Category Archives: Guest post

Trump’s da man!

(The following is an editorial from the Investor’s Business Daily. For an even more detailed list of President Trump’s many accomplishments, go here.)

AFTER WEEKS and months of fixating on tweets and Russia, someone in the press decided to have a look at what the Trump administration has been up to since January. Lo and behold, they discovered that it’s getting a lot done.

serveimage“Trump Has Quietly Accomplished More Than It Appears,” reads the headline in the Atlantic.

“With the Trump administration’s chaos sucking up all the attention,” the article begins, “it’s been able to move forward on a range of its priorities … It is remaking the justice system, rewriting environmental rules, overhauling public-lands administration, and greenlighting major infrastructure projects. It is appointing figures who will guarantee the triumph of its ideological vision for decades to come.”

It goes on to detail these achievements, many of which we’ve highlighted on these pages.

Border crossings, for example, have plummeted, even though all Trump has done so far is promise to enforce existing laws.

The Supreme Court approved parts of Trump’s travel ban, a success made possible by Trump’s appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the bench.

Trump is busy filling lower court positions with conservative justices. Ron Klain, a White House aide to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, said that Trump “is proving wildly successful in one respect: naming youthful conservative nominees to the federal bench in record-setting numbers.”

What else? Well, Trump pulled out of the Paris climate change deal, which as we noted in this space is a yuuuge win for the economy.

The EPA, meanwhile, is dismantling Obama’s coal-killing, growth-choking Clean Power Plan, and draining the heavy-handed Waters of the United States rule. When a veteran EPA official resigned this week, she complained in a letter to her former colleagues that “the new EPA Administrator already has repeals of 30 rules under consideration,” which the New York Times described as “a regulatory rollback larger in scope than any other over so short a time in the agency’s 47-year history.”

Trump promised to kill two regulations for every new one enacted, but in his first six months the ratio was 16-to-1.

Trump also approved the Keystone XL and other pipeline projects held up by Obama. He’s also rolled back a ban on coal mining on public lands.

To be sure, Trump hasn’t scored a major legislative achievement on signature issues like ObamaCare and tax reform.

The Atlantic writer describes the administration’s achievements as something akin to a shadow government. But these actions aren’t in the shadows. They’re just being ignored by a media that is obsessed with digging up dirt on Trump.

* * * *

(Note: An excellent way to get correct information on the Trump Administration is to go to the White House website and subscribe to the 1600 Daily, which is a brief wrap-up emailed to you of what’s actually happening every day in the administration.)

Valley of the Shadow

Good stories from Alabama. By Ray Clifton.

Words Not On Paper

IMG_0100

It is Coleta Valley on the map.

I passed this way a few days ago.  Stopped for a photo and a memory.

Once upon a time three boys wandered into this spot in an old Jeep Ranger.  The Ranger is no more.  Neither is one of the boys.  The other two are worse for wear.

The day that old Ranger clanked into the valley the driver immediately christened it “the back side of heaven.”   It was the most beautiful landscape they had ever seen, and the name stuck, part and parcel of the bond between them.

In their boyhood journeys together it became the end of the line.  The turning-point back toward home.

The mountains in the background are a part of the Talladega National Forest and the Hollins Wildlife Management Area.  The boys spent countless teen-age hours in those mountains, learning to hunt white-tailed deer.  Never any success, as…

View original post 295 more words

The curtain falls

A stunning – and stunningly disturbing – event took place this past weekend.  But unless you were scouring the news very carefully, chances are you didn’t even hear of it.

The annual Bravalla Festival, one of the most popular summer music concerts in Sweden, was abruptly canceled.  There will be no festival next year.

Or ever.

Given that tens of thousands of tickets were sold, the problem was not attendance.  Nor was there any difficulty booking big-name rap and rock stars.  No, this festival was canceled because of something far more ominous – Bravalla has become synonymous with rape and sexual assault.

Festival officials, as they announced the end of Bravalla, complained that “certain men” don’t know how to behave.  You might wonder if those “certain men” are strapping blonde Swedes with names like Erik, Viktor, and Gustav.

But in fact, the assailants are allegedly immigrants from the Middle East, North Africa, and other predominantly Muslim areas of the world.

One year ago the Bravalla Festival gained a measure of infamy when police reported five rapes and a dozen cases of molestation.  The story got minor coverage in some media outlets, including the New York Times, which described the assailants as “foreigners” and “refugees.”

Predictably, the Times also warned of a “far-right” backlash.

