Trump’s been in office 11 days and the Left is already in full treat retreat from reality. And if you have any doubts about that, reviewing this collection of posters will confirm that the hard Left (about 33% of the population, at a guess) is truly unhinged. And for our very first poster, a solid satire about the way in which, when it comes to Trump, the lunatic Left has taken Godwin’s law to ludicrous extremes, even by the standards of Godwin’s law:
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.
My iPad ran out of juice when the forum on rural America started, so I’m going off my memory here. Apologies in advance if this seems somewhat incomplete.
Jay Nordlinger was the moderator again, with Kevin Williamson, Reihan Salam, Victor Davis Hanson, and David French on the panel. I’ll address the issues they raised as they float up from the murk and mire in my brain.
Kevin Williamson raised the point that I found most interesting — in large part because I’ve made the same argument repeatedly here — which is that part of America’s rural problem is lack of geographic mobility; or, more accurately, the fact that many unemployed people remain that way because they refuse to leave their homes for better economic opportunities.
Before I get to what Williamson said, I’m going to back up to the argument I’ve made here since 2008. My friend of mine, through a series of spectacularly unwise investments in real estate, by 2009 ended up almost in an area that had formerly been a real estate boom town.
This friend could have relocated to a region where there was work to be had. After all, up until the 1960s, that was the American way, starting with those people who left their home countries for America in the first place.
Rather than following American tradition, though, my friend opted to stay put because she could get by on public and private charity. That is, because she was ready to embrace a rather marginal existence, she opted to drop out of the marketplace.
I was therefore delighted to have Williamson remind me of an article he wrote some years ago in which he said that there are towns in America that should just be abandoned. The citizens in these towns may have been unemployed for generations (something more true for the men than the women), are often substance abusers, and have no work ethic or skills.
This afternoon we National Review cruisers took in two seminars, one about the state of urban America and the other about the state of rural America. From my post caption, you can see that I’m planning on covering the urban American seminar.
Because I took notes this time around, my first stab at this post was to more or less transcribe the seminars. I quickly realized, though, that doing so would take me way too long and be incredibly boring. Some things are just better heard than read. What I’ll do instead is highlight points that particularly struck me, along with my own comments.
The cast of characters for this particular panel were Jay Nordlinger, who moderated, Kevin Williamson, Deroy Murdock, Brian Anderson, and John Podhoretz.
The discussion started with Trump’s grim view of America’s well-being and how this view resonated with Americans so strongly that it pushed him into the White House. (And yes, that’s a general, not urban topic, but it was really the issue that dominated the hour.)
Most of the panelists were agreed that America has suffered. While she still looks good compared to the rest of the world, she’s not her same old self and those with memories of better days are worried and unhappy.
I found myself agreeing with those panelists who supported or, at least, were resigned to a Trump presidency. Deroy Murdock was the one who best stated my views on the matter, so the next few paragraphs sum up what he said.
Murdock started by saying that generations of democratic socialism (thereby including Republican presidents in the blame) have sent America on the skids. Things got much worse in the past eight years because Obama took care of his supporters in the tech industry, in the banking industry, and in the unions, while abandoning the rest of america.
Another problem that Murdock identified is the micromanaging that Obama brought to the political fore. In the last eight years, the government has worked overtime to tell us precisely what we must do and how we must do it. Murdock’s example was Obamacare, which went far beyond telling Americans that they must buy health insurance. In addition to that bit of bossiness, it also described precisely what the insurance must look like, including mandating gynecological insurance for old men. The analogy in my mind, of course, is to the EU, the all-time micromanager, which Brexit threw out of England (or, depending what the politicians do, Brexit is trying to throw out of England.)
According to Murdock, the worst thing Obama did (or at least the thing that is most emblematic of his anti-poor person mindset) was to work with the unions to destroy school vouchers in DC. Although DC was spending more than any other public school district in America, its schools were the 51st ranked schools in America. Then, having destroyed the hopes of “poor little black children,” as Murdock said, Obama sent his own children to the posh, private Sidwell friends school.
