On 4/20, even stoners would rouse themselves and find enticing the marvelous collection of political posters at today’s illustrated edition.
Trump’s decision to change the paradigm with North Korea illustrates the precept in my annual Passover post: Tyrannies must be decapitated, not placated.
Starting with Bill Clinton, America fawned over North Korea’s tyrannical rulers, sending them money and promising not to hurt them. In those same years, North Korea’s rulers expanded their concentration/death camps, presided over unnecessary famines, and somehow managed, with every passing year, to find more ways to crack down on a people already starved, terrorized, and denied any rights.
It did not matter one whit to the Kim dynasty that their people experienced incomparable suffering (most of it at the hands of the Kims). The only thing that mattered to the Kims and those closest to them was maintaining their power, prestige, and oh-so-comfortable lifestyle, complete with the finest food (as their people starved), the most luxurious products from around the world and, of course, sex slaves. Lots and lots of sex slaves.
Then something changed. Beginning in January 2017, instead of an American president saying to Kim Jong-un “What can I do to make you happy?” we got a president who said “I’m going to kill you.” He also said to the Chinese, “I’m not very happy with your behavior either, although I’m sure we can resolve our differences when you stop using economic war against America and trying to turn the international waters off of China into your own pond.” Very impolitic. Very mad man. Very undiplomatic. A very big break from more than a quarter century of “diplomacy.”
The usual talking heads amongst the chattering class promised Armageddon. Interestingly, something entirely different happened: With the threat brought directly home to him, Kim Jong-un changed his behavior. He sent athletes and sex slaves to the Olympics. He reached out to South Korea. And of course, most importantly, he scuttled off to China and, rather than admitting the truth — namely, that he feared the “crazy” guy in the White House — announced that the wise Chinese had persuaded him to abandon his nuclear dreams. Even if Kim and the Chinese won’t admit it, you and I know where the credit goes for this announcement.
Watching Trump’s conduct and its outcome, I had to ask myself, has he been reading my annual Passover post or, perhaps, talking to one of Ivanka’s rabbis? Or maybe he’s just had a chance to think about things as he’s attended family Seders over the years.
Did I just hear someone say “What annual Passover post?” Well, this one. As I do every year, I’ve edited it to reflect current concerns. [Read more…]
A trip through a few days worth of my Facebook posts shows that, with little effort, I can expose Proggies to ideas and facts they usually miss or ignore.
Of late, between paying work, family demands, and a touch of the blecchies (not the flu, thank goodness, but I wasn’t feeling great), I’ve been posting on my real-me Facebook more than I’ve been blogging. Blogging requires paragraphs; Facebook requires sentences, a word here or there, or no comment at all to introduce an article.
My two goals on Facebook are to entertain people, so they keep coming back to my feed, and to place before them things that they won’t normally see as they shuffle back and forth between The New York Times, The Washington Post, Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, and the usual mono-ideologues who make up their intellectual world. I try to do the latter in an entirely non-judgmental way, so that people will stop and think, rather than block and argue.
To give you a sense of my M.O., here’s a sampling of things from my real-me Facebook feed over the last few days, many of which you’ll probably recognize from Instapundit and other familiar sites:
I knew that Cape Town’s imminent water shortage was its own fault because it failed to plan for drought, despite living where they regularly occur and despite a population much larger than the last time a drought rolled around. That was the same problem California had with its recent drought (and may continue to have, because last year’s big rains, rather than heralding the end of drought seem to have been just a pause). What I didn’t know was that it was South Africa’s poisonous antipathy to Israel that prevented it from saving itself. Now, when I see Cape Towners lined up with little cans at communal fountains, I don’t feel sorry for them, just as I really didn’t feel sorry for Californians (myself included) stupid enough to live in a state that failed to prepare for inevitable dry periods.