This year the situation was even more sickening, with four reported rapes and 23 instances of sexual assault.  And the Times?  The “paper of record” chose to run a brief Associated Press dispatch noting that the festival has been shut down.

Nowhere was there any mention that Muslim immigrants were the likely perps.

Sweden, like many European socialist paradises, has been in a state of deep denial about its refugee crisis.  If you believe authorities and tourism officials, immigrants are fitting in quite nicely in the world’s most liberal nation.

But what about those rumors of “no-go zones,” where crime is rampant and where police fear to tread?  Well, we’re assured that’s just “fake news” perpetrated by anti-immigrant groups.

But earlier this year a courageous British reporter named Katie Hopkins decided to take a look for herself.  She ventured into some of Sweden’s imaginary “no-go zones” and spoke with women who are absolutely terrified of going out alone, day or night.

They know that crossing onto the wrong street in some cities is an invitation to harassment, assault, even rape.

These women are also afraid of feminists and liberals, who accuse them of being racists if they speak the truth.  Hopkins wrote this about one woman she met in Stockholm:  “The migrant men scare her.  But it is the Swedish women who have silenced her.”

Bravalla is not the only music festival where women are in jeopardy.  There were dozens of rapes and assaults at another concert a few years ago, allegedly committed by young Afghan men who had been embraced by Sweden’s outstretched arms.

And of course it’s not just Sweden.  In Germany, New Year’s Eve of 2016 was marred by sexual assaults and rapes in many cities.  Police reported that more than 1,000 women were victimized by hordes of young men.

Again, the perps weren’t Wolfgang, Hans, und Dieter.  They were described by the women as men of “Arab or North African appearance.”

Governments in Europe and a compliant media do their best to ignore the unending and escalating threat of violence.  It simply does not fit the liberal narrative, which dictates that all cultures and all religions are pretty much the same.  But reality has a very harsh way of prevailing over fantasy.

Sweden has the highest rate of immigration in Europe, having taken in tens of thousands of refugees from Syria, Somalia, and elsewhere.  So you can think of the country as the canary in the coal mine.  That proverbial canary is now gasping for air as European bureaucrats turn a blind eye.

Most Swedes still embrace their reputation for tolerance and liberalism.  Many even seem quite willing to sacrifice a music festival or two if that’s what it takes to display their virtue.

And they willingly pay exorbitant taxes to subsidize refugees who despise Sweden’s libertine culture and sexual permissiveness.

Let’s put it this way:  The world’s most tolerant people are inviting the world’s most intolerant people into their nation and their cities.  The Swedes believe it’s a noble experiment.  But whether noble or foolish, it is an experiment doomed to fail.

The Bravalla Music Festival was just one casualty.  There will be many more.  Ironically, the festival urged fans to “choke hatred and violence and let the music win.”  Well, hatred and violence won and the music lost.

In the process, another small part of Europe has vanished, thanks to cowardly ideologues who so desperately cling to their open-border, one-world fantasies.  A once-great continent and its cultures are slowly dying.  To be more accurate, they are committing suicide.

* * * *

(The above was written by former Fox News star Bill O’Reilly. His excellent website is here.)

California Rebs

(California was a magic spot when I lived there a spell in the early 1960s. But no more. Today’s post is written by Victor Davis Hanson, a historian with the Hoover Institution.)

* * * *

9942878-confederate-flag-rendered-with-fabric-texture1MORE THAN 60 percent of California voters went for Hillary Clinton — a margin of more than 4 million votes over Donald Trump.

Since Mrs. Clinton’s defeat, the state seems to have become unhinged over President Trump’s unexpected election.

“Calexit” supporters brag that they will have enough signatures to qualify for a ballot measure calling for California’s secession from the United States.

Some California officials have talked of the state not remitting its legally obligated tax dollars to the federal government. They talk of expanding its sanctuary cities into an entire sanctuary state that would nullify federal immigration law.

Californians also now talk about the value of the old Confederate idea of “states’ rights.”

They whine that their state gives far too much revenue to Washington and gets too little back.

Residents boast about how their cool culture has little in common with the rest of the U.S. Some Californians claim the state could easily go it alone, divorced from the United States.

Sound a bit familiar?

new-image
Today’s leftist

In December 1860, South Carolina seceded from the Union in furor over the election of Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln did not receive 50 percent of the popular vote. He espoused values the state insisted did not reflect its own.