Nordlinger and Kevin Williamson reminded the audience that Boehner and the Republicans restored that funding, as they do every year when Obama strikes out the voucher funding. That’s something Boehner and his team ought to have gotten more credit for (and I do wonder if the black families benefitting from this Republican act even knew that they were doing it).
Another problem that Brian Anderson identified is the way in which DC has enriched itself at America’s expense. DC under Obama has the highest median income in America, yet it doesn’t create anything. Instead, its job is to take working people’s money and redistribute it, always keeping a cut for itself. That makes it recession proof and arrogant.
Clinton was too close to this arrogant, elitist, grabby wealth, and that caused Americans to turn against her. The reality is that huge swaths of the country, especially the manufacturing areas, are declining fast. Trump tapped into real anxiety and suffering in these communities.
A further problem is that those sectors doing well — tech, Wall Street, and government — are arrogant and dismissive, especially the tech community. There is no sense of noblesse oblige amongst them, except in the crudest sense of demanding that the middle classes transfer its wealth to those classes that the self-styled elite so deride.
Anderson also pointed out a problem that’s coming down the pike, which is that the tech industry is working hard on rendering ordinary jobs obsolete. Some industry insiders project that in a few years 50% of working Americans will have been pushed out by machines. (Just think of the way in which fast food places, when facing rising minimum wages, install robots.)
Manufacturing and tech can work together, of course, as Texas proves. The government’s get-out-of-the-way pro-business environment created a strongly growing economy that benefitted everyone. Williamson added here that cheap housing helps in Texas.
Williamson made an interesting points, which is our weird nostalgia for the 1950s. Our success then was made possible, not just because we were a free nation, but also because, in the ruins left by WWII, we were the last nation standing. What Williamson didn’t mention is that, even in the successful, economically and socially mobile 1950s there were problems. As I remember, there were at least two, perhaps three, recessions, although they quickly ended. Our memories of the 1950s have left us with unrealistic and immature expectations about American life and public policy.
Another point Williamson made is that people are bound to be disappointed by whatever outcomes Trump achieves, because what’s being promised isn’t deliverable. After all, we’ve all learned that the best that government can do is to stand out of the way, not to manage things. People’s ignorance also means that they will be left hanging. For example, while they may hate NAFTA and trade deals, most people don’t know what’s in them. (Of course, if Trump does get out of the way, and the economy thrives, he will have made good on his campaign promises.)
One of the interesting ideas that Podhoretz raised and the others built upon is the fact that government, especially urban government, has abandoned its traditional policies in favor of society building. A good city government has basic, but difficult responsibilities: collecting garbage (which I think is one of the hallmark of civilized man, along with providing fresh water and sewage facilities); keeping streets in good shape; supporting emergency services; and generally managing a complex infrastructure at the most basic levels.
Unfortunately, beginning in the 1960s, urban governments began to move those responsibilities to the back of the line and take it upon themselves to engage in social engineering. Williamson reminded us that Johnson’s “Great Society” had a Progressive plan to engineer the perfect city as a model for all. The city chosen for this great experiment was . . . Detroit.
There was a great deal of talk about the GDP, which has languished at no more than 3% under Obama. The #NeverTrumpers think the spectacular growth under Reagan was anomalous, pointing out that real per capita GDP growth since the 1800s has been 2%.
The pro-Trumpers argued (and I agree), that Trump’s promise to cut old regulation, create a moratorium on new regulation, decrease to 15% the 35% corporate tax rate (the highest in the first world), and to do away with the estate tax, among other things, will get the economy booming just as surely as happened under Reagan. In other words, get government out of the way so that people can create real wealth.
Another topic was the rising crime rate across urban America. All of the panelists were agreed that Obama’s anti-policing policies have led to a staggering increase in crime. (It doubled in Chicago since Ferguson.) They pointed out, as you and I know, that the criminals are predominantly black — and that their victims are predominantly black.
Indeed, what’s interesting about this new crime spree is that the criminals prey almost exclusively on their own kind. Back in the bad years in New York, no one was safe. Now, the elite neighborhoods are entirely insulated from both violent and non-violent crimes. A perfect example of this situation is the way in which the BLM protesters trashed their own neighborhoods.
