force of his wisdom, insight, strength, and personality. 

I’d vote for most of the Fake Trumps, but Real Trump is the only one on the ballot. In some ways even Real Trump would be preferable to Hillary (yes, she’s that bad), and in others, she has the edge (yes, he’s that bad.) Americans are faced with two unfit major-party nominees, but don’t tell that to the creators of Fake Trump. They can’t handle the truth.

The Deplorables

by Rich Lowry

This was a pretty effective way for Trump to use Hillary’s deplorables gaffe at his rally in Asheville last night. The comeback is more powerful coming from ordinary people and it’s always a good idea to get Trump on stage with a diverse group of supporters.

Huelskamp Not Ruling Out 2018 Comeback Bid

by Alexis Levinson

Representative Tim Huelksamp, who lost his primary last month, says a possible comeback bid in 2018 is not off the table.

“I’m not ruling anything out,” he tells National Review Tuesday.

Huelskamp, who currently represents Kansas’s 1st District, lost badly in a bitter primary battle against Roger Marshall, an obstetrician. The race drew $2.7 million in outside spending, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets, to a district that is home to just over 700,000 people.

In the aftermath of his loss, Huelskamp remains irritated with leadership, accusing Speaker Paul Ryan’s staff of “undermining our candidacy, undermining the statements we made.” And he continues to jab at the man who vanquished him.

“I mean, there are plenty of people that want a conservative back in the seat,” he says.

But whether Huelskamp, who says he is focused on his legislative duties and his family, would actually take another stab at the seat remains to be seen. “Nothing’s been decided yet,” he says.

Contra Tim Kaine’s Fantasy, the Catholic Church Isn’t Going to Change Its Teaching on Marriage

by Alexandra DeSanctis

At last weekend’s Human Rights campaign national dinner, Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine said he expects the Roman Catholic Church will change its centuries’-old understanding of marriage to include same-sex unions, in the same way that he himself did ten years ago.

Until 2005, Kaine was an opponent of legalizing same-sex marriage: “For a long time while I was battling for LGBT equality, I believed that marriage was something different.” But during Kaine’s stint as lieutenant governor of Virginia, when state lawmakers pushed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, pro-traditional-marriage arguments caused Kaine to pivot and support the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Kaine consistently describes himself as a “devout Catholic.” His pastor at a Catholic Church in Richmond agreed with this assessment, and the press often confers this label upon him as a matter of fact. Some commentators have branded him a “Pope Francis Catholic.”  Leaving aside the question — which I’ve considered previously at NRO – of whether one can be considered a “devout Catholic” while disagreeing with the Church on such fundamental issues as marriage and the right to life, consider Kaine’s blatant misunderstanding of his own faith when he asserts that the Church might alter its teaching on the nature of marriage. The very nature of Catholic teaching is precisely that it can’t “evolve,” but rather will remain unchanged despite the fluctuating winds of public opinion and policy.

Those who want Catholicism to join hand-in-hand with modernity in a long march toward “progress” might point to certain traditions that have changed during its 2,000-year history. What’s to stop its teachings on abortion and marriage from undergoing a similar change? Such an argument, however, ignores the distinction between a change in church culture and one in the “capital-T” Tradition of the Church, or its doctrines. Unlike, say, the U.S. Constitution, Catholic doctrine not only will not but cannot be altered​.

It’s one thing for Kaine to support the legalization of same-sex marriage and denigrate Trump for his supposed lack of concern for LGBT people — though this, too, might be worthy of scrutiny. It’s another for him to glibly predict the Catholic Church will soon change its doctrine to be in line with his own opinion, touting a false understanding of Catholic teaching to justify both his progressive stance and his devotion to the faith in doing so.

UPDATE: Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo of the Catholic diocese of Richmond released a statement today reiterating the Church’s unchanging definition of marriage in the wake of Kaine’s comments. From the bishop’s statement:

More than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage, and despite recent statements from the campaign trail, the Catholic Church’s 2000-year-old teaching to the truth about what constitutes marriage remains unchanged and resolute. As Catholics, we believe, all humans warrant dignity and deserve love and respect, and unjust discrimination is always wrong. Our understanding of marriage, however, is a matter of justice and fidelity to our Creator’s original design. Marriage is the only institution uniting one man and one woman with each other and with any child who comes from their union. Redefining marriage furthers no one’s rights, least of all those of children, who should not purposely be deprived of the right to be nurtured and loved by a mother and a father.

Racial Quotas for Medical-Marijuana Growing?

by Roger Clegg

According to this Washington Post article, black Maryland state legislators are “planning to propose emergency legislation to address the dearth of minority-owned businesses approved to grow medical marijuana in the state.” 