In eerie irony, liberal California is now mirror-imaging the arguments of reactionary South Carolina and other Southern states that vowed to go it alone in 1860 and 1861.

Like California, South Carolina insisted it could nullify federal laws within its state borders.

Like California, South Carolina promised to withhold federal revenues.

Like California, South Carolina and other Confederate states bragged that their unique economies did not need the Union.

They boasted that “King Cotton” had created the wealthiest class in the United States. Silicon Valley now often assumes that Google, Facebook, Apple and others are near-trillion-dollar companies that are a world unto their own.

Slavery and the extravagant income from cotton warped the Southern economy and culture. A wealthy plantation elite, with its millions of exploited slaves, ensured that there would be virtually no middle-, working- or small-business class.

Huge estates were surrounded by the impoverished shacks of servants. Hardscrabble farmers or small businessmen often fled westward to escape the shackles of wealth disparity.

The export-dependent Southern elite demanded unfettered free trade. It offered bitter resistance to Northern protectionism.

South Carolina elites were opposed to federal infrastructure projects such as the building of roads, canals, bridges and reservoirs, and other such unwelcome “progress.”

Confederates boasted that their antebellum culture was more romantic, natural, pristine, healthy and moral than was the bustle, grime and hyper-capitalism of Northern industrialism.

Southern aristocrats believed that they were culturally superior — in terms of music, art and literature — to other Americans.

Of course, this is 2017, not 1860, and California is superliberal, not an antebellum slave-owning society.

Nonetheless, what is driving California’s current efforts to nullify federal law and the state’s vows to secede from the United States are some deeper — and creepy — similarities to the arrogant and blinkered Old South.

California is likewise becoming a winner-take-all society. It hosts the largest numbers of impoverished and the greatest number of rich people of any state in the country.

Eager for cheap service labor, California has welcomed in nearly a quarter of the nation’s undocumented immigrants.*

California has more residents living in poverty than any other state. It is home to one-third of all the nation’s welfare recipients.

The income of California’s wealthy seems to make them immune from the effects of the highest basket of sales, income and gas taxes in the nation. The poor look to subsidies and social services to get by. Over the last 30 years, California’s middle classes have increasingly fled the state.

“Gone With the Wind”-like wealth disparity in California is shocking to the naked eye.

Mostly poor Redwood City looks like it’s on a different planet from tony nearby Atherton or Woodside.

The California elite, wishing to keep the natural environment unchanged, opposes internal improvements and sues to stop pipelines, aqueducts, reservoirs, freeways and affordable housing for the coastal poor.

California’s crumbling roads and bridges sometimes resemble those of the old rural South. The state’s public schools remain among the nation’s poorest. Private academies are booming for the offspring of the coastal privileged, just as they did among the plantation class of the South.

California, for all its braggadocio, cannot leave the U.S. or continue its states’-rights violations of federal law. It will eventually see that the new president is not its sickness, nor are secession and nullification its cures.

Instead, California is becoming a reactionary two-tier state of masters and serfs whose culture is as peculiar and out of step with the rest of the country as was the antebellum South’s.

No wonder the state lashes out at the rest of the nation with threatened updated versions of the Old Confederacy’s secession and nullification.

But such reactionary Confederate obstructionism is still quite an irony given California’s self-righteous liberal preening.

* * * *

* Old Felipe prefers “illegal aliens.” He also continues what appears to be a one-man war against the use of “liberal” and “progressive” when referring to leftists.

A natural man

(For a long spell, since turning my politics rightward about a decade ago, I have been a bit perplexed by my aversion to some elements of traditional conservatism. 

(This column clears it up for me. It was written by two young men, Milo Yiannopoulos, the self-described “dangerous faggot,” and Allum Bokhari, a Breitbart correspondent who lives in London. Yiannopoulos is also British-born.

(You may have heard of the Alt-Right, the alternative right. There are two versions of the Alt-Right, the extreme and the moderate. The latter makes sense to me.  The former does not. Fortunately, the moderate wing is far more populated.

(I am pleased to come out as a “natural conservative” and, it appears, a moderate Alt-Righter.)

* * * *

NATURAL CONSERVATIVES are mostly white, mostly male, middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritizes the interests of their own demographic.

In their politics, these new conservatives are only following their natural instincts — the same instincts that motivate conservatives across the globe.

milo
Milo

Noted social psychologist Jonathan Haidt described the conservative instinct in his 2012 book The Righteous Mind.

The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism.

Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity.

They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions.