A point on which all the panelists also agreed is that crime affects the economy. A safe city and one with good educational opportunity provides room for maneuver for both entrepreneurs and workers.
Another problem in urban areas is overregulation when it comes to housing stock. As cities become hip, rich people move into poor neighborhoods, gentrify them, and leave nowhere for the poor to go. Outside of Texas, most cities make it impossible to build new housing stock. This too destroys the cities because workers can no longer afford to live in them.
When it comes to immigration, all were agreed that legal immigration is a good thing and illegal immigration a bad one. I can’t argue with that, since it perfectly reflects my point of view.
Murdock also made an excellent point, one with which we at the Bookworm Room agree, which is that a porous border is a welcome mat for jihadists. Border enforcement routinely catches people from jihad nations sneaking across the border, and there’s no way for us to know how many slip through.
Sanctuary cities, which Trump has promised to cut from government funding, don’t help. They endanger all Americans and put economic pressure on the bottom sector of legal Americans and green-card holders living in those same cities.
One of the points the panel made was something that Charles Murray first noticed, which is that we’ve seen a weird inversion of American values. In the past, cities were dens of inequity while the rural areas were the places of rock-ribbed values.
Now, as I’ve pointed out endlessly, America’s urban elites live very old-fashioned lives. They get educated, get jobs, get married, have children, and stay married — acts that are an almost foolproof recipe for economic success. Meanwhile, in rural America, those values are vanishing, as people drop out of school, can’t find (or don’t bother looking for) jobs, take drugs (especially opioids), and have children out of wedlock.
Following this last discussion, Williamson instantly quipped “Who would have guessed the opium would be religion of the masses?” That is a very smart mind at work.
When my energy returns (typing on a little keyboard the connects with bluetooth to an iPad is tiring), I’ll give you a quick rundown of the “rural America” panel discussion.
I have for many years been confused about immigrants who flee a corrupt, poor, violent, and/or despotic Latin American country, only to try to vote the same bad polices into America. Sadly, my perfectly intelligent question doesn’t fall on immigrant ears as I have no contact with recent immigrants. Perhaps this Prager Video, narrated by the dazzling Gloria Alvarez, will make a change:
As I say often enough, I highly approve of immigration, subject to two conditions: One, that the immigrants come here legally; and two, that the immigrants embrace America rather than working to turn America into a carbon copy of the failed or failing state from which the immigrants came.
A Progressive friend is relentlessly pushing “Trump is awful” stories on me. I, a conservative, invariably counter by pointing out that Hillary’s list of sins and failures is infinitely worse.
I realized yesterday that my arguments are irrelevant. My friend will never vote for someone who is not 100% pro-abortion, pro-socialized medicine, or pro-open borders. Given a choice between a rotting dead body that is pro-Abortion and a genuine angel from Heaven that is pro-Choice, he’d vote for the rotting body every time.
Even as we endlessly talk down the other side’s candidates (because few people are really comfortable talking their own candidate up in this bizarre election year), what really matters is the ideological divide underlying this election. The following list might help you decide on which side of that divide you live. Once you decide, do remember that you will never get people to accept your candidate, no matter how flawed their own candidate, until you get them to accept your ideology.
I’m making a slight change to how I present political cartoons in future. Some of my blog friends have reported expensive, losing fights because they published political cartoons or other images that were obviously, or not so obviously, subject to copyright claims. To prevent that, I will no longer publish proprietorial political cartoons. Instead, you’ll just find here endless and wonderful political cartoons and social issue posters that creative people have freely released into the world.
If I do this post right, you will end up agreeing that there’s a very close relationship between Western immigration policies over the past twenty years and the way in which Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie allegedly have raised their children.
With news of Brangelina’s breakup, the tabloids are rehashing allegations about the decidedly non-traditional way in which they’re raising their six children, three of whom they adopted and three of whom are their biological children. Before I go any further, I don’t think there’s any question but that Brad and Angelina love their children. Love, however, is not always enough and, indeed, love untempered by other virtues can be downright damaging.
