Foreign Policy

When Did WW3 Start? Let's Talk About Sanctuary Cities and the Radical Left Instead

CPAC panel underdelivers.

|

ViaMoi/flickr

"When did World War 3 start?" asked an afternoon CPAC panel featuring Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. He was relevant because the panel was the first of two on WW3. Today's was on "the threat at home" and tomorrow will be "the threat abroad." The panel didn't turn out that way.

"How many people feel scared?" panel moderator Ginni Thomas of the Daily Caller asked the audience at the beginning of the panel. "Can I get an amen?" Security, she noted, was a primary reason many people vote.

Clarke spoke first because, according to Thomas, he had the most Twitter followers, which was how Thomas determined the order. Clarke focused mostly on sanctuary cities and border security, saying the time had come to begin to "aggressively enforce the rule of law in America."

"Sanctuary cities are havens for criminals," Clarke insisted, ignoring the history of sanctuary cities as a policy supported by law enforcement to secure the cooperation of illegal immigrants in criminal investigations.

Clarke never got around to explaining how illegal immigration connected to WW3. He did not bring up, for example, overblown claims popular in the right-wing echo chamber about terrorist fighters crossing in from Mexico.

Instead, Clarke suggested prosecuting one mayor for the sanctuary city policy, saying that would have a chilling effect on other sanctuary city officials.

The second panelist, New Zealand author Trevor Loudon, led with the WW3 hook. "WW3 started about 1400 years ago, and it got a big boost during the Bolshevik revolution," Lauden suggested, because of Islamists and communists.

He went on to praise the U.S. for defending freedom in the South Pacific during World War 2. The U.S. "keeps all of the world stable and all of the world free," Loudon insisted, repeating tired talking points about Barack Obama's foreign policy aiding U.S. enemies and hurting U.S. allies, a strange point to hold on to during the nascent Trump administration, given President Trump's willingness to talk tough to traditional U.S. allies like Australia or NATO.

Loudon pivoted to the "radical left" plan to undermine America, tying anti-Trump protests to that effort. He called on attendees to support Trump through social media if they "cared about America," saying the medium made it possible to combat all kinds of radicals.

Former CIA employee Claire Lopez, of the Center for Security Policy, spoke third, talking about "civilization jihad."

"We are not fighting terrorism," Lopez insisted, "we are fighting the forces of Islamic jihad and sharia."

She insisted the U.S. was fighting for individual liberty, equality for all, human dignity, and the consent of the governed, saying those concepts were "anathema and even blasphemy" for Islamists. Fears over sharia law, however, are anathema to some of the ideals Lopez herself said the U.S. fought for.

It went downhill from there. Lopez claimed, without providing any specifics, that the government and national security apparatus, and even local law enforcement, were "deeply penetrated" by the Muslim Brotherhood, a common right-wing bugaboo.

The last speaker was acting Federal Trade Commissioner Maureen Olhausen. How did she fit into the theme of World War 3? She came to speak about intellectual property and warn about the effort to "devalue" intellectual property rights in the U.S., which she said discouraged investment at home and encouraged intellectual property theft abroad. Olhausen mentioned China in passing as one of those countries, but did not make it her focus nor did she place China within a working theory of a World War 3 that had already started, sticking to more generic descriptions of the U.S. being "under attack" by those who would steal intellectual property.

"It's gonna be fight every day, I'm up for it," David Clarke said during the concluding remarks. "Are you?"

The panel was disappointing. The framework of a putative World War 3 can be an interesting one through which to think through U.S. foreign policy issues and options. One could argue WW3 started on 9/11, or during the First Gulf War, or in 1979 during the Islamic revolution in Iran, or even further back. Any of these starting points could yield interesting questions about and critiques of U.S. foreign policy.

Arguably, even, neither World War 1 nor World War 2 have completely played out. Many of the tensions arising from NATO's role in the world come from it being a post-war, Cold War-era alliance operating in a post-Cold War world. Many of the geopolitical issues in the Middle East, meanwhile, can be traced to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which chose the losing side in WW1.

Instead of any of that however, perhaps unsurprisingly, the panel became a hodgepodge of security-related issues not connected by any over-arching theme other than fear. While today was supposed to be about "the threat at home," not even that became a unifying theme for the panel.

Tomorrow's panel on WW3 and "the threat abroad" starts at 8:15a.m.

Related: Don't Talk WW3 Blues

NEXT: Blasphemy prosecution in Denmark for alleged Koran-burning

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “WW3 started about 1400 years ago, and it got a big boost during the Bolshevik revolution,” Lauden suggested, because of Islamists and communists.

    World War 3 got lapped by World Wars 1 and 2?

    1. Those were just minor skirmishes in the greater war.

  2. CPAC: Tom Cotton-approved.

    CPAC: We’re white as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.

    CPAC: Where Tomi Lahren is a genius.

    CPAC: Where all laws are enforced.

  3. The second panelist, New Zealand author Trevor Loudon

    Don’t you mean the lost continent of Zealandia?

    1. I have yet to meet a continent that seems capable of writing books.

      1. that’s because Zealandia is lost, jeez keep up!

  4. “It’s gonna be fight every day, I’m up for it,” David Clarke said during the concluding remarks. “Are you?”

    No.

    1. What happened to:

      “We’re white as hell…..