An establishment Republican, with their overriding belief in the glory of the free market, might be moved to tear down a cathedral and replace it with a strip mall if it made economic sense. Such an act would horrify a natural conservative.

Immigration policy follows a similar pattern: by the numbers, cheap foreign workers on H1B visas make perfect economic sense. But natural conservatives have other concerns: chiefly, the preservation of their own tribe and its culture.

For natural conservatives, culture, not economic efficiency, is the paramount value. More specifically, they value the greatest cultural expressions of their tribe.

Their perfect society does not necessarily produce a soaring GDP, but it does produce symphonies, basilicas and Old Masters. The natural conservative tendency within the Alt-Right points to these apotheoses of western European culture and declares them valuable and worth preserving and protecting.

Needless to say, natural conservatives’ concern with the flourishing of their own culture comes up against an intractable nemesis in the regressive left, which is currently intent on tearing down statues of Cecil Rhodes and Queen Victoria in the UK, and erasing the name of Woodrow Wilson from Princeton in the United States.

These attempts to scrub Western history of its great figures are particularly galling to the Alt-Right, who in addition to the preservation of Western culture, care deeply about heroes and heroic virtues.

This follows decades in which left-wingers on campus sought to remove the study of “dead white males” from the focus of Western history and literature curricula.

An establishment conservative might be mildly irked by such behavior as they switch between the State of the Union and the business channels, but to a natural conservative, such cultural vandalism may just be their highest priority.

In fairness, many establishment conservatives aren’t keen on this stuff either — but the Alt-Right would argue that they’re too afraid of being called “racist” to seriously fight against it. Which is why they haven’t.

Certainly, the rise of Donald Trump, perhaps the first truly cultural candidate for president since Buchanan, suggests grassroots appetite for more robust protection of the Western European and American way of life.

* * * *

The rise of Donald Trump suggests grassroots appetite for more robust protection of the Western European and American way of life.

* * * *

Alt-Righters describe establishment conservatives who care more about the free market than preserving Western culture, and who are happy to endanger the latter with mass immigration where it serves the purposes of big business, as “cuckservatives.”

Halting, or drastically slowing, immigration is a major priority for the Alt-Right. While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration.

The Alt-Right do not hold a Utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritize the interests of their tribe, they recognize that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – do the same.

As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples.

You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in Alt-Right online communities: that’s because many instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows.

In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. If it is, it won’t be successful in the “Kumbaya” sense. Border walls are a much safer option.

The Alt-Right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race.

The Alt-Right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved.

guy
Allum

A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to Alt-Righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness.

Some Alt-Righters make a more subtle argument.

They say that when different groups are brought together, the common culture starts to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Instead of mosques or English houses, you get atheism and stucco.

Ironically, it’s a position that has much in common with leftist opposition to so-called “cultural appropriation,” a similarity openly acknowledged by the Alt-Right.

It’s arguable that natural conservatives haven’t had real political representation for decades.

Since the 1980s, establishment Republicans have obsessed over economics and foreign policy, fiercely defending the Reagan-Thatcher economic consensus at home and neoconservative interventionism abroad.

In matters of culture and morality, the issues that natural conservatives really care about, all territory has been ceded to the Left, which now controls the academy, the entertainment industry and the press.

For those who believe in the late Andrew Breitbart’s dictum that politics is downstream from culture, the number of writers, political candidates and media personalities who actually believe that culture is the most important battleground can be dispiriting.

Natural liberals, who instinctively enjoy diversity and are happy with radical social change – so long as it’s in an egalitarian direction – are now represented by both sides of the political establishment.

Natural conservatives, meanwhile, have been slowly abandoned by Republicans — and other conservative parties in other countries. Having lost faith in their former representatives, they now turn to new ones — Donald Trump and the alternative right.

There are principled objections to the tribal concerns of the Alt-Right, but Establishment conservatives have tended not to express them, instead turning nasty in the course of their panicked backlash.

National Review writer Kevin Williamson, in a recent article attacking the sort of voters who back Trump, said that white working-class communities “deserve to die.”

Although the Alt-Right consists mostly of college-educated men, it sympathizes with the white working classes and, based on our interviews, feels a sense of noblesse oblige. National Review has been just as directly unpleasant about the Alt-Right as it has, on occasion, been about white Americans in general.

In response to concerns from white voters that they’re going to go extinct, the response of the Establishment — the conservative Establishment — has been to openly welcome that extinction.