Everybody loves MacDonald’s — even Lefties. That’s why, back in 1990, when the first MacDonald’s opened in the former Soviet Union, 30,000 Russians lined up for the chance to eat there:
Emotional support pets on planes are too often a scam. I adore my dog, who makes me happy, and I’d definitely be a less panicked airplane passenger if I held him in my arms, but he’s still not medically necessary, and most other so-called emotional support pets aren’t either. The way people have abused the service pet exception to animals on planes is especially bad because it’s making things so difficult for those people who genuinely need an animal at their side to help them navigate their world or to guard them against dangerous seizures and other serious ailments. And so I said on Facebook.
Sharyl Attkisson, one of the last honest reporters, explained that the Nunes memo indicates that the FBI violated Woods Procedures. So that my friends don’t have to exhaust themselves clicking over to the article, I explain that this means that the FBI isn’t attesting to its own probity, or even the probity of the person who assembled a dossier. It needs to make a colorable showing that the person who first voiced the information — the anonymous source — is credible. I added that I was interested in learning more about those sources. Since then, of course, we’ve had intimations that the sources are Sidney Blumenthal and friends, people so devious and untrustworthy that only the Clintons could bear their presence. I haven’t mentioned those last facts to my Proggie friends. [Read more…]
No matter what the news says, Proggies so reflexively equate Trump to Hitler, I suspect that in a decade or so, we’ll have an entirely new form of greeting.
When I’m on my real-me Facebook, I always check out what my Progressive friends have to post. I do this, not only because they are friends and I like seeing pictures of their children growing up, but also because it’s the easiest way for me to understand what the people in my uber-Left world are thinking.
I have to tell you that the Washington Post is very, very popular among that crowd. Reading the Post articles my friends highlight, though, is kind of sad. Mistakes, raw emotions, un-sourced hearsay upon hearsay, and hysterical hatred power so many of the articles my friends share.
These same articles also tell me that the Post got its new motto just a little bit wrong. Instead of “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” the Post’s motto should be “Creating the Darkness in Which Democracy Dies.”
Here’s what I’ve also noticed: My friends are apparently a higher class of Progressive, because they never actually say “Hitler” in their posts. However, without fail, when these friends put up an “oh, my God, can you believe how awful he is?” post about Trump, at least one of their friends will say “He’s Hitler.” [Read more…]
Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” A brave journalist reporting on Antifa proves Orwell was right.
If you ever question whether the American media has morphed into Pravda — a tightly controlled outlet for socialist propaganda — you need to check out a Facebook post from Frank Somerville (which I’ve embedded below). Somerville, if you’re wondering, is a very well-respected San Francisco Bay Area TV journalist.
Somerville’s post is an interesting one at two levels. First, it’s interesting because he reports honestly about the hatred and violence that characterized Antifa’s latest riot in Berkeley.
Second — and this is the important part — it’s interesting because he feels compelled to explain the pressure he felt not to do this accurate, honest reporting, including pressure from his wife, who fears for his safety (whether professional or personal is not clear).
As you read the following words, keep in mind that Somerville is not a journalist in Putin’s Russia or in Iran or in the Gaza strip. He is a journalist in the San Francisco Bay Area who has to screw up his courage and take a stand to report . . . the facts:
M wife told me I’m going to get crucified by posting this. I told her I didn’t care. This is what happened. This is what I saw. This is what I experienced. This is the truth. Period. If people dont want to heat the truth thats not my problem. I have No agenda. Im just saying that this is what happened to me today, think about it. And make your own decision.
Here’s Somerville’s entire post: [Read more…]
The upcoming Winston Churchill biopic reminds us that a nation’s elite tend to have nothing but disdain for an indispensable man — a man such as Trump.
I tend to be leery of biopics because I hate having my history filtered through Hollywood. It always grates on me when I hear a parent explain to a child that this or that movie “is history.” No, it’s not. History is history. All books and movies are merely interpretations and retellings of that history, with some retellings being a whole lot better than others.
Hollywood has always taken liberties with its biopics. There’s the happily married, completely heterosexual Cole Porter in Night and Day (Porter’s homosexuality got better treatment in the otherwise awful De-Lovely); the cutely Irish, completely heterosexual, almost impressively non-Jewish Lorenz Hart in Words and Music (Hart was a brilliant, anguished Jewish homosexual); the charmingly goyish Jerome Kern in Till the Clouds Roll By (Kern was another Jewish kid from New York); and on and on, in an endless parade of movies both old and new in which history takes a backseat to marketability and prejudice.
