Category: Politics

Charles R. Kesler on Trump 2020

Includes a perspicacious analysis of President Trump's Second Inaugural (emphases added):

Perhaps the most striking moment, sending a kind of premonitory shudder through the Democrats and offering a clear preview of the 2020 contest, was Trump’s warning against socialism. “America was founded on liberty and independence, and not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free and we will stay free. Tonight,” he declared, “we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.” He had Venezuela at hand as an example of socialist folly and evil. He didn’t have to mention that the Nazis were socialists, too. From their dreams of socialism, a Green New Deal, and Medicare for All, the Democrats in the chamber suddenly seemed…woke. They sat there, stunned, or at least silent, realizing that soon they would have to face this man in the ring. As Mike Tyson said, “Everybody has a plan until they get hit.” And Trump was only sparring.

At the end Trump returned to D-Day, to those “young men of 18 and 19, hurtling on fragile landing craft toward the most momentous battle in the history of war,” and to those whose lives and freedom they saved, including the two Holocaust survivors in the gallery. Why did those young men do it? Trump asked. “Their cause was this nation and generations yet unborn…. They did it for America. They did it for us.” They chose greatness, and freedom, and life, as we should, too. Let the Democrats run on infanticide, socialism, and porous borders.

Can you imagine Romney or one of those miserable never-trumping milque-toasts issuing a clear statement like that?

Conflict Resolution, Troubling Trends, and ‘Liberal’ Bias

This from a New York Times article:

“People are making up stories about ‘the other’ — Muslims, Trump voters, whoever ‘the other’ is,” she said. “‘They don’t have the values that we have. They don’t behave like we do. They are not nice. They are evil.’”

She added: “That’s dehumanization. And when it spreads, it can be very hard to correct.”

Dr. Green is now among a growing group of conflict resolution experts who are turning their focus on the United States, a country that some have never worked on. They are gathering groups in schools and community centers to apply their skills to help a country — this time their own — where they see troubling trends.

They point to dehumanizing political rhetoric — for example President Trump referring to the media as “enemies of the people,” or to a caravan of migrants in Mexico as riddled with criminals and “unknown Middle Easterners.”

I beg to differ. When we conservatives point out that Muslims do not share our values, we are not making up stories about them. We are telling the truth.  Our classically liberal, American, Enlightenment values are incompatible with Sharia. That is a fact. It is not an expression of racism, xenophobia, or any sort of bigotry.  It is not even a judgment as to the quality of their values.

And because Muslims have different values, they behave differently.  This is perfectly obvious, and to point it out should offend no one. 

Does every Muslim uphold Sharia? No. The great American Zuhdi Jasser does not. But he is an outlier.

To describe Muslims and their values and patterns of behavior is not to 'dehumanize' them. They are human all right; it is just that their values and views make living with them them difficult if not impossible. There can be no comity without commonality.

'Liberals' make the mistake of thinking that 'deep down' we are really all the same and want the same things. That is plainly false.

Trump exaggerates and is careless in his use of language. He is a builder and a promoter, not a wordsmith.  He speaks with the vulgar, but the learned who are not hopelessly biased against him know how to 'read'  and 'translate' him. I will give one example, and you can work out the others for yourself if you have the intelligence and moral decency to do so.

"The media are enemies of the people." Translation: the mainstream media outlets with the exception of Fox News are dominated by 'progressives'  and coastal elitists whose attitudes and values are at odds with the "deplorable" (Hillary's term of abuse) denizens of fly-over country who "cling to their guns and religion" (Obama's abusive phrase). 

The values that patriotic Americans cherish are routinely ridiculed and rejected by left-wing media poo-bahs.  In this sense, they are enemies of the people.

Contrary to what 'liberals'  maintain, Trump is not launching an attack on the Fourth Estate as such.  He is attacking the blatant and pervasive left-wing bias of most of their members, bias which is evident to everyone except those members and the consumers of what cannot be called reportage but must be called leftist propaganda.

Article here.

The State of the Union

President Trump gave a great speech last night. I agree with Malcolm Pollack's commentary.

Obviously you can’t please everyone, and there will be many of us who will take issue with some of what Mr. Trump put forward last night. (In particular, I think he is far too enthusiastic about increasing legal immigration, for reasons I won’t go into here.)

That excess of enthusiasm struck me as well, for reasons I too won't go into now.  I have plenty to say in my Immigration category.

The Political Malpractice of the Democrats

(Cross-posted at my FB page where comments are allowed.)