It’s true that Donald Trump would not be possible without the oppressive hectoring of the progressive Left, but the entire media is to blame for the environment in which this new movement has emerged.

For decades, the concerns of those who cherish Western culture have been openly ridiculed and dismissed as racist.

The Alt-Right is the inevitable result.

No matter how silly, irrational, tribal or even hateful the Establishment may think the Alt-Right’s concerns are, they can’t be ignored, because they aren’t going anywhere.

As Haidt reminds us, their politics is a reflection of their natural inclinations.

In other words, the Left can’t language-police and name-call them away, which have for the last twenty years been the only progressive responses to dissent, and the Right can’t snobbishly dissociate itself from them and hope they go away either.

Trump: The gin bottle

(Today’s guest post comes to us from The Wall Street Journal, and it’s written by David Gelernter, a professor of computer science at Yale. The Unseen Moon dedicates this to libertarians and renegade conservatives planning to vote for a fringe candidate or not to vote at all.)

* * * *

hillarySOME CONSERVATIVES have watched their evaluations of Donald Trump’s character drop so low in recent days that on this vital question they no longer see a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Accordingly, they are forced back onto politics and policy; and naturally Mr. Trump wins in a walk.

If conservatives who argue that Mr. Trump is worse than Mrs. Clinton had a case, it would be a relief to vote for Mrs. Clinton or for no one. But they don’t, and one is therefore forced for the good of the nation to vote for Mr. Trump.

In his Mr. Nauseating video of last weekend, Mr. Trump showed us that he had all the class and cool of a misbegotten 12-year-old boy. Yet the video taught us nothing. No one had ever mistaken him for anything but an infantile vulgarian.

This week’s allegations of actual abuse are different. If these stories are true (and I don’t know why they shouldn’t be*), there is nothing to be said for Mr. Trump.

trumpUnfortunately, there is nothing to be said for Mrs. Clinton either. If we don’t take both facts into account, we are not morally serious.

Mrs. Clinton has nothing on Mr. Trump when it comes to character. She lies (“Wipe? Like with a cloth?” — cute and charming, Mrs. C.) the way basketball stars shoot baskets — constantly, nonstop, because it’s the one thing she is best at and (naturally) it gives her pleasure to hear herself lie — swish! — right onto the evening news.

And her specialist talent of all is the verbal kick in the groin of a Secret Service man or state trooper who has the nerve to talk to her as if she were merely human.

She is no mere rock star. She is Hillary the Queen. She is so big, and you are so small, she can barely even see you from up there. What are you? A macromolecule?

I’ll vote for Mr. Trump — grimly. But there is no alternative, no shadow of a responsible alternative.

Mr. Trump’s candidacy is a message from the voters. He is the empty gin bottle they have tossed through the window.

The message begins with the fact that voters hear what the leaders and pundits don’t: the profound contempt for America and Americans that Mrs. Clinton and President Obama share and their frightening lack of emotional connection to this nation and its people.

Mr. Obama is arch, patronizing, so magnificently weary of having to explain it all, again and again, to the dummies surrounding him.

ºººººººººº

ginDonald Trump is the empty gin bottle that voters have tossed through the window.

ºººººººººº

Mrs. Clinton has told us proudly how thoroughly she prepared for the first debate and has prepared to be president.

For her, it is all a matter of learning your lines. Her whole life has been memorized in advance. Mr. Obama is at least sincere. Mrs. Clinton is as phony as a three-dollar bill, as a Clinton Global Initiative.

Mr. Obama has governed like a third-rate tyrant. He’s been a stern babysitter to an American public that is increasingly getting on his nerves.

ObamaCare and the Iran treaty are his big achievements. That the public has always disliked them, and hates them worse as it knows them better, strikes him as so unspeakably irrelevant. He doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Do you ask 6-year-olds if they like going to school?

Mrs. Clinton couldn’t agree more. Policy is for smart people, who are people of the left by definition — leftists having scored all those big successes over the years in foreign policy, race relations, policing, restarting wounded economies, making unsecured loans, running school systems and so on.

On topics from Keystone to Guantanamo, Mr. Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t give a damn what people think — he no longer even tries to explain to the citizenry.

Do your homework! Understand?

Yes, leadership sometimes requires that you take an unpopular position and make it popular. We are told that Mr. Obama is working on his “legacy” instead, as if that makes him farsighted instead of irresponsible and insanely vain.

Presidents are supposed to run the country, not worry about their reputation in coming centuries.