I tend to know old musicals, but if you’re really interested in the liberties Hollywood takes, I recommend History v. Hollywood, a website that tackles the challenge of separating historic fact from Hollywood fiction. (The Desmond Doss/Hacksaw Ridge post is especially compelling.) Some of the changes make sense, such as time compression or composite characters. After all, a two-hour movie can only touch the high points of a real person’s life or a history event. Other changes, though . . . well, I have a three-letter word for you: JFK.
Knowing Hollywood’s general tendency to bastardize stories, and its modern tendency to go hard-Left in its rewrites, explains why I’m not 100% enthused about the upcoming film Darkest Hour, which is the newest Churchill biopic, due out at Thanksgiving. Gawd alone knows what the movie will do to Churchill’s amazing ascendency in the early months of World War II. Still, the first trailer hints at a movie in which the historic license might be reasonable and the historic facts might be true:
What I find fascinating about the trailer is that it seems to focus so tightly on the elite’s contempt for Churchill. After all, technically speaking, he was one of them — he came from wealth and the uppermost of upper castes in an aristocratic society — yet in practical terms he was not of them at all. He fundamentally offended their values, values that, in the years following WWI, leaned to pure pacifism and a naïve faith in the power of words and sophistication to face down predators.
Is it just me or does that remind you of what’s going on now with Donald Trump? Technically, he should be seen as one of the elite. He came from a monied background that, while not making him a member of America’s self-styled blue bloods, was certainly enough to make him a natural candidate for America’s elite.
But instead of constantly congratulating himself on his sophistication and elegance, Trump instead turned into a scrapper. His wealth wasn’t based on paper exchanges through banking deals or tinkering about with electronics; it was made in the hard-charging world of New York property development.
Moreover, once had made his billions, Trump didn’t endow universities that already have more money than God or subsidize symphonies that can’t make in the free market. Instead, he spent his money on parties, beauty contests, and gilt-furnished penthouses in shockingly excessive buildings.
Trump is a class traitor. No wonder the upper echelons of the American Left, the ones who call the shots with help of all the useful idiots they’ve engineered in America’s colleges and universities, despise him as they do. [Read more…]
For those caught in its toils, communism has been every bit as evil as Nazism, except with a greater scope. No wonder, given that they’re the same ideology.
I have written thousands of words about the fact that communism and Nazism are siblings, in that they are both variations on socialism. It’s easy to figure this out because both of their names give the game away: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National-Socialist German Workers’ Party) and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Both were predicated on total state power.
Hitler differed from the Soviets only in that he was willing to maintain an industrial class, which could derive profits from that industry, provided that the industrialists ceded ultimate control and management to the state. Call it crony capitalism, if you like.
To the extent the Nazis fought with the communists within Germany’s borders during the 1920s and 1930s, that was a form of internecine warfare, with both parties struggling to obtain total control. Because they are both totalitarian ideologies, neither Nazism or Communism can suffer a pluralist government. All battles are zero sum games with only one party emerging to hold all power within the state.
Once Hitler obtained total control in Germany, he was in a position to negotiate an alliance with Stalin. These two socialist nations were now fellow totalitarian travelers, at least for as long as Hitler needed Stalin’s aid and military passivity to retain power and aid his war effort. Once Stalin ceased being useful — and once Hitler desperately needed the Soviet Union’s oil fields — Hitler just as easily snapped back into his earlier adversarial posture. It was always about power and never about core ideological differences.
In America, before Hitler attacked the USSR, communists did not support the war. They had no desire to go to war against a socialist state. Their goal, after all, was to see America become a socialist state. If Stalin could tolerate Hitler, so could they. [Read more…]
Tonight marks the beginning of Passover 5778. Donald Trump’s targeted attack on Syria indicates that he understands the import of this timeless story.