Leading Democrats have reversed themselves on the need for a border wall to help secure the U. S. Mexico border. Notice, I said 'help secure.' No one thinks that a physical barrier suffices to insure border security.

It should be noted, though, that many of those voices loudly condemning a border wall as cruel or ineffective have previously gone on record about our need for thorough border security.

In 2005, Barack Obama declared, “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the U.S. undocumented, undetected, unchecked, circumventing the people who are waiting patiently, diligently, lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer knew the dangers of illegal immigration back in 2009. “People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who enter the U.S. legally,” he said.

Even Hillary Clinton said in 2014: “I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in and I do think you have to control your borders.”

Our leading Democrats were for it before they were against it. How should we interpret the reversal? Two possibilities.

A. Clinton, Schumer, and the rest did not mean what they said when they said they were for border security. They felt safe saying it because they knew no decisive action would be taken, and that the stream of Hispanic illegals would continue unabated to their political advantage. Saying what they did not really mean, or only half-meant, allowed them to posture as patriots concerned with the security of the homeland while reaping the benefits of illegal immigration.

B. They meant what they said, but reversed themselves to oppose the hated Trump.

I incline toward (A). What say you?

 
A wall divides lawmakers over securing the country
It is obvious that for many, cynical politics are prioritized over the…

Three Lockean Reasons to Oppose the Democrats

The main purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. Subsidiary purposes are subordinate to the Lockean triad.  The Democrats, however, are anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-property.  So if you value life, liberty, and property, then you must not vote for any Democrat. The Republicans in their timid way do stand for life, liberty, and property.  And they are becoming less timid under Trump's tutelage. Lindsey Graham, for one, has recently located his manly virtue and put it to work during the Kavanaugh confirmation. So the choice is clear. Vote Republican, never vote for any Democrat, and don't throw away your vote on unelectable third-party candidates.

I will now briefly list some, but not all, of the reasons why the Democrats are anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-property.

Anti-Life.  The Dems are the abortion party. They support abortion on demand at every stage of fetal development. They are blind to the moral issues that abortion raises. They wrongly think that abortion is merely about women's health and reproductive rights. To make matters worse, they violate the beliefs of fellow taxpayers by their support of tax-payer funding for Planned Parenthood which is an abortion provider.

Anti-Liberty. The Dems are opposed to free speech, religious liberty, and gun rights.  They regularly conflate free speech with 'hate speech' and religious liberty with 'theocracy.'  And this while going soft on genuine theocratic regimes such as Iran's. All of this puts them at odds with the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution. And in general we can say that contemporary Democrats  are anti-Constitutional inasmuch  as an open or living constitution, which they advocate, is no constitution at all, but a mere tabula rasa they hope to deface with their anti-American leftist ideology.

Anti-Property. Today's Democrats, as hard leftists, are ever on the slouch toward socialism, which, in full flower (to put it euphemistically) requires central planning and government ownership of the means of production.  That is where they want to go even though, as stealth ideologues, they won't admit it.

But let's assume that the statement I just made is exaggerated and that Dems really don't want socialism as it is classically defined. Still, they are anti-property in various ways.  They think that we the people have to justify our keeping whereas government doesn't have to justify its taking. That is precisely backwards. They don't appreciate that the government exists for us; we don't exist for the government. They confuse taxation with wealth redistribution. And by the way, government is not us, as some idiots such as Thom Hartman say.  'The government is us' is as perversely knuckle-headed as 'Diversity is our strength.'  The latter stupidity is plainly Orwellian. What about the former? Pre-Orwellian?  Both are Pelosi-stupid, which is the ne plus ultra of stupidity.

Finally, you need to understand that private property is the foundation of individual liberty.

Is it politically sane to want both to crush and to tolerate opposing tribes?

George Packer in The New Yorker on tribalism:

I hear myself say this and think, A solid analysis. At the same time, I hear a Republican reply, Pure tribalism. You’re just proving your own point. I want part of my brain, even a small part, to be always attuned to the frequency of other tribes, ready to pose the essential questions: How would this sound coming from them? How do they see you? I try to keep two thoughts in my head at the same time: the other tribe needs to be crushed, and I have to talk and listen to them. The first thrives on rage, the second on tolerance. These are contradictory states of being, and extremely difficult to maintain in tension, but a sane politics requires both. The alternative isn’t victory but self-destruction. After all, we have to live together.