Angelina is apparently the lead voice in the household when it comes to parental decisions. Obviously a disciple of Rousseau, she believes that children should run free, untrammeled by adult conventions and expectations. The Daily Mail, as one would expect, has some details:
“Ipse dixit” is one of the more charming Latin phrases you’ll find in legal writing. It translates to “he himself has said it.” (As an aside, Gilbert & Sullivan aficionado’s may recognize that little phrase from H.M.S. Pinafore.) What the phrase means is that the author asserts as authority the fact that he is asserting something as authority. Another way to describe this type of argument is “boot-strapping.” The best way to understand what I’m talking about, though, is to read the incredible love letter that Caroline Siede has written to Hillary Clinton over at Boing-Boing: “To find Hillary Clinton likable, we must learn to view women as complex beings.”
As the title indicates, Siede’s premise is a simple one: Those who don’t like Hillary Clinton are guilty of sexism. Women are complex. Both men and unenlightened women hate complex women. Therefore, because Hillary is a woman, men and unenlightened women hate Hillary. QED.
You can take Siede’s analysis for whatever you think it’s worth. What I found more interesting was what I discovered when I followed up on her innumerable hyperlinks. The hyperlinks, of course, are meant to imply that every statement Siede makes is factually valid. In fact, though, following the hyperlinks more often than not led to people saying “this fact is true because I say it’s true.” I’ve dealt with lawyers who write legal briefs like that. You’ll find a hundred case citations in the brief, none of which are on point. They exist merely to lend heft to an otherwise invalid argument.
To illustrate my point, let me take just the first two paragraphs from Siede’s love letter to Hillary and to all misunderstood, complex women everywhere, and then walk you through the hyperlinks:
Whether you realize it or not, you’ve spent your entire life being trained to empathize with white men. From Odysseus to Walter White, Hamlet to Bruce Wayne, James Bond to the vast majority of biopic protagonists, our art consistently makes the argument that imperfect, even outright villainous, men have an innate core of humanity. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Good art should teach us to empathize with complex people. The problem comes not from the existence of these stories about white men, but from thelack of stories about everyone else.
That’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot during this increasingly insane presidential election season. Particularly as I try to wrap my head around the fact that Hillary Clinton is on one hand the most qualified human being to ever run for president of the United States, and, on the other, one of the most disliked presidential candidates of all time. In fact, Donald Trump is the only candidate who is more disliked than Clinton. And he’s not only overtly racist, sexist, and Islamophobic, but also unfit and unprepared for office. How can these two fundamentally dissimilar politicians possibly be considered bedfellows when it comes to popular opinion?
And here’s a breakdown of the hyperlinked items in the above two paragraphs:
If Bill Clinton and Al Gore couldn’t do it, then no one can. A Leftist Facebook friend posted an article from The Hill with a lede saying that Donald Trump “floats rolling back food safety regulations.” The implication, obviously, is that in Trump’s America, we’re all going to die from salmonella and e. Coli. Read through to the end, though, and you discover that Trump is instead making a remarkably sensible suggestion:
Trump’s economic policy plan also calls for “an immediate halt to new federal regulations and a very thorough agency-level review of previous regulations to see which need to be scrapped.”
Agencies would be required to list all regulations and rank them in terms of their contribution to growth, health and safety. The goal, Trump said, would be to strengthen the rules that are useful and reduce the rules that harm the economy.
One of my Leftist Facebook friends stopped with the lede, of course, and envisioned our nation drowning in fecal matter emanating from food-poisoned Americans. In a comment, I quoted the above language and suggested that it was a good idea to control regulations, which are so big no one can know them, are often non-effective, are frequently inconsistent with each other, and are too often quasi-legislation.
To seal it for this Leftist, I reminded him that Bill Clinton had assigned Al Gore this very task of cutting back on America’s burgeoning regulations, although it never came to anything. And that’s when my Facebook friend essentially said “Well, if Al Gore and Bill Clinton couldn’t do it, then no one can. After all, Trump has never been a politician, and he’s really stupid, so what does he know?”
My reply was that voters may be hoping that it’s an advantage that Trump hasn’t been a politician. He may have out-of-the-box (i.e., out-of-D.C.) ideas that actually work. The response? A reiteration that Trump is stupid. (Has there ever been a Republican candidate, no matter how successful and brilliant, whom the Left hasn’t called stupid? I don’t think so. It’s a tired idea.)
