Fascism, American Style

It is great to live in America. We have plenty of problems, of course. We always have and we always will.

On the other hand, one of most violent left wing political creeds has been neutered here. Fascism is now defanged!

Since long before his election President Trump (like Reagan, Bush, and Bush two) has been likened to Hitler and declared a Fascist.

Unlike the Fascist governments that preceded our American version, Franco's Spain, Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy, opponents of the American Fascist government constantly point out its flaws and, alas, remain alive and free to continue to do so.

A thoroughly welcome advancement.

You see, Franco's Spain had its Gaurdia Civil, happy to arrest and imprison critics at their whim. Hitler, of course, had his Brownshirts and Gestapo. Criticizing the government or any member of it was a death sentence quickly and brutally delivered. I don't know enough about Mussolini's infrastructure to tell you who murdered his critics.

The American version is, apparently, so much more benign that it closely resembles a constitutional democracy.

American Fascist Cabinet member Scott Pruitt is confronted and lectured at in a public restaurant.

American Fascist Cabinet member Kierstjen Neilsen confronted and jeered at in a public restaurant.

American Fascist spokesperson Sarah Sanders is asked to leave a public restaurant. Rather than call in armed ICE agents to arrest and murder the restaurant owner she...gets up and leaves.

Consequences for the poor behavior of the complaining citizens? None.

I am reasonably sure that the victims of previous non-American Fascist regimes would prefer the American version's outcomes.

Of course, pretty much the whole world prefers American version outcomes. That is why our culture is popular everywhere ( ok, the Iranian government doesn't like us much and then there are the jihadists, but still, most people like us) and people from all over the world risk their lives to emigrate here.

There is a curious irony in all the Fascism talk. A significant number of those insisting our government is run by Fascists are the only ones who actually look and act like Fascists.



Want to double the irony dose? Antifa stands for "anti-facist".

The Border

Like many people I have been watching the "debate" about our handling of illegal immigrant families at the border. It is heartbreaking.

I have read a good deal about the goings on from both left and right. As I have mentioned before, one of the many differences between residing on the right and left is that we on the right are constantly exposed to the arguments of those on the left and forced to defend our own. Those on the left are not often exposed to arguments from the right which explains why they are often poor at discussing issues. Their knee-jerk moral superiority does not help.

I have noticed a disturbing trend on the right in this case. Too many of us are mischaracterizing the issue. The issue is not, as so many on the right assert, whether or not the Obama administration detained and/or deported illegal immigrant families or how minors were quartered.

The issue is whether, during their detention, after having been arrested at the border children were separated from their families.

Photos of detention centers taken during the Obama administration, particularly in 2014, are all over the place.. That was when huge numbers of unaccompanied minors were cynically sent by their parents to the border. Since most were unaccompanied the separation of families was not a big issue.

I really hate it when our side adopts the disgraceful debating tactics of left but we appear to be doing it here. It is a bad idea.

We must have the courage of our convictions. I am terribly sorry these kids are being separated from their parents. It is their parents, the cynical governments of  Central America, and the morally bankrupt Mexican government, which are responsible.

These illegal immigrants must be stopped. One way of stopping them is to make things uncomfortable so that future illegal immigrants might be persuaded to do the right thing.

If you are really an asylum seeker fearing persecution in your country of origin go to the American Consulate or Embassy in the first country in which you are safe. Usually Mexico in this case, and file an asylum application. That is how the international asylum system is set up. It is entirely unnecessary to cross our border illegally. In fact, doing so suggests that you, like about 40% of your cohort, are not serious about making an asylum case. That is the percentage of "asylum seekers" from Mexico and Central America who, once admitted to the USA do  not show up for immigration hearings.

If you are an economic migrant do not attempt to cross the border illegally. If you think you must, do not bring your children with you. Problem solved.

Wrong on Trade Wars

Last January I wrote a post titled, "Thanks Mr. President, Again".

I described how wrong all of the predictions of  the disaster that would be the Trump presidency had been one year into his term. One of those predictions was that we would be involved in trade wars. We are now. While we were not at the time, the clear implication of my post was that we would not be. I was wrong.