Surely the above is incoherent. I cannot both tolerate you and seek to crush you.  Toleration does not imply approval, but it does imply a willingness to put up with you, your beliefs, your expressions of your beliefs, and at least some of  the actions flowing from them.  If I tolerate you, then I let you be, which is obviously incompatible with crushing you either physically or politically.

Packer tells us that a sane politics requires both rage and tolerance.  On the contrary such a politics would be insane.

Packer tells us we have to live together. True. But he offers no proposal as to how to do so peacefully.

Secession is out of the question. If so, we are just going to have to battle it out in this age of post-consensus politics. It won't be pretty. Let's hope that political means suffice to beat back the Democrats.  If we can beat some sense into them, then perhaps we can keep the Republic together. 

It’s All Over for the Never Trumpers

One part of them acknowledges President Trump's manifold accomplishments, in particular his two SCOTUS victories, and will vote for him in 2020. The rest have or will let their mindless hatred of Trump the man drive them out of the Republican Party or out of conservatism altogether.  Victor Davis Hanson:

The character assassination of Brett Kavanaugh by unsubstantiated rumor and gossip put Never Trumpers in a bind, or rather split them in two. Kavanaugh was nominated by the hated Trump, but his record and endorsements by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society mainstreamed the choice. 

[. . .]

To destroy a judge like Kavanaugh reflected that the New Left’s hatred of Trump had always been incidental to its essential loathing of conservatives in general. For a remnant group of Never Trumpers to oppose Kavanaugh, then, reflected the elevation of their own personal hatred for Trump over the critical elevation of a principled jurist to the Supreme Court. Supposedly, Kavanaugh was soiled by a Trump handprint, and therefore it was better to have a more liberal court than see Trump get any credit for taking the court in a direction only previously dreamed of by conservatives.

Never Trumpers had always assured their former conservative colleagues that Trump would either fail or prove liberal. But he has done neither. And as far as his demonstrable crudity and uncouthness, the hearings showed that the Democrats were far crueler and crass in deed than Trump was in word. So perhaps half of the small minority of Republican Never Trumpers, in horror at the Antifa tactics of the Democrats, retreated to the old adage of “hang together or hang separately.” Those who doubled down by joining leftists in opposing the Kavanaugh nomination revealed that they have crossed their Rubicon and now are either orphaned or unabashedly part of the new progressive Democratic party — at least until their useful obsequiousness no longer serves current progressive agendas.

Not a Job Interview, but a Neo-Bolshevik Show Trial

Pat Buchanan:

Yet, in tossing out the “Catechism of Political Correctness” and treating the character assassination of Kavanaugh as what it was, a rotten conspiracy to destroy and defeat his nominee, Trump’s instincts were correct, even if they were politically incorrect.

This was not a “job interview” for Kavanaugh.

In a job interview, half the members of the hiring committee are not so instantly hostile to an applicant that they will conspire to criminalize and crush him to the point of wounding his family and ruining his reputation.

When Sen. Lindsey Graham charged the Democratic minority with such collusion, he was dead on. This was a neo-Bolshevik show trial where the defendant was presumed guilty and due process meant digging up dirt from his school days to smear and break him.

Our cultural elites have declared Trump a poltroon for daring to mock Ford’s story of what happened 36 years ago. Yet, these same elites reacted with delight at Matt Damon’s “SNL” depiction of Kavanaugh’s angry and agonized appearance, just 48 hours before.

Is it not hypocritical to laugh uproariously at a comedic depiction of Kavanaugh’s anguish, while demanding quiet respect for the highly suspect and uncorroborated story of Ford?

It is time to wake up and realize that Democrats are not fellow citizens but domestic enemies and ought to be treated as such.  

Tribalism

The incontinent Grey Lady becomes worse with each passing day.  Thomas Friedman whines about tribalism, but then lets loose with this tribalist outburst:

Brett Kavanaugh defended himself the other day with the kind of nasty partisan attacks and ugly conspiracy theories that you’d expect only from a talk radio host — never from a would-be justice of the Supreme Court. Who can expect fairness from him now?

Note first the gratuitous smear against talk radio.  In an hour of Dennis Prager or Michael Medved or Hugh Hewitt there is more wisdom and good sense than in all the piss-poor Op-Ed pages of the NYT on any given day.  

Friedman is also doing the same stupid thing Hillary and Dianne Feinstein have recently done, namely, expecting Kavanaugh to behave in a super-calm judicial manner when he is defending himself against vicious smears.  If Kavanaugh had displayed his judicial temperament in his self-defense, his Democrat enemies would have taken it as proof of guilt.  "Any normal person would have defended  himself with passion against such grievous charges! So he must be guilty!"