There’s a federal constitutional problem here, though: A predicate for racial preferences in government contracting is a demonstration that there has historically been discrimination in the industry involved. Medical marijuana was legalized in Maryland only a couple of years ago, so one wonders how much discrimination there has been, historically, in a industry that does not yet actually exist. 

But never mind all that.  “This is a good modern-day civil rights fight,” says Del. Cheryl D. Glenn (D., Baltimore) of the Legislative Black Caucus. Well, maybe not “good,” but certainly typical. 
 

Hillary’s Health: Our Right to Know

by NR Staff

Hillary Clinton may become the next president of the United States. We deserve to know what’s really going on.

‘Nature Rights’ Court Case Effort

by Wesley J. Smith

As I detail in my book The War on Humans, environmentalists want to grant “nature” the human-style “right to exist, persist, maintain, and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution”–in essence a right to life for flora, fauna, and even rivers and granite outcrops.

Before you laugh, Bolivia and Ecuador–as well as more than 30 U.S. municipalities–already have laws guaranteeing nature rights. Perhaps more ominously, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon supports the cause.

Nature rights is now going to court. From the Energy Wire story (my emphasis):

CELDF attorney Lindsey Schromen-Wawrin represented the local water authority, a grass-roots environmental group and the Crystal Spring ecosystem in a motion to join the case on the township’s side…

“By recognizing ecosystems as legal persons we’re trying to change this, to recognize legally that the earth has rights and is not merely property,” he said in an email. “That means, of course, that we’re going up against at least 1,000 years of dogma in western law. That’s not going to be easy, but at the same time we need to make some fundamental shifts in how we relate to the earth in short time.”

The effort is part of the “rights of nature” movement, which has gained attention but little traction in recent years as CELDF promotes the idea in small communities seeking to block oil and gas development. Under the doctrine, parts of the environment would have legal standing in court. The forests, rivers and other parts of nature would still be represented by human lawyers but, unlike environmental groups, would not have to show that a challenged action ultimately harms people.

Nature rights seeks to thwart any large-scale development by granting anyone a right to sue on behalf of “nature,” and require courts to give “equal consideration” to those rights with any human need or desire to use “nature” for our benefit.

And before you chortle, “It will never happen here,” remember: It only takes one ideological judge who wants to make history to put this anti-human meme in legal play. As events of the last few decades attest, such jurists are not in short supply.

Don’t Hate the Player, Hate the Game. Really.

by Jim Geraghty

Yes, it’s ridiculous to have Dr. Oz reveal the results of Donald Trump’s most recent physical to Trump himself on the show. Yes, it comes across as a Maury Povich paternity test or some other shameless stunt from a Hollywood reality show.

Except this is a world where the president danced with Ellen DeGeneres…

…appeared in a commercial for George Lopez’s late-night television show, talked about his friendship with George Clooney on Entertainment Tonight

…offered one of this first assessments of the Benghazi attack on The View…

…and offered his first thoughts on a terror attack in Brussels from the stands of a baseball game in Cuba on ESPN.

Obama lectured Trump that “this is not a reality show” after appearing on American Idol, Mythbusters, Running Wild with Bear Grylls, Between Two Ferns, and Comedians in Cars Drinking Coffee, in addition to just about every talk show imaginable.

I can’t stand the fact that the Republicans nominated a celebrity reality show star as their presidential nominee. But that stems from the fact that modern culture, driven heavily by the communications efforts of the Obama administration, turned the presidency into a celebrity reality show star position. Trump is pursuing votes under the precedents and rules set by previous candidates — pushing it further, yes, but differences of degree, not in kind. 

ISIS Imposes a Partial Ban on Burqas

by Daniel Pipes

Before getting to the news item at hand, a personal preface:

I am frustrated that Westerners don’t perceive the obvious point that burqas and niqabs, both of which cover not only the head but the whole body, threaten public security. A person wearing these Islamic garments can be male or female, can carry an assault rifle, and can usually get away with anything anonymously.

I expected that my compilation of burqa- and niqab-assisted crimes and acts of political violence going back nearly fifteen years and now about 150 incidents long, would convince any sensible observer of the public security problem; all the more so because the assaults included child abduction and rape, the murder of police officers, and other outrages; and because banks and other institutions have noted the problem and in many cases banned these and many lesser coverings.

But no, whether it be an intellectual like Martha Nussbaum, a journalist like Joel Mathis, or the many, many voices opining on the recent burkini ban from French beaches, security issues inspire a collective shrug, with almost everyone focused instead on the symbolism of these two garments, whether it be concerning the welcoming of the other, the inhibition of social interaction, or the status of women.