That said I don't see any problem with the trade wars.

President Trump has rightly pointed out that many of our trade deals are decidedly unbalanced.

One example I had not heard of was automobile trade with Germany. The only significant European Union auto exporter to the USA.

Our exports to the European Union are subject to a 10% tariff. Our imports from the EU? 2.5%. That is just wrong and if it takes a "war" to get it right, so be it.

As is the case with every other nation we trade with, they need us much more than we need them particularly now that we are self-sufficient in fossil fuels. We are obliged to use that very real leverage to the benefit of this country.

How to Read a "News" story, Again

The New York Daily News is a left wing paper. Like most of them, they pretend not to be. They give themselves away every time. Just cannot help themselves.

The linked article purports to be a news report on the resignation of our Ambassador to Estonia. The proximate cause of his resignation?

" “For the President to say the EU was ‘set up to take advantage of the United States, to attack our piggy bank,’ or that ‘NATO is as bad as NAFTA’ is not only factually wrong, but proves to me that it’s time to go,” he said in a private Facebook post obtained by Foreign Policy."

Will Mr. Trump never stop insulting our allies? Oh my.

And then there is this,

"A longtime U.S. diplomat announced his resignation as the nation he served worries about what will happen to the alliance that protects it."

Assuming he and the Daily News  understand that the USA is the country he serves, not Estonia, it is awfully strange to refer to NATO as the "alliance that protects us". It does no such thing of course. Only we are capable of defending ourselves and them. Which is why "the nation he served" is not worried at all.

Just another opportunity to take a shot at President Trump.

It is not surprising that the story hides, to the extent possible, that our former Ambassador was appointed by Obama. You are left to calculate which administration would have appointed him "three years ago". Can't imagine why they wouldn't just come right out and tell us. Can you?

The USA pays 22.1% of NATO's budget in "direct contributions", about $529 million dollars a year. The biggest costs, though, are in "indirect contributions".

"NATO describes these as contributions that are made, for example, when “a member volunteers equipment or troops to a military operation and bears the costs of the decision to do so."

All those Joint Exercises and training programs we read about are funded mostly by us because we have, by far, the largest military in the alliance.

All the noise we are making is due to the fact that most of the members are not dedicating the 2% of their GDP they are supposed to. Thus their Armed Forces are smaller than they would otherwise be, forcing the USA to make ever larger "indirect contributions" to keep NATO properly prepared.

We are, as usual, being taken advantage of. It should stop. We are not the primary beneficiaries of NATO's defense umbrella. The people not living up to their obligations are.

Thank You Justice Kennedy

As you probably know Justice Kennedy has resigned.

As you also probably know the left is on fire, again.

It will come as no surprise to you that they are lying, again.

You may remember that after Justice Scalia, a conservative, died in February 2016 Obama nominated someone to take his place. The Senate, which must approve all federal judges, was and is controlled by Republicans. We refused to give Judge Garland (the putative nominee) a hearing.

Our rational was simple and with precedent. A new President would be elected in a matter of months and that person should nominate the next Supreme Court Justice.

Keep in mind that in February 2016 we did not know, although it was becoming more obvious, that Donald Trump would be our nominee. We assumed, like most others, that Felonia von Pantsuit (thank you Mr. Schlichter) would be the Democrat nominee and, according to every poll and most pundits, the next President of the USA.

One of our justifications for refusing to consider the nomination was what has come to be known as the "Biden Rule". In 1992 then Senator Joseph Biden proclaimed that should a vacancy occur on the Supreme Court during that election year any nomination should be delayed until after the November election. You will not be surprised to note that George H.W. Bush was our President at the time.

I do  not recall Vice President Biden repeating his 1992 opinion during the very acrimonious debate about giving Garland his hearings during the 2016 election year. Of course, as with all things Democrat, the rules are situational. A Democrat was President so, of course, clearly entitled to have hearings on his nominee. For once we Republicans, led by Senator McConnell, refused to cave and no hearings were held.