A judge in the execution of his judicial duties must be impartial, which implies that he cannot be party to the dispute he is adjudicating.  To demand that Kavanaugh display his judicial temperament in his self-defense would be like demanding that a defense attorney not advocate for his client but play the judge and present both sides of the case.

Nasty partisan attack? K. is the victim of a nasty partisan attack. When he said that the animus against him was in part fueled by the desire for revenge by the Clinton gang he was simply pointing out what should be obvious to any objective observer.  Hillary was supposed to win. It was her turn.  But then along came Trump. The Left lost its collective mind. K. is a Trump nominee. Obviously, the Left's mindless hatred of Trump is part of the explanation of the vicious attack on K.

Another and larger part of the explanation is that the Left cannot abide a SCOTUS justice who honors the Constitution as she was written.

No link for you, buddy. 

Dennis Prager: The Charges Against Kavanaugh Should be Ignored

This piece by Dennis Prager is sure to outrage the Left.  Prager takes a step back and uncovers an assumption that almost everyone else is making. The assumption is that IF the young Kavanaugh had groped Dr. Ford in the manner she describes, THEN that would be good grounds for non-confirmation.

But is the assumption true?

Suppose it could be shown that Brett Kavanaugh, 36 years ago, did to Christine Blasey Ford what she claims he did. That cannot be shown, of course, due to a lack of evidence, but just suppose.  (And if there is no evidence, then it is absurd to call for an FBI investigation. What would they investigate?) How does a youthful peccadillo nullify the rest of an impeccable life and distinguished career?  To believe that it does one would have to assume the following:

a) What a middle-age adult did in high school is all we need to need to know to evaluate an individual’s character — even when his entire adult life has been impeccable.

b) No matter how good and moral a life one has led for ten, 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years, it is nullified by a sin committed as teenager.

No decent — or rational — society has ever believed such nihilistic nonsense.

Now let ME take a further step back. 

What is this whole controversy really and fundamentally about? Is it about Kavanaugh's moral fitness to serve on the Supreme Court?

Obviously not. It is not about his moral fitness, but about his failure to meet an ideological litmus test.  The Left cannot abide the thought of an originalist/textualist taking over the Justice Anthony Kennedy SCOTUS swing slot. For with Kavanaugh the conservatives would have the upper hand. This also explains why Gorsuch, the Scalia replacement, was confirmed with relative ease.

Suppose Kavanaugh were a leftist who believed in an 'open' or 'living' constitution. Would the DEMS be troubled by the baseless allegation, 36 years after the alleged 'fact,' of a youthful bit of bad behavior?  Of course not! They would be protesting with the same sorts of arguments now being used by Republicans.

So let's all try to be honest for a change. What is really going here is an important  battle in the war for the soul of America. Will we allow her to be "fundamentally transformed" by the Left or will we preserve her as she was founded to be?

To achieve the latter, the Constitution must be honored and applied in its original meaning.  Kavanaugh's is not the originalism of original intent of the Founders, but the originalism of original public meaning. 

As for Christine Blasey Ford, she is being used as tool by the Dems for their ideological purpose.  

My Opinion of Lindsey Graham Up a Notch!

Here is something I wrote about Senator Graham on 31 March 2016:

To understand liberals you must understand that theirs is a mind-set according to which a  conservative is a bigot, one who reflexively and irrationally hates anyone different than he is.  This is why conservatives who insist on securing the borders are routinely labelled 'xenophobes' by liberals and by some stupid 'conservatives' as well, an example being that  foolish RINO Lindsey Graham who applied the epithet to Donald Trump when the latter quite reasonably proposed a moratorium on Muslim immigration into the U.S. 

And here is what I wrote on 30 June 2016:

If you refuse to vote for Donald Trump because he is in several ways a loathsome individual, then I pronounce you a fool in point of the political.  You don't understand that politics is a practical struggle, not a gentlemanly conversation.  It is not about perfection or ideological purity or choosing the Good over the Bad.  It's about better or worse in the ugly concrete circumstances in which we presently find ourselves.

The argument of George Will and others of the 'bow-tie brigade' is patently lame, as lame as can be.  They will do what they can to stop Trump the vulgarian know-nothing.   In so doing they support Hillary.  When this is pointed out, the response is that  after four years of Hillary, we will elect a 'true' conservative to the White House.