IRRELEVANT VOTERS

Trump voters have noticed that, not just over Mr. Obama’s term but in recent decades, their own opinions have grown increasingly irrelevant.

It’s something you feel, like encroaching numbness.

Since when has the American public endorsed affirmative action? Yet it’s a major factor in the lives of every student and many workers.

Since when did we decide that men and women are interchangeable in hand-to-hand combat on the front lines? Why do we insist on women in combat but not in the NFL? Because we take football seriously.

That’s no joke. It’s the sad truth.

Did we invite the federal bureaucracy to take charge of school bathrooms? I guess I missed that meeting. The schools are corrupt and the universities rotten to the core, and everyone has known it since the 1980s.

But the Democrats are owned by the teachers unions, and Republicans have made only small-scale corrections to a system that needs to be ripped out and carefully disposed of, like poison ivy.

The Emasculated Voter to whom no one pays any attention is the story of modern democracy.

Instead of putting voters in charge, we tell them they’re in charge, and it’s just as good. That’s the Establishment’s great discovery in the Lois Lerner Age.

Enter Mr. Trump. People say he became a star because he just happened to mention an issue that just happened to catch on. But immigration is the central issue of our time.

Trump voters zeroed in because they saw what most intellectuals didn’t. What is our nation and what will it be?

Will America go on being America or turn into something else? That depends on who lives here — especially given our schools, which no longer condescend to teach Americanism.

The liberal theory is that, other things being equal, all human beings have an equal right to settle in America. For liberals this is too obvious to spell out. But it is also too ludicrous to defend.

AN OPEN BACKYARD?

Does all mankind have a right to camp in your backyard, eat in your kitchen, work at your office and borrow your best jogging outfit? We fail in our duty if we don’t think carefully whom we want in this country, who would be best for America.

Furthermore, we know that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

But that’s got nothing to do with immigration. Freedom of religion means freedom for American citizens — what else could it possibly mean?

We must not tamper with Americans’ religious life. We must not admit, as possible future citizens, anyone we don’t choose to, anyone we don’t think will be good for America.

Not to admit Muslims is bad policy, but it does not violate freedom of religion, and the American people have a perfect right to discuss and debate it.

Hold on, some of my fellow conservatives say.

Never mind Hillary. Trump would be dangerous. He would further endanger our national security and world position.

He might start unnecessary wars. He might even push the nuclear button.

These are important objections, but after thinking them through I’m unable to take them seriously, either in political terms or psychological ones.

HILLARY FEELS ENTITLED

Mrs. Clinton is right at home in the Oval Office and thinks she owns it. She holds herself entitled to supreme power, as her friends are entitled to fancy positions with enormous salaries and her followers to secure government jobs or ample government funds, as the case may be.

But forget psychology. Ordinary politics says that Mr. Trump will not do crazy things or go off half-cocked, because Republicans in Congress will be eager to impeach him and put Mike Pence in charge.

That was the subtext of the vice-presidential debate, though Mr. Pence himself (probably) didn’t intend it. When it’s my turn, you can all relax. Democrats, obviously, will be eager to help when the task is removing a Republican.

Impeachment is Trump-voters’ ace in the hole.

It’s an abnormal measure, but this is an abnormal year. Impeachment has temporarily dropped out of sight because of special circumstances. Republicans impeached Bill Clinton but got burned in the process.

Mr. Obama, as the first black president, was impeachment-proof. Any other president would have encountered serious impeachment talk on several occasions, especially when he ignored Congress and the Constitution and made his own personal treaty-in-all-but-name with Iran.

But Mr. Trump will not have Mr. Obama’s advantages — to say the least. Mr. Trump will be impeachment bait. So will Mrs. Clinton. Even some Democrats have had enough.

Nothing can stop Mr. Trump from shooting off his mouth, but that’s all right. I want America’s enemies off-balance and guessing. For eight years it’s been Humiliate America season — buzz our ships, capture and embarrass our men, murder an American ambassador — a resoundingly successful attempt to spit in our faces and tell each one of us to drop dead.

Thanks, Mr. President. Enough is enough. You know that Hillary is Obama Part III. We can’t let that happen. Parts I and II have brought us close enough to catastrophe.

That is the problem for those whose integrity or nobility won’t allow them to vote for Mr. Trump despite their dislike of Mrs. Clinton.

There is only one way to take part in protecting this nation from Hillary Clinton, and that is to vote for Donald Trump.