Now Democrats are insisting that the "McConnell rule" be invoked and no hearings be held on any nominee during this election year.

"“Our Republican colleagues in the Senate should follow the rule they set in 2016,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a speech on the Senate floor. “Senator McConnell would tell anyone who listened that the Senate had the right to advise and consent — and that was every bit as important as the president’s right to nominate.”"

Really? I don't remember it that way. Both the "Biden Rule" and the "McConnell Rule" were explicitly formulated as applying during Presidential election years. This is not a Presidential election year. There will be another Trump nomination.

Given the gravity of the threat to lefty policies that a decidedly conservative court would present they have reacted with their usual cool, calm and well reasoned arguments.

"FUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK

— Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) 11:03 AM - Jun 27, 2018" 

The resignation of the fiscal conservative but social liberal Kennedy is, in fact, a monumental (yuuuuuuuge?)  event. He was appointed in 1988 by our most conservative President before DJT, Ronald Reagan. Kennedy "grew" in office and gave us such fabulous social outcomes as same sex marriage invoking the well known legal principle that marriage is the only cure for loneliness.

"...Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness..."

Well, he is gone. An apparently reliable conservative will be appointed in his place which means there will be five solid conservatives on the court with Chief Justice Roberts (the "conservative" who saved Obamacare), more conservative than not, making six conservative voices in most cases. This will bring the left's mostly unconstitutional agenda to an end for at least 25 years. Thank goodness!

How to Read a "News" Story

I have mentioned several times before that we must be very careful reading stories from the Mainstream Media. In "This and That #10" I pointed out that the media will bury crucial details far into a story hoping, I guess, that not too many people will read that far and uncover the deceit that completely explodes their screaming anti-American headlines.

They have other methods of disseminating falsehoods as accurate statements.

One of their most frequently deployed appears in the following paragraph. Subtly mis-representing the words of the person they are quoting..

"The president continued to ratchet up the anti-immigrant rhetoric on Twitter.

“Democrats are the problem,” he tweeted Tuesday morning. “They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!”".

Did you spot it? Of course you did. The authors used the completely inappropriate and loaded term "anti-immigrant" when any honest account would have said "anti illegal immigrant". The President was very clear. He is determined to stop "illegal immigrants".

Here  is another sample of the use of mis-characterization.

"The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to the rights of workers on Monday by allowing companies to require them to sign away their ability to bring class-action claims against management, agreements already in place for about 25 million employees."

My goodness. I didn't realize the Court could deliver such a "blow". Surely if  this "right" existed the Court would affirm it. They are not in the business of rescinding "rights".

Could it be that the deployers of these terms are mistaken? In a word, yes.

" "The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written," Gorsuch wrote."

So, change the law, end the problem. That, of course, is difficult. It would require articulating a coherent case for a legislative fix to what the left sees as a serious problem.
Not a course they happily choose. Too difficult. Much easier to throw stones at conservatives.
 
"The justices, in a 5-4 ruling with the court's conservatives in the majority, endorsed the legality...". They confirmed the clarity and constitutionality of legislation. They also hinted that they might not favor the policy. As conservatives they understand that their job is not making policy. That is the job of the legislature.

Whenever I read lefty objections to Supreme Court decisions I am reminded of Barbara Boxer's (former Democrat US Senator, CA) comment when interviewed on the 30th anniversary of Roe v Wade. "When the Supreme Court speaks it is as if God has spoken".

Except, apparently, when it isn't.

Oceans 8. Spoiler Alert

My wife and I went to see Oceans 8 last week. Yes, I know, but sometimes we just endure things good naturedly for the ones we love.

Do you have any idea how long I spent playing with He-Man and Skeletor dolls? How many hours watching mostly incredibly boring gymnastics meets? Well, three of you do. The rest can only imagine.

To my surprise there has been a lot of talk about the movie, a female version of the Oceans franchise.

 There have always been chick flics. This one is a little different. We are presented with a group of women, most of whom are attractive, some of whom have very substantial acting credentials and all of whom are playing criminals.