Agencies must be reined in. Exhibit A in the “agencies need to be cut back and God willing Trump is the man to do it” category is the fact that the FBI thinks it is more important than Congress is. So it was that Jason Chaffetz had to explain to the acting FBI chair that, no, Congress gets to have all of the notes from Hillary’s FBI interview — and then serves him, then and there, with a subpoena.
The funny thing about the WaPo’s indictment of Trump as a scam artist. The Washington Post is beside itself with excitement that ardent Hillary supporter, and pay for play attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, is starting an investigation into Trump’s charitable foundation. I got three paragraphs into the WaPo editorial supporting this investigation and castigating Trump before I broke into uncontrollable laughter:
The older of my two dogs is very high-strung and she got so frightened by the wind that carried the fog in tonight that I’ve had to sequester her and me in my home office so that Mr. Bookworm, who needs to get up for work tomorrow, can sleep. She shows no signs of settling, so I’m blogging.
No matter how you slice it, Trump is the less risky gamble. Writing in the Claremont Review of Books, Publius Decius Mus quite graphically presents the issue that I have been arguing all summer:
2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.
Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.
Precisely. Trump, with all his flaws, is better than Hillary. Up until a few months ago, one could argue that Hillary is just another garden-variety Leftist and that the American republic will survive despite her.
That’s all changed now. Knowing as we do of her extraordinary corruption — whether in running the State Department as a Pay-for-Play profit center for herself, her husband, and her daughter, or deliberately exposing all of America’s state secrets to try to hide her gross malfeasance — electing her to the presidency means that America has fully embraced banana republic status.
In the wake of a Hillary victory, thanks to Comey and the American voters (including all those #NeverTrumpers), there will no longer be a rule of law in America that applies equally to all citizens. We will in one fell swoop have destroyed a legal system that goes back 1215 when England first put into writing in the Magna Carta a policy saying that no one, not even a king, is above the law. As of now, Hillary and her cronies are above the law and it will be a disaster if the American people put their imprimatur on that utterly corrupt, anti-democratic principle.
One more thing: As Publius Decius Mus explains, Hillary’s been wrong about every single policy stance she’s ever taken (including the ones where she’s changed her stance repeatedly according to the latest poll data), while Trump, in his fumbling, bumbling way, has been right about all of the most important policy issues facing America. So maybe he’s not so bad after all.
Hillary’s cough has sounded awfully familiar to me — and today I finally figured out what Hillary’s endless coughing jags bring to mind. To back up a minute, though. . . .
As anyone following the news knows, Hillary’s been coughing a lot . . . an awful lot. Just today, while campaigning in Cleveland, Hillary practically coughed a lung out. Moreover, she was rude enough to cough into her hand, which has been de trop ever since the swine floor, rather than her elbow, the more socially acceptable way to cough:
Watching Hillary hack away, I finally figured out where I’ve heard that cough before. Think back, way back, to the Ernie Kovacs Show. I’m too young to have watched it in its first iteration, but I did see it when it was replayed on PBS back in the 1970s. One of the images that stayed with me was Kovacs’ character “Eugene,” who brings sound effects to everything he does. Near the end of a sketch, he checks out the books on a shelf, with one of those books being Camille (the English translation of Alexander Dumas fils’ La Dame aux Camélias). I’ve queued the following clip to the correct moment, but if it doesn’t start correctly, go to 9:51.
Yup. Hillary sounds exactly like the consumptive prostitute coughing in Ernie Kovacs’ comedic moment. I won’t draw any analogies, although I can’t help but add that the prostitute in Camille was surprisingly virtuous, ending any actual comparison with Hillary. What I will say is that I’m glad to have chased down the fugitive memory that was haunting me every time I heard Hillary hack.
I have lots — and I do mean lots — of interesting links for you today. Before I start, though, I want to address a point I read from someone worried about what Brexit and Trump mean. In an age of anti-intellectualism, he said, bigotry is inevitable.