A vote for anyone else or for no one might be an honest, admirable gesture in principle, but we don’t need conscientious objectors in this war for the country’s international standing and hence for the safety of the world and the American way of life. It’s too bad one has to vote for Mr. Trump.

It will be an unhappy moment at best. Some people will feel dirty, or pained, or outright disgraced.

But when all is said and done, it’s no big deal of a sacrifice for your country. I can think of bigger ones.

* * * *

* The sudden outbreak of groping allegations is a repeat of the Democrats’ successful gutter campaign against Herman Cain. Neither Cain nor Trump had ever faced sexual-harassment accusations in their long careers until they decided to oppose the Democrat Party. What does that tell you?

Pay a person enough, and she’ll say anything.

The sexual-harassment issue is a beloved, useful, politically correct cudgel for leftists.  Think Mattress Girl writ large and often. This asterisk is from Felipe, not the guest poster.

‘Unbridled nonsense’

(The adulation of “diversity” and multiculturalism is a given in high-end Western society. Schools, corporations, clubs, you name it, all bow daily to the Goddess of Diversity. This Goddess also goes by the name of Multiculturalism.

(For years I have pointed out that multiculturalism is a problem to be confronted in the kindest way possible. It is not something to be pushed and promoted. A multicultural society is a troubled, often violent, society. This is patently obvious today in the United States and Western Europe.

(In spite of my frequent mentions of this, I don’t recall even one person passing by here who touched on the subject negatively or positively. It is a no-go zone enforced by fear. To question the glories of multiculturalism is to risk banishment from polite society and your gainful employment too.

(A recent example was Diversity’s Paradox. There were 27 comments and not one soul touched on the topic at hand in spite of my mentioning that no one was addressing the topic.

(The mailed fist of the Left enforces this stance with the same ferocity that Adolf Hitler compelled hatred of Jews.

(No matter. It is nonsense. Here is a guest post by Walter E. Williams, who is black so he gets a small, temporary, pass from Polite Society for his horrendous opinions.)

* * * *

williams
Williams

German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that multiculturalism has “utterly failed,” adding that it was an illusion to think Germans and foreign workers could “live happily side by side.”

The failure of multiculturalism is also seen in Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and other European countries. Immigrants coming from Africa and the Middle East refuse to assimilate and instead seek to import the failed cultures they fled.

Leftist diversity advocates and multiculturalists are right to argue that people of all races, religions and cultures should be equal in the eyes of the law. But their argument borders on idiocy when they argue that one culture cannot be judged superior to another and that to do so is Eurocentrism.

That’s unbridled nonsense. Ask a diversity/multiculturalism advocate: Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value?

Slavery is practiced in northern Sudan.

In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limits placed on women, such as prohibitions on driving, employment and education. Under Islamic law, in some countries, female adulterers face death by stoning, and thieves are punished by having their hand severed.

In some African and Middle Eastern countries, homosexuality is a crime, in some cases punishable by death. Are all these cultural values morally equivalent to those of the West?

The vital achievement of the West was the concept of individual rights, which saw its birth with the Magna Carta in 1215. The idea emerged that individuals have certain inalienable rights. Individuals do not exist to serve government; governments exist to protect their rights.

But it was not until the 19th century that ideas of liberty received broad recognition. In the West, it was mostly through the works of British philosophers, such as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill.

Personal liberty implies toleration of differences among people, whether those differences are racial, sexual, ideological or political. Liberty also implies a willingness to permit others who disagree with you to go their separate ways.

This is not the vision of the new immigrants.

In some parts of Britain, Christians are threatened with violence for merely handing out Bibles. Trying to convert Muslims to Christianity is seen as a hate crime. Women are accosted by Muslim men for “improper” dress.

Many women are sexually assaulted. In many European countries, no-go zones where civil authorities will not enter, in which Sharia is practiced, have been established.

According to the Express, “London, Paris, Stockholm and Berlin are among the major European cities that feature on a bombshell list of 900 lawless zones with large immigrant populations.”

Both in Europe and in the U.S., multiculturalism is a leftist elitist vision with its roots in academia. The intellectual elite, courts and government agencies push an agenda that is anything but a defense of individual rights, freedom from conformity and a live-and-let-live philosophy.

Instead, multiculturalism/diversity is an agenda for all kinds of conformity — conformity in ideas, actions and speech. It calls for re-education programs where diversity managers indoctrinate students, faculty members, employees, managers and executives on what’s politically correct thinking.