While sensible to these concerns, I fail to see how one can legally ban an article of clothing because it bothers one’s sensibilities. As I like to put it, bad taste is a human right; you can wear a green-and-pink plaid jacket and I have no right to forbid it because it happens to offend me; likewise for the burqa and niqab. I can only ban those if they pose a danger, which they do.

So much for the West. Now to the news item, which concerns the Islamic State, that bastion of burqas, where women can be flogged for not wearing one; Iran Front Page translated a Persian-language item from Al-Alam News Network, an Iranian regime news agency:

A local source in the Iraqi province of Nineveh announced on Friday, September 2, that the [ISIS] terrorist group has released an order, based on which no woman is allowed to be wearing niqab or burqa when entering the security and military centres. The decision, according to the source, came after some fully veiled women killed a number of ISIS commanders and members in the past months.

The first irony about this: The ISIS rulers first require the burqa and then, realizing what a perfect cover it provides to attack themselves, ban it from sensitive areas. Should attacks on them continue, perhaps ISIS will have to ban the burqa from all public places, which would be quite a change.

Second, the most retrograde, extreme, and morbid Islamist regime on earth recognizes burqas as a danger to public security while the modern, moderate, and democratic states in the West remain clueless.

Finally, despite my frustration on this issue, I do believe it’s just a matter of more assaults and more time before Westerners wake up to this problem. But how many more must be gratuitously robbed, raped, and killed before that happens? 

JFK, Supply Sider?

by John J. Miller

So say Larry Kudlow and Brian Domitrovic, in their new book JFK and the Reagan Revolution: A Secret History of American Prosperity. In a 10-minute conversation with The Bookmonger, they explain why we haven’t heard this story before, why the theory of supply-side economics is a “paradoxical truth” (as JFK called it), and what we should make of Donald Trump’s tax plan.

Sorting Through the ‘Reassuring’ Messages about Clinton’s Health

by Jim Geraghty

From the Tuesday Morning Jolt:

Sorting Through the ‘Reassuring’ Messages about Clinton’s Health

Relax, everyone! Bill Clinton has arrived to speak to Charlie Rose, to reassure us about Hillary’s health.

CHARLIE ROSE: Everybody would like to know, how is Secretary Clinton?

 BILL CLINTON: She’s doin’ fine. She– she was even better last night before she went to sleep. She had a good night’s sleep. But she’s just doin’ fine. She just got dehydrated yesterday. She-

Just dehydrated, the kind that leaves your limbs stiff, your leg dragging, and makes stepping off a curb to a van impossible even when you have three people around you helping you!

CHARLIE ROSE: Is that what happened? She got dehydrated? Because when you look at that collapse, that video that was taken, you wonder if– if it’s not more serious-

BILL CLINTON: No, no. She–

CHARLIE ROSE:–than dehydration and–

BILL CLINTON: She’s been– well, it isn’t a mystery to me and all of her doctors. ‘Cause frequently– not frequently. Rarely, but on more than one occasion over the last many, many years, the same sorta thing’s happened to her, when she just got severely dehydrated. 

Ah, it’s one of those “frequently, not frequently” sort of things. “On more than one occasion over the last many, many years.” Does that mean two or three times over ten years? Ten times over ten years? How often do you get “severely dehydrated”?

Note this report in Politico:

Clinton’s pneumonia isn’t severe, according to two people with direct knowledge of the candidate’s condition, and she is expected to return to the campaign trail as early as this week. The real issue is chronic dehydration, exacerbated by her lung problem and Clinton’s reluctance to drink water, which has become a source of tension with her staff.

“She won’t drink water, and you try telling Hillary Clinton she has to drink water,” said a person in her orbit – who described a frenzied rehydration mission that included multiple bottles of water and Gatorade.

Wait, what? I’m not citing this as a reason to vote against her, but it just seems like really bizarre behavior. Bill says she intermittently gets “severely dehydrated,” a condition easily solved by drinking water, and she won’t do it?

Somewhere Michelle Obama frowns that Hillary ignored her “drink up” campaign.

Back to Bill’s interview:

BILL CLINTON: And she’s worked like a demon.

I’m sure with her critics will agree with that metaphor as well.

At times Charlie Rose seems a little skeptical of what he’s hearing from the former president:

BILL CLINTON: Yeah. I was glad– today, she made a decision, which I think was correct– to cancel her campaign day, take one more day to rest. But she looked like a million bucks this morning. I could tell she was feelin’ a lot better.