Not just criminals, inexplicably brilliant criminals. We have no idea how they acquired their various skills except for Ms. Oceans, whose entire family tree is apparently composed of criminals and an Asian pickpocket who learned her skills from a wayward uncle as a child.

In my opinion the movie is ok if you are willing to overlook the many times it has to rely on tricking the audience to succeed. If not, it is a really bad movie. Having watched 100's of really bad movies over the years, I know whereof I speak. This is a bad movie.

Apparently the ladies are unhappy with the reviews the movie has received.

"Speaking to Yahoo Movies, Mindy Kaling called the dominance of white male reviewers “unfair”."

Approximately 80% of credentialed reviewers are white males according to the article.

It is, theoretically, a perfectly reasonable assertion. Except when it is not. Here it is not.

If this was a romance movie the assertion would not only be theoretically reasonable, it would be actually reasonable. Reactions among men and women would be expected to be different.

The movie is a crime/adventure movie. It is a female copy of the male genre and must be judged by the same standards (equality and all that, right?) regardless of the gender of the reviewer. By those standards it is a bad movie.

There is one aspect of it I think is unique and would not be tolerated if the cast was male.

These criminals steal a fortune in diamonds from Cartier and a much larger fortune in historic treasures from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. These criminals steal from the good guys and get away with it. Has that ever been permitted to happen before? I cannot recall a single instance.

There is an interesting social parallel with respect to the ladies complaints about reviewers being overwhelmingly male and white and the White Privilege movement. (I know, I can't help it.)

Rather than looking for the organic reasons for the poor reviews the ladies default to blaming the gender of the reviewers. Rather than looking for the organic reasons for the catastrophe that is black urban culture, black people blame white people.

Much easier to hold yourself blameless in both cases.

Higher Education

Doing some email housekeeping I came across an old email sent to a good friend following a discussion about higher education. Kathleen is a very well educated (several post-grad degrees including a PhD in Bio-ethics which could not land her a job) and very nice Canadian socialist who has lived in Arizona for the past 25 years or so. She is married to a successful physician, also Canadian, who claims, unpersuasively, in my opinion, not to be a socialist.

I thought the email worthy of wider dissemination. As is almost always the case with leftists, in my experience, they never bother to really engage. There was no response to my email nor was its subject ever brought up again the dozen or so times we have had dinner together since I wrote it.

The facts described in the final paragraph are astonishing, in my opinion.

"Dear Kathleen,

Add my thanks to Susan's. We appreciate your hospitality and always enjoy the company.

I came across this  http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/02/15/university-administrative-glut-worse-than-we-thought/  article this morning and thought I would share it with you in the context of our conversation last evening.

I have never met Crowe (President of Arizona State University) and assume he is a nice guy never having read or heard anything to the contrary.

Nice as he may be, he and his like minded colleagues have pushed a very cynical model for increasing the size and budgets of their organizations at the expense of 10's of thousands of students whose ever increasing tuition expense lead to ever increasing borrowing, ending, for many, in financial servitude. All facilitated by the never ending increase in funding of federal student loan programs promoted by their like-minded colleagues running the federal bureaucracies. It is the national socialist version of command and control economy. Never works but, for some reason, remains very compelling to those who think that their lever-pulling will produce a better outcome than their predecessors. 

I prefer to believe that all these people believe they are promoting the best policies for all involved. The fact that  they think that does not make them correct. They are obviously, demonstrably and tragically wrong. Unfortunately the consequences of the tragedy are not visited on them (elites never suffer) but on the naive young people persuaded that it is worth borrowing large sums of money to finance a degree that might once have been valuable but has been devalued by the PC university environment and huge proliferation. Things for which there is a huge oversupply generally fall in value.

Did I understand you to say that ASU has a program that requires chairpersons to deliver 1 1 hour lecture per year  and tenured professors 2 1 hour lectures per year in order that they not fall out of touch with the students? I know I asked you to clarify at the time but am still hoping I misunderstood you."