Part of that lesson is non-judgmentalism, where one is taught that one lifestyle is just as worthy as another and all cultures and their values are morally equivalent.

Western values are superior to all others. But one need not be a Westerner to hold Western values. A person can be Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, African or Arab and hold Western values.

By the way, it is no accident that Western values of reason and individual rights have produced unprecedented health, life expectancy, wealth and comfort for the ordinary person.

There’s an indisputable positive relationship between liberty and standards of living.

There is also indisputable evidence that we in the West are unwilling to defend ourselves from barbarians. Just look at our response to the recent Orlando massacre, in which we’ve focused our energies on guns rather than on terrorists.

* * * *

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

The border wall

wall
Whoops! Where did this come from?

(The following was written by Kim G. whose blog, El Gringo Suelto, is nearly as much fun as The Unseen Moon.)

* * * *

TO THE HORROR of the Republican “establishment” (code-speak for the only people who actually benefit from Republican policies), Donald Trump is now all but the official Republican nominee for the U.S. presidency.

You don’t need me to tell you that. And at the risk of taking a turn into the unpleasantly political, I thought I’d look into one of Trump’s more controversial policies, the one that most obviously affects Mexico. Yeah, the wall.

The “proposed” wall has been described in all kinds of unpleasant language, from ridiculous, to ineffective, to racist, and in a whole lot of other derogatory ways. And I have to confess, I’ve been there along with the wall bashers until quite recently. Today, in fact, when I began to look into it seriously.

hillaryBut the sad fact is that the wall has been discussed in every way possible except truthfully. I hate to break it to you all, but there’s already a wall there.

OK, maybe not a wall exactly, but there’s a very sturdy fence along a large portion of the border, particularly the parts that are easiest to get to from anywhere in Mexico. (And, really, “what difference does it make” whether it’s a wall or a fence?)

It’s already official U.S. policy to wall off Mexico from the mainland. The legislation to build the wall was passed in 2006 during GWB’s second term with large congressional majorities. It was built over the next few years, and discussed endlessly in the press, protested by both the Fox and Calderón administrations, and derided loudly on the Left.

In short, it’s old news, established policy, business-as-usual. But don’t tell the mainstream media. They are (still!) having a field day acting like this is something new, novel, and dangerously radical, brought to mainstream discussion by a maverick Donald Trump. But it’s not.

Everyone already supports its existence, even if only tacitly. Neither Clinton nor her boss ever argued that the wall/fence should be torn down.

Clinton had the opportunity in her 2008 race for the presidency, but I don’t recall her ever advocating such a position. Nor has Obama. Nor have any congressional democrats.

So the only real point of debate across the mainstream American political spectrum is whether it should be extended or not. Is the wall effective? That’s an entirely different discussion, and frankly the one we should be having.

And there are legitimate questions about whether the wall is appropriately constructed. Parts are designed to stop only vehicles. But people can easily still walk through. (Think bollards) Like anything, it’s clearly NOT 100% effective, as any number of tunnels, catapults, and other evidence prove. (Not to mention the inconvenient fact that many illegal aliens fly into the U.S.A. on tourist visas and simply stay.)

However, from what I’ve read, the wall (where it exists) in fact does mostly work. People who’d rather cross into Southern California are now forced farther east where there’s no wall. Sadly, many of them die in the hostile desert conditions there, but that’s not an argument for letting them walk into Chula Vista, California.

Maybe extending the wall would even be a humanitarian thing to do. Publicize the heck out of it, and maybe people who otherwise would have died in the desert stay at home and try to make a go of the lives they have where they are. Or apply for an immigrant visa and get in the old-fashioned way.

So why has no one pointed out the fact that the U.S.A. already has a ten-year-old, established “wall policy”?

trumpWhy did none of Donald Trump’s Republican primary opponents point this out? Maybe Trump was right to call his opponents idiots. There’s not a whole lot of evidence to the contrary.

And as you can now see, this is not going to be an easy issue for Hillary Clinton either. She knows it’s already U.S. policy. Neither she nor her boss ever once suggested tearing it down. And unless she’s very careful, Trump is going to take her apart on this one.

And Mexico needs to stop pretending too that the wall is something new. It’s not.

* * * *

(Note from Felipe: Panama just announced it’s building a wall on its southern border to keep out illegal aliens entering from Colombia. Walls are catching on.)

(Why Trump will win big-time, according to Dilbert.)

(The Thinking Man’s Guide to Donald Trump in The American Spectator. Quite interesting.)