CHARLIE ROSE: She has pneumonia.

BILL CLINTON: Yeah.

Now, she certainly seemed fine coming out of Chelsea’s apartment. But how many people “look like a million bucks” when they have pneumonia?

Then there’s this strange exchange where Bill makes it sound like he and Hillary have wanted to release her full medical records for a long time, and no one around them on the campaign will listen to them or do as they say:

BILL CLINTON: Well, there– there are– they– the campaign said they were gonna release some more medical information. I don’t know what it is.

CHARLIE ROSE: But wouldn’t you encourage her to release everything–

BILL CLINTON: I already have. And sh– but she encouraged them. She said, “Look, let’s just release them ourselves–”

CHARLIE ROSE: But then why not? And why not do it yesterday?

 BILL CLINTON: I– I don’t know the answer to that.

CHARLIE ROSE: You don’t–

BILL CLINTON: I’m not involved in that. No, I don’t–

CHARLIE ROSE: But aren’t you– you are encouraging her to release everything.

And it wouldn’t be a Clinton interview if there wasn’t at least one lament that the press is being so hard on her and giving Donald Trump a free pass:

BILL CLINTON: Yeah. But y– you know, if a Martian came down from outer space and watched America unfold over the last six to eight weeks– it’d be hard to see all these earnest pleas for disclosure, which are entirely one sided. I mean, we also released 40 years of income tax information, almost 40 years.

Not even Charlie Rose can let that go, responding, “But people are demanding that Donald Trump release his income tax returns all the time, you know?”

Yesterday Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon insisted that “as soon as she got into the vehicle, she was alert the whole time and telling staff she was fine. She was making calls to aides from the car.” (Does she look like she’s alert and fine as she gets into the van in that video?) He said she was chasing her grandchildren around the apartment. Wait, doesn’t she have pneumonia? Why is she chasing a two-year-old around?

Finally, last night Clinton telephoned into CNN and asserted, “It’s so strange. As soon as it became clear I couldn’t power through, we said what was going on.”

No they didn’t! He departure was done away from any press. Her traveling press pool wasn’t told where she was or where she was going. It was 90 minutes before she appeared before the cameras again, and about eight hours before the campaign mentioned the pneumonia diagnosis from three days earlier. 

 

The Strange Dearth of Christian Refugees from Syria

Krauthammer’s Take: Pneumonia Could Have Earned Sympathy If Clinton Camp ‘Were Honest and Clever’

by NR Staff

Charles Krauthammer does not think the Hillary Clinton campaign would have disclosed anything about her health without Sunday’s video, and to him this shows a lack of foresight, not just of honesty:

The video is always decisive — for everything. You go back to Ferguson. You go back to the Somali invasion in ‘92, it was because of the video. Video of the ISIS executions — if you take that away, we are in a different world. But seeing her slip, seeing her helpless, can be devastating. That’s why they should have been out there right away.

The irony is, you could have — if they had been honest and clever — you play this for sympathy, and also to show determination. This is a woman who has been campaigning 18 months, has pneumonia, perseveres, and you might have been able to turn it around, a bit like the tear in the New Hampshire primary in 2008. But instead, they go into cover-up mode and they make it worse.

She’s not going to withdraw over a walking pneumonia, if that’s all there is. If you have pneumonia underlying, and you have seasonal allergies, you add it on to that, you can end up with a nasty cough. That’s the obvious explanation unless they are hiding something really bad.

Regensburg: Ten Years Later

by Ian Tuttle

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the Regensburg Address. Delivered by a 79-year-old Joseph Ratzinger, then 18 months into his papacy, the lecture is primarily remembered for the garment-rending it occasioned in the Muslim world, and among Christianity’s cultured despisers in Europe and the U.S. But Ratzinger’s “controversial” quotations from a 14th-century dialogue between Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian Muslim were not intended to provoke; they were, rather, the starting point for a meditation on the relationship of faith and reason in the contemporary West, particularly in the university. For Ratzinger, the restoration of theology — i.e., “inquiry into the rationality of faith” — to its traditional place among the sciences is necessary if we seek “that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today.”

Ten years on, Ratzinger’s words seem even more urgent. Read the full address here, then read Samuel Gregg’s reflections.

The King Family vs. the Smithsonian

by Ramesh Ponnuru

The Daily Mail:

The Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture will open without any major artifacts from civil rights leader Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

For this, some cast the blame on King’s surviving children – Dexter Scott King, Bernice King, Martin Luther King III – who have a reputation for allegedly being difficult and litigious when it comes to items of memorabilia.