    2. And I’m not feeling an “Amen!” for fear, either.

  5. The intellectual depth on display at CPAC is astounding.

    1. Trump didn’t just suck the oxygen out of the room, he pumped in helium.

      1. Too bad it wasn’t ammonia. /sarc

  6. At this rate, I’m expecting the D Team to get a majority in the House in 2018 and the whole fedgov to go into TOTAL GRIDLOCK of Trump vs House Ds vs Senate Rs (with razor thin majority). [just writing that gave me a chubby]

    Since the R Team will likely be lucky to pass a few subsidies for their cronies and not much else – not much will change in next two years.

    1. Difficult to see the future is, yes. Always in motion it is. My money is on Team Blue getting spanked one more time before they get their shit together, and Trump winning in 2020 although losing the House in the process. Sort of the people giving him another shot but adding a counterweight.

      2018 is tough because House Seats are local and I have seen zero serious reflection on the part of Team Blue since November. It’s been 100% venom and outward projection and people not understanding or hearing their platform.

      1. The problem with the Dems’ strategery is that they try to appeal to the irresponsible people who don’t vote as reliably as the R voters.

  7. You do realize that Sherriff Clark is also in law enforcement so his idea are just as valid as others police organizations many of which are just union run lackys carrying the democrat dream of sancutary cities without any real thought to its effectiveness which in little to none.

    1. read further. Your still using the lefts already proven false narrative of Trumps phone call to Australia and you know dam well that Trump like almost all Americans of both sides only wants nato to pay their fair agreed to share.

      Reason has really become joke of its former self

  8. how exactly are fears over Sharia law anathema to American values?

    Your response might be against values of free speech or freedom of religion, but fears over a violent and brutal theocracy? It doesn’t seem like there is anything of sharia that is compatible with American values.

    1. As long as it isn’t implemented by law, doesn’t impose penalties that violate the law and the people subject to it do so voluntarily, it’s compatible.

      In any case, I see no rational reason to fear Sharia being imposed in the US.

      1. B-B-B-BUT… MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD!!1!!1111!!11111!!!! /sarc

      2. That is a completely different argument. The supposition is that fears of sharia are incompatible with American values. That just doesn’t pass the giggle test. The people in favor of sharia are definitely pushing for enforcement of sharia by the state as a matter of law.. Including the horrid things like the death penalty for gays and adulterers, Etc.

        The level of the threat in the United States is definitely highly disputable. But that is a different argument.

    2. Sharia Law: Tell you how to prepare Halal meat.

      Amercian Conservative: “OMG! Sharry Law

  9. Loudon pivoted to the “radical left” plan to undermine America, tying anti-Trump protests to that effort. He called on attendees to support Trump through social media if they “cared about America,” saying the medium made it possible to combat all kinds of radicals.

    New national motto: Strength through Tweets

  10. CPAC is a trade show for grifters. That’s all.

    1. Aren’t the elections?

  11. Liberals are constantly panicking over a Christian theocracy that will never happen, but are completely blase about Islamic theocracies which not only exist, but are essentially inevitable once a country has a critical mass of muslims and can impose Shariah law on the rest of the country.

    1. I really just don’t get that at all. I’m not worried about Muslims taking over the US. That’s even less likely than a Christian theocracy. But every criticism and fear people may have about Christian theocrats and social conservatives applies x1000 to Islam.

      1. Based on… nothing. Religious freedom is in retreat in this country and hate speech laws and “dear colleague” letters have been waxing So applying your previous standard they are comparable.

        I blame lead.

        1. Is this a response to my comment?

          In case it wasn’t clear, the thing I don’t get is the liberals who panic over the possibility for Christian theocracy, but make every excuse for Muslims who openly want theocracy.

          There aren’t any hate speech laws in the US.

  12. Arguably, even, neither World War 1 nor World War 2 have completely played out.

    Nor the Spanish-American War, nor the “Korean War”.

    1. Bring the US troops home from England, Germany, Italy, Germany, Japan and Korea and they will be over.

  13. Spicer, Sessions, Trump, and their apologists can all choke on a bag of dicks:

    Radley BalkoVerified account
    ?@radleybalko

    Spicer: DOJ will be “taking action” against states that have legalized recreational marijuana.

    1. Will this be the death of recreational marijuana, or the match that lights the fire of change at a national level?

      1. I suspect that once again, those who want to be left alone to live life on their own terms and allow others to do the same will find themselves vastly outnumbered by those who fetishize order and control.

        1. I predict that once again libertarians won’t advocate for equal application of the law because they don’t like the outcome.

          1. libertarians won’t advocate for equal application of the law because they don’t like the outcome the law.

        2. You just say that because it has always been true in the past.

      2. Ultimately the latter.

    2. What a surprise.

    3. Note to AG Sessions: go fuck yourself. I hope you have an unfortunate woodchipper accident in the near future.

  14. Clarke spoke first because, according to Thomas, he had the most Twitter followers, which was how Thomas determined the order.

    That’s… really fucking stupid.

  15. Clarke suggested prosecuting one mayor for the sanctuary city policy, saying that would have a chilling effect on other sanctuary city officials.

    Prosecute them for what, exactly? Or is this a case of “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

    Should’ve saved my “dizzying intellect” link for this nimrod.

    Oh what the hell. It was good enough to merit seconds.

  16. I see that CPAC finally got taken over by the Troofers. Now maybe we can finally take it out back behind the barn and put a bullet in it’s skull.

  17. “How many people feel scared?”

    Scared of what? A few whacko terrorists? People crossing the border illegally to work for low wage jobs? I’m scared of a 4 trillion dollar budgets and a 20 trillion dollar national debt I’m expected to pay off.

  18. Tomorrow’s panel on WW3 and “the threat abroad” starts at 8:15a.m.

    We thank you for your service, Ed. Keep up the good work.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.