The cage where Trump dumps children

PERHAPS YOU’VE heard about the “cages” where children dragged into the United States illegally by their “parents” — sometimes parents, often not — are summarily dumped by the Trump Administration.

This lie is put forth by hysterical, leftist Democrats, a redundancy.

While the Obama Administration released everyone