In mid-2009, a few months into Barack Obama’s presidency, Iran had its Green Revolution, when tens of thousands of brave Iranians took to the streets in Tehran seeking to undermine the Mullahs. Their enemy was our enemy. Not only were the Mullahs repressing their own people, they were sowing terrorism throughout the world.
Had Obama thrown America’s moral weight behind the revolution, that alone might have been sufficient to destroy the Mullahs’ power base and create room for a somewhat more moderate and conciliatory Iranian government. Obama, however, chose to align himself, not with the Iranian slaves in the street yearning for freedom, but with the Mullahs, who were playing the role of Pharaoh.
Because those historic events coincided with Passover 2009, I was moved to write a post about the Passover message, a post I’ve reproduced every year at Passover since then. As you will read at greater length below, my post argues that a primary message to take away from the Passover story is that the only way to topple a tyrant and free the slaves crushed under his heel is to bring the revolution, not just to the tyrant’s door, but over the threshold and into his house.
Despite his ostentatious Passover celebrations in the White House, Obama has been blind to the meaning behind the story of the Jews’ exodus from Egypt. Throughout his eight years in the White House, whenever a tyranny arose anywhere, Obama chose to placate tyrants, rather than fight them. He placated the Mullahs, the Muslim Brotherhood, Kim Jong-un, ISIS (aka the JV team), Assad, Putin, and a rotating cast of Islamic fundamentalists who went by different names but hewed to the identical genocidal ideology. It was inevitable that, when Obama finally left office, he bequeathed to us a world remarkably close to the world in 1938/1939: trembling on the verge of a dangerous explosion, with tyrants of the ugliest cast having the momentum and initiative.
It’s this scary world that Donald Trump inherited when he stepped into the Oval Office. However, last week, I came away with the hope that, when Trump sat down to celebrate Passover with Ivanka and her family (assuming he did) or when he discussed Passover with his Jewish friends and family, he understood Passover’s message.
How else can we explain his intuitive understanding that, when dangerous men release weapons of mass destruction, the only possible action is immediate, powerful, targeted retribution. Both Daniel Greenfield and Andrew Malcolm understand this, so I urge you to read their articles. (You might also want to read my post about the Trump doctrine.)
With this introduction, it’s time for my annual Passover post. As I do every year, I’ve edited it slightly to reflect current concerns.
To disguise that they’re opening our country to people who should not be here, Progressives conflate distinct doctrines and hide behind the confusion.
The problem with Progressives is that they tend to combine entirely different things in a single argument and then, having intentionally muddled distinct issues, thereby perverting the data, they reach an erroneous conclusion that has a logical gloss but is, in fact, quite wrong. The two big arguments as to which they use this deceitful practice are illegal border crossers from Latin America and Middle Eastern Muslim refugees.
With regard to the Southern border wall, they conflate a fence meant to keep people out with a fence meant to keep people in. The former is a legitimate way to protect people in their rightful place from dangers lurking outside.
Hollywood stars, former Progressive politicians, and Silicon Valley bazillionaires are all really big on using fences to keep “the wrong kind” of people away from them. It’s okay when they do it because they’re rich and famous. It’s not okay when you do it, because you’re a racist pig.
The other kind of fence, the fence that keeps people locked in, is the one we associate with toddlers (got to keep them safe); prisoners (got to keep us safe from them); and nations that are so horrible that, if people are not trapped within them, they will leave (e.g., the Berlin Wall and both the DMZ separating North Korea from South Korea and the border between North Korea and China). For the last mentioned reason, border fences can get a bad rap if someone is dumb enough or deceitful enough to claim that a fence manifestly meant to keep people out is, instead, a fence meant to trap people inside a bad place.
Progressives treat Trump’s proposed Southern border fence (the fence that a bipartisan vote in Congress already passed into law back in 2006) as if it’s the second type of fence, the evil prison fence, meant to imprison people, rather than protect them. If you ask a Progress which people are being imprisoned where, you will not get a straight answer. Instead, you will be told that you’re a racist.