John Miller wrote about this problem for NR a long time ago, although without the intense equivocation. (They don’t have a reputation for being litigious, mind you, just a reputation for allegedly being litigious.) (According to “some.”)

 

Kim Jong Un-amused

by Ian Tuttle

Tired of anti-regime jokes, North Korea has forbidden sarcasm. That’ll solve the problem, for sure.

No, Salon, Senate Republicans Aren’t the Ones Responsible for Delay in Zika Research

by Alexandra DeSanctis

For what seems like the hundredth time, Senate Republicans are being falsely accused of playing politics with Zika-virus research funding. The latest culprit of peddling this claim? Daniel Denvir of Salon, who recently accused the New York Times — yes, the New York Times! — of favoring the GOP in its coverage of the Senate battle over a bill that would fund Zika-virus prevention and treatment. Denvir’s criticism rests on his exceptionally dishonest representation of the bill’s contents and his deceitful claim that Republicans are stymieing the legislation due to their opposition to abortion.

As I reported in early August, contrary to leading Democrats’ continued assertions, the bill contains no “poison pill” to attack access to “reproductive health care.” Denvir accuses Republicans of making “Zika funding the latest hostage to their crusade to defund Planned Parenthood,” but the bill does no such thing. Rather, it was Democrats blocked the bill for the third time on Tuesday because it doesn’t contain an earmark specifically granting extra funding to Planned Parenthood. This fact — evident from a brief scan of the bill itself — hasn’t stopped liberal media outlets from mischaracterizing the issue, but it seems, in this instance, that the New York Times is telling the truth. Denvir’s bogus attack on Senate Republicans merely verifies the Times’ report.

The Day That Seems Like Yesterday

by Jim Talent

I appeared Saturday with former attorney general John Ashcroft at a ceremony in Joplin, Missouri to a crowd gathered in remembrance of the 9-11 attacks.  My thanks to Allen Shirley of Joplin, for organizing the event and for his kindness in inviting me.  In lieu of writing a column on the subject, I’m going to post the body of my remarks, which were quite brief, with a few edits, as my contribution to NR’s remembrance of that day.

It is hard to believe that 15 years have passed since the events we are gathered here to remember.  September 11, 2001, is a day that will always seem like yesterday.  It is frozen in the minds of every American old enough to remember it.  We all recall what we were doing the moment we heard about the attacks; we all recall the shock and outrage and horror of seeing, in real time, devastation inflicted on two great American cities.

There were over 8,000 casualties that day, and 2,996 deaths.  Those who died represented a cross section of America.  They were men, women, and children, including 11 unborn children.  They were of many different backgrounds, ethnicities, religions, ages and occupations.  Yet they had things in common too.  Each had a beating heart and a vital soul; each was precious to a network of friends and family.  None deserved to die; all were innocent, and each began that fateful day entirely unaware that, by the time night had fallen, he would meet his Maker. 

When I think about September 11th for very long, the human loss is more than I can bear.  It reminds me of a line from Shakespeare: “I do not take this from report.  It is, and my heart breaks at it.”

Yet it is necessary for us to think about it.  It is right for us to remember.  And it is important that we have gathered here to share our memories  and renew our resolve to complete the task remaining before us.

The enemy who attacked us on September 11 is still attacking us today.  Hundreds of thousands of brave Americans have fought for us and are fighting for us still, in law enforcement, in the intelligence community, and in the armed forces.  Some of them have joined us here this afternoon.  Yet despite their efforts, it must be said that the influence of the enemy is spreading, his strength on balance is growing, his aspirations are as barbaric as ever and his methods are even more cruel. 

I’ve spent my years since leaving the Senate working mostly in the world of national security.  I must tell you this: the enemy is seeking to empower himself with terrible new weapons – nuclear weapons and bio-weapons and cyber weapons – he will use if he acquires them, and that have the potential to inflict injury which will make the events we remember today seem small by comparison.

It cannot and must not be allowed to happen.  And the good news is this: it won’t happen, if we are determined enough to prevent it.  The task is by no means too great: if we use only a small fraction of America’s enormous latent power, but use it with purpose and clarity and common sense, we will overwhelm the enemy, and we may be surprised at how quickly we can do it. 

The events of September 11 opened a new chapter in our long history.  The chapter began in tragedy; we must resolve now to close it in victory, to close it soon, and certainly to close it long before another 15 years have passed.  That is the debt we owe not just to the dead, but to the living, not just to the past, but to the future, not just for the safety of our communities, but for our national honor, and our civilized way of life.

POLL: Is Hillary Hiding Something about Her Health?