This ignores the fact that after four years of Hillary it may be too late.  Four more years of illegal immigration from the south; four more years of largely unvetted Muslim immigration, including Syrian refugees; four more years of erosion of First and Second Amendment rights; four years in which Hillary can make 2-5 Supreme Court appointments; four more years of attacks on civil society, the buffer space between the individual and the state apparatus;  four more years of sanctuary cities and the flouting of the rule of law; four more years of assaults on the likes of the Little Sisters of the Poor and others who stand in the way of the pro-abortion agenda; and more.

Here is another question for George and Bill Kristol and the rest of the bow-tie boys: who will be your candidate? David French? Lindsey Graham?  Jeb!?

But Senator Graham has found his cojones!  His performance yesterday in defense of Judge Kavanaugh was magnificent. He is coming to learn that politics in the age of post-consensus politics is not a gentlemanly debate conducted under an umbrella of shared principles according to the Marquess of Queensberry rules, but a bare-knuckled slug fest against vicious and destructive swine who are out to subvert the Constitution, upend the rule of law and violate every norm of decency and common sense. 

No quarter to them!

Republicans Underestimate the Thuggery of Democrats

Andrew C. McCarthy:

Democrats are willing to use any tactics to block conservatives from the Supreme Court and seat their own ideologues. The question is not “Fair or unfair?” It’s “Will it work?” Republicans always seem flat-footed in response because they underestimate how far Democrats are willing to go to win, how willing they are to destroy people’s reputations if that’s what it takes. Republicans keep thinking it’s 1987 and the Bork debacle was the worst of it; in reality, we’re 30 years on, and the Bork debacle was just the beginning of it.

I learned this in terrorism cases. Radical left-wing attorneys, who style themselves “political lawyers,” try to turn the proceedings into a zoo, chaos being the weapon of those for whom the rules assure defeat. Either the judge takes control of the courtroom with a firm hand, enforces the rules, and penalizes the antics, or there are interminable delays, baseless smears, and general bedlam.

That's right. Take control and muzzle or remove the transgressive punks.  I'll leave it to you to ponder whether these people are fellow citizens or domestic enemies out to destroy our system of government which enshrines such principles as the presumption of innocence.

McCarthy Understands Support for Trump

Andrew C. McCarthy:

President Trump says a lot of things that are not true and says a lot of other things that are foolish and unsavory. But his supporters are drawn to him, in large part, because he is willing to get into the muck with Democrats, fight them on their own demagogic terms — especially on things he cares about, like his nominees. They are tired of Republicans’ being caught flat-footed, continually underestimating how low Democrats are willing to go, how much they are willing to destroy reputations, institutions, and traditions in order to win. 

Quite right. Trump won in 2016 because he showed that he has the courage to battle the destructive hard-Left Dems with their own weapons, something that a milque-toast pol like Jeb! Bush could not bring himself to do because his mommy taught him that he must always behave in a gentlemanly and civil manner even when one's opponents represent an existential threat.

Kavanaugh is in Like Flynn

And what little credibility the Dems had left is out like Stout. (G. F. Stout?)

Here:

Opponents of Kavanaugh lost the fight when they lost their marbles. His foes on the Senate Judiciary Committee and allied activists ensured that opponents to the nomination appear to be a pack of wild cranks. 

[. . .]

Not only did the outbursts seem uncivil and destructive of Senate decorum, they may have violated federal criminal laws — including 40 U.S.C. 5104 — against disrupting congressional proceedings. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), instead of criticizing the criminal bedlam, called it “the noise of democracy.”

There's that word 'democracy' again! The chuckleheads need to define it or drop it. What do the Dems mean? Mob rule? The rejection of all procedural rules? The treating of the Constitution as if it were a tabula rasa?

Do Dicky Durbin and his ilk think the word has a talismanic power? Please do tell us what you mean, Dicky. 

Then Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) made his contribution.  With great fanfare, Booker announced his “Spartacus moment,” daring to disclose committee confidential documents that revealed Kavanaugh’s opinions about racial profiling. Of course, breaking rules appeals to the disruptive gang in the gallery, so Booker’s play seemed well-designed.

Yet, in execution, Booker’s plan was a disaster for Kavanaugh foes. Not only did Kavanaugh not support racial profiling, the documents were not subject to committee confidential restraints in the first place.

And then there is an important point I make in a very fine entry that I warmly recommend for your perusal, namely, that there is no such thing as racial profiling.