Whenever a Leftist tells you that you’re a racist, you know you’ve won the argument. Of course, winning the argument is scant consolation if they keep winning the larger wars.
The really big conflation scam, though, is pretending that what’s happening in Syria is the same as what happened in Germany in the 1930s. That’s the argument used to try to shame conservatives and Trump supporters into opening America’s gates to Muslim “refugees.” I put the word “refugees” in quotations because another dishonest conflating thing the Progressives do is jumbling those who’ve left Syria, who have a legitimate claim to being war refugees, with those who are leaving the Middle East and North Africa because, thanks in large part to Islam, outside of Israel those are really sh*tty places in which to live.
Progressives essentially contend that every Syrian refugee is a Anne Frank. That’s false on so many levels.
Oklahoma state representative George Faught believes each human life is precious, an idea that sees the Left castigating him as “dumb” and “vile.”
The Lefties on my Facebook page have been reduced to stuttering incoherence by a statement from Oklahoma State Representative George Faught about pregnancies resulting from rape or incest: “Life, no matter how it is conceived, is valuable and something to be protected. Let me be clear, God never approves of rape or incest. However, even in the worst circumstances, God can bring beauty from ashes.”
Having been a pro-abortion person for half my adult life and a pro-Life person for the other half, I have a fairly good insight into both points of view. But before I go into that, let me back up and flesh out the story a bit.
George Faught introduced a bill in the Oklahoma State House that would ban abortions due to fetal genetic abnormalities or Down syndrome. When Democrats in the House challenged him about the fact that he made no exceptions for rape or incest, with one asking him whether rape was God’s will, Faught responded by saying that rape appears in the Bible so God must see it in some way as part of life: “If you read the Bible, there’s actually a couple circumstances where that happened, and the Lord uses all circumstances. I mean, you can go down that path, but it’s a reality, unfortunately.” He said the same held true for incest.
The fight went on, with Democrats hollering “rape” and “incest” and Faught responding that God’s ways are mysterious. They were arguing from two different universes.
Broadly, the hard-Left VICE news publication, doesn’t hide its position on this issue (emphasis mine):
Republican politicians frequently have to say dumb and vile things to justify abortion bans that don’t allow exceptions under any circumstances—including pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, or if the woman’s life is in danger. The latest example comes from an Oklahoma state representative, George Faught, who introduced a bill that would ban abortions due to fetal genetic abnormalities or Down syndrome.
Indeed, there are many reasons women choose to terminate their pregnancies when they learn the fetus they are carrying has a genetic abnormality. In some instances, the abnormality may be so severe that it will be incompatible with life. It’s also often the case that severe conditions are detected late in pregnancy, so many late-term abortion restrictions already pose hurdles to women in these situations. But no matter the circumstance, bills like the one proposed in Oklahoma tell women that they don’t have the right to decide what’s best for their families and their own bodies—only God and old white men do.
Faught’s bill passed the House, although I doubt it will become law in Oklahoma. Still, I found the debate edifying.
If one removes God from the discussion, the issue boils down to this: Does a person’s life have worth if (a) the person has a genetic defect or (b) was conceived due to an act of violence or perversion against a woman?
With his usual acuity, Dennis Prager explains that true morality exists only if there is a God. Absent God, people just opine about what they like or dislike.
The phrase “moral relativism” gets thrown around a lot. The Right things it’s bad; the Left thinks it’s good — indeed, that it is the only non-arrogant way to view the world. With his usual clarity and acuity, Dennis Prager explains why the Left is wrong. Absent an external source of absolute morality — and Prager I both think that the Judeo-Christian God is the best way to define good and evil — people have nothing but feelings and opinions to guide them. And as the 20th century shows, absent God, the wrong kind of demagogue can manipulate these feelings and opinions in a way that leads to tens of millions of dead people, and incalculable numbers of people who live in fear and squalor.
If you don’t have time to watch the video, or you’d like to expand your understanding of its contents, I highly recommend Wolf Howling’s post about the war on religion. He wrote it many years ago, but events since he published it prove him prophetic:
American Jewish groups (the majority of which ally with the Democrat Party) are once again claiming to be concerned about Donald Trump and antisemitism — that is, they’re implying that Trump is a KKK puppet. Of course they are wrong but, as is often the case with a slur that brings together a world of assumptions in a single false word or sentence, there are a lot of facts and ideas that need to be unpacked to explain precisely why it is a slur — that is, an unsupported insult. This post aims to do that unpacking.
First, a little background about the reason Jewish groups (which are almost invariably Leftist) are again trying to make the “Trump is worrisomely close to Hitler” argument, this time by claiming that he’s doing nothing to stop antisemitism and, worse, that when asked he goes insane. This latest attack started with questions from Israeli and Jewish reporters:
Jewish groups called “worrisome,” “puzzling” and “mind-boggling” President Trump’s answers in two days’ worth of press conferences about rising anti-Semitic incidents in the United States.
During Wednesday’s press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an Israeli reporter asked Trump how he planned to address the hike in anti-Semitic incidents, and what he’d say to people around the world “who believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones.”
At his marathon press conference in the East Room on Thursday, an event added to the president’s schedule at the last minute, Trump said he wanted to call on a “friendly” reporter and picked Jake Turx, a reporter for Ami, an orthodox Jewish magazine published in New York and Israel.
“I haven’t seen anyone in my community accuse you or anyone on your staff of being anti-Semitic. We understand that you have Jewish grandchildren, you are their zayde,” Turx said. “What we haven’t really heard being addressed is an uptick in anti-Semitism and how the government is planning to take care of it.”
Another reporter followed up soon afterward, though, noting that it wasn’t a question about Trump’s personal beliefs but anti-Semitic incidents happening across the country, “some of it by supporters in your name.” The New York Police Department, for instance, reported last week that while the rate for several crimes such as murder have fallen this year, the number of hate crimes in the city had doubled in 2017 compared to the same period last year, with anti-Semitic incidents leading the increase.
Trump, who is narcissistic in the classic sense of the word (extremely self-centered) rather than in the psychiatric sense of the word (a low-grade sociopath), heard the questions as an attack against him. Looking back on the campaign, I have to say that, even if Trump were not a classic narcissist, it would be reasonable for him to respond as he did.
For the entirety of his campaign, despite his beloved Jewish family members and long-standing support for Israel (recently evidenced again in Netanyahu’s rapturous meeting with him), the Progressives and the media (but I repeat myself) attacked Trump non-stop for antisemitism because white nationalist groups fell in behind him. (As an aside, the same media and Progressive organizations were utterly and completely silent about the openly, violently, antisemitic Muslims, blacks, and Leftists who occupied a main car in the Obama train, rather than chasing after the caboose. I’ll explain more about that in this post.)
Full disclosure: I didn’t watch the Super Bowl. I am boycotting the Super Bowl, because I have not forgiven it for how it enthusiastically allowed Kaepernick (whom the 49ers are releasing) to politicize what should have remained non-political.
Having said that, I’m glad the Patriots won because, politically speaking, it’s one in the eye to a Progressive establishment that tried to bully Brady and Belichick for daring to be friends with the President of the United States. Needless to say, the Progressives’ conduct reminded me strongly of the “guilt by association” approach from the mid-20th century that today’s modern Leftists so vehemently decry.
I once cared about American football and the Super Bowl. I wrote encomiums to how much more interesting American football is than European soccer. I was awed by the commitment and power of the men who play professional football. But the players and the NFL squandered my good will. I’m reserving my emotional energy and time for the men and women who really count: our military.
One more thing while I’m talking about the politicization of everything: Over at Ace, Warden wrote a thoughtful piece about the Left’s decision to take the politicization of everything and extend it from politicians and institutions to ordinary individuals. When that ugly personalization played out over Facebook, it did not resonate well with anyone but a hard Lefty, a negative emotional response that might have helped Trump win.
Okay, now that I’m done with the Super Bowl, let me move on to the more serious stuff:
I’m really worried for President Trump. For the upcoming Watcher’s Council forum (to be published tomorrow), we council members were asked to give our opinion about Trump’s presidency to date. Here’s a preview of my answer: I’m thrilled. Yes, he’s had a few missteps and some of his communications don’t appear so much persuasive as emotional, but on the substance . . . wow! His cabinet choices, his Supreme Court nominee, his Israel policy (more on that later), his love for country — well, the list goes on and on, and that’s after only two weeks and two days in office.
I continue, however, to be terribly worried about the violent rhetoric coming at him. And it’s not just coming from the Orwellian-named “anti-fascists” taking to the streets with jack boots and billy clubs. In one of the most disturbing manifestations, it recently came from a former member of Obama’s State Department, who openly advocated a military coup.
Put aside the illegality of her dream. What’s worrisome is when the people who ought to be ballast, calming down the street fighters, are the ones engaging in murderous, anti-democratic rhetoric. (I count idiots like Sarah Silverman among the street crazies, no matter her net worth.) And knowing that at least one Secret Service agent had no intention of doing her job to protect the President does not lessen my fears.
David Merrick has written a great article about the way in which the Leftist media has turned Americans into Stepford people, robotically programmed to hate at a mindless, completely irrational level never before seen in post-Civil War America.
The State Department needs to be tamed. Even when the State Department isn’t trying to get Trump killed or turn the US into a military dictatorship, at least some of its members are doing the best they can to undercut Trump by insisting that hardcore Leftist orthodoxy is the State Department’s core mission:
Americans may be under the impression that the president they elect is the man who directs the country’s foreign policy and sets its immigration rules. But a thousand or so officials in the State Department are of a different opinion. They have put their names to a cable registering official dissent in protest against President Trump’s executive order that bans most travelers from seven terrorism trouble spots—Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen—from entering the United States. But the dissenting diplomats go far beyond merely criticizing the order: they play politics and attack the very principles behind the president’s immigration policy. Indeed, they substitute their worldview for his.
These diplomats are professionals, and they deserve to have their views on policy implementation heard. The suddenness and sweep of President Trump’s order could reasonably be expected to draw a response from them, even a protest. But their answer has not been to make a strong case for amending the president’s policy—rather, it’s been to lecture him on what a claque in the federal bureaucracy deems America to stand for.
“Just as equality and multiculturalism are core American values, so too is pragmatism.” Lines like that could be ripped right out of the campaign literature of Barack Obama or any other progressive Democrat. It’s the language of a political statement, not a good-faith policy document designed to win the president over to the dissidents’ way of thinking. It’s a statement for public consumption—an attack on the president from the government’s own bureaucracy.
Trump should send all of them to the worst corner of the Bluest state he can find. Others have suggested sending them to Alaska or other inhospitable climates, but there’s the risk that the locusts would turn Alaska Blue, as they did with Colorado. I’m thinking something along the lines of the border area between California and Mexico. I think these Leftists stalwarts would find unpleasant the reality of the border that they’ve imposed upon Americans living in those regions.
In several posts, I’ve hammered away at the Progressive canard that Donald Trump is a fascist and that conservatives generally are fascists. My central point — always — is that American conservatives, including Donald Trump, are the antithesis of fascists because they want less government control, while a defining feature of fascism is total government control (kind of along the lines of what Obama pushed and Hillary would have pushed further).
I finally got all my disparate thoughts consolidated into a single essay that Thomas Lifson was kind enough to publish at American Thinker:
For months now, the Democrat-Progressive fever swamps have been using the word “fascist” in connection with Donald Trump and those who voted for him. It took Michael Kinsley to elevate this shoddy claim onto pages of the Washington Post: Trump, he asserts, is a fascist.
Sadly, Kinsley reveals, as so many before him have, that academic degrees are no substitute for intelligence, knowledge, critical analysis, and basic logic. The term “fascist” is a very distinct one and Kinsley can apply it to Trump only by redefining it entirely. His is a deconstructionist effort that leeches all meaning from the word.
Because Kinsley’s essay is currently behind a paywall, let me summarize briefly what his argument is before I demonstrate what a shoddy piece of disinformation it is.
Kinsley opens in a defensive posture, absolving himself of proving Godwin’s Law, which holds that internet discussions always end with Hitler analogies. Instead, Kinsley boasts, “I mean ‘fascist’ in the more clinical sense.”
What is this clinical sense? If you plow through an endless cascade of words, Kinsley accuses Trump of being a crony capitalist, not to enrich himself and his friends, but to claim boasting rights about his skills conferring material benefits on the American people. Kinsley calls this “corporate statism,” which he says is the same as “fascism,” although he considers himself too classy to call Trump a fascist (except when he calls Trump a fascist).
As is the case with so many Leftist arguments grounded in history, Kinsley could not be more wrong. “Corporate statism” is certainly a feature of Hitler’s fascism, but it’s also been a feature of Obama’s administration. Standing alone, corporate statism, while corrupt and unfair, is not fascism. It’s just garden-variety corruption. Actual “fascism” is not just about the state’s relationship to corporations; it’s also about the state’s relationship to the luckless individuals under its control.
If you like what you’ve read so far, please read the rest here.
UPDATE: Someone much more graphically gifted than I am created this spectacular poster about political ideologies and players from Left to Right (click on image to enlarge):
Hat tip: G. Howell
One of the categories I long ago set up for articles I’m saving to include in a round-up was called “politics as usual.” I’ve since changed it to “there’s nothing usual about politics.” The fusion of the Trump presidency, the collective Progressive mental breakdown, and the culture wars means that just about everything I read lately comes as a surprise. I’m pretty sure I’ve gotten no Christmas cards yet this year (a variation from the norm) because my Progressive friends are too depressed. They’re feeling like that gay couple in LA that canceled their celebratory Christmas party.
I am feeling celebratory — for the first time in eight years. I feel like the Americans at Yorktown when the British surrendered in 1781, as their band played The World Turned Upside Down. There’s still a lot of fighting to be done, as the links below show, but we’re gaining traction.
No, you don’t get to change the rules after you lose the game. The Lefties are desperately trying to undo the Electoral College (or, indeed, to do anything else they can think of to undermine a fair election the outcome of which they dislike). What Lefties don’t understand is that, had there been no Electoral College, Trump would simply have run a different campaign, getting more votes out in red states. What Lefties do understand is that the Electoral College stands in the way of the entire United States becoming a colony of California, which Michael Barone explains marches to the beat of a different drummer:
[F]or the first time in the nation’s history the most populous state was a political outlier, voting at one extreme in the national political spectrum.
The trend is recent — and clear. California was 14 points more Democratic than the nation this year, versus 10 points in 2012, 9 points in 2008, 6 points in 2004 and 2000. In the nine elections before that and after California passed New York to become the most populous state in 1963, the average of California’s Democratic and Republican percentages was never more than 5 points off the national figures. In four of the five elections between 1964 and 1980 (the exception was the McGovern year, 1972) it actually voted more Republican than the nation as a whole.
The case against abolition is one suggested by the Framers’ fears that voters in one large but highly atypical state could impose their will on a contrary-minded nation. That largest state in 1787 was Virginia, home of four of the first five presidents. New York and California, by remaining closely in line with national opinion up through 1996, made the issue moot.
California’s 21st century veer to the left makes it a live issue again. In a popular vote system, the voters of this geographically distant and culturally distinct state, whose contempt for heartland Christians resembles imperial London’s disdain for the “lesser breeds” it governed, could impose something like colonial rule over the rest of the nation. Sounds exactly like what the Framers strove to prevent.
Barone’s is an interesting, but somewhat abstract, analysis. A look at how the votes played out in real time in New York helps explain in concrete terms how doing away with the Electoral College means that the United States will be governed by the hard-Left coastal cities, plus Chicago:
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
And California’s arrogance to the contrary, while it would probably be fine for America if California left (as many are now threatening to do), it’s doubtful whether it would be good for California.