Believe it or not, considering that I wholeheartedly support Brexit and grudgingly support Trump, I agree with that sentiment. Where I probably differ from the person voicing the idea is that I don’t see the anti-intellectualism and resulting bigotry amongst the Trump and Brexit voters. Instead, I see it on the Left — in the universities, in the media, and in the offices of politicians and financiers.
You see, I’m a little old-fashioned in the way in which I define an “intellectual.” You don’t get to denominate yourself an intellectual simply because you attended or teach at a university, or have a white-collar job that first required one of those university degrees. Instead, when I think of an intellectual, I think of someone with a very broad, and often very deep, fund of knowledge about myriad things, ranging from history to literature to science. This person has read widely, has been exposed to the great thinkers of the Judeo-Christian, Western intellectual tradition, and is as open to true knowledge as a dry sponge is to water.
In today’s world, you will not find this broad-minded, rich intellectual in any of the universities, whether among students or faculty, nor will you find this kind of mind in the post-university white-collar professions. These academics and professionals may style themselves as an intellectual elite, but the evidence on the ground shows that universities no longer teach, they propagandize. Students are no longer exposed to broad swathes of history, literature, and science. Instead, they drill down endlessly into victim studies, victim literature, and climate change “science.” They come out of college less educated than when they went in. To the extent they might have entered with open minds and a basic grasp of logic, they emerge with tightly-closed minds and a ferocious bigotry, one that is based entirely on skin color, sex, and sexual orientation.
This bigotry holds that the only white people who aren’t evil are women and people from the LGBT spectrum. All other white people (i.e., straight men) must constantly virtue signal that they have accepted that they were born sinners and must spend their lives expiating that sin. This same bigotry holds that persons of color, any color, are weak and childlike, and must be protected from white males who fail to do constant obeisance to the victim hierarchy. “Good” whites, of course, understand how delicate persons of color are and treat them with the appropriate combination of reverence and condescension.
It is these anti-intellectual bigots who support a transnational elite that exists without regard to national boundaries or national values. The problem for these self-styled elites is that, while they benefitted from their transnational Progressivism, those over whom they’ve had power have suffered as the masses always do when an elite group parts ways with democracy and looks out for itself. This is why Trump and Brexit represent the triumph of democracy over the elite class’s anti-intellectualism and bigotry.
And now to the links, of which I have many:
Although the question of Muslim refugees is no longer front page news, the Left is still keeping up the relentless drumbeat that those of us who oppose unfettered Syrian and Islamic immigration into America are racist, “Islamophobic,”* and unconstitutional. We’re told it’s wrong of us to judge the many by the bad actions of a few and that we’re running counter to our legal system’s insistence that people are innocent until proven guilty.
This is misdirection. We are not as a nation trying to obtain a criminal conviction against today’s immigrant because of a specific terrorist act committed by yesterday’s immigrant. Instead, we are engaging in intelligent risk analysis which is consistent with American law and tradition, with sanity, and with national survival. We aren’t doing anything that shames us.
That we shouldn’t be embarrassed hasn’t stopped the Left, of course, I keep seeing posts and articles by or about this good Muslim or that group of good Syrian Muslims. Today’s example, from the WaPo, is about Syrian refugees in England who helped out when floods hit:
According to reports in the Guardian newspaper and elsewhere, a group of Syrian refugees has been working in Littleborough, Greater Manchester, shoveling sand into sandbags to help avert more flooding.
“We saw the pictures on TV and wanted to help,” Yasser al-Jassem, a 35-year-old teacher, told the Guardian, adding that the people of Greater Manchester had been good to him and others in his group and that they wanted to help in response.
Good for those guys! That’s precisely what people who have been given refuge in another land should be doing. I wish all of them were moved by that spirit of gratitude. I’d love to see thousands of stories precisely like that one.
In addition to the “watch these Muslims being good citizens” stories, I also keep seeing posts and articles in which Muslims state “I, personally, am a good person, so you need to get off my back and start using my example as a reason to stop judging all Muslims as potential terrorists.” The most recent example of that phenomenon, again from the WaPo, was the stridently self-righteous post from Rana Elmir, the deputy director of the Michigan chapter of the ACLU, saying that she is not her Muslim brother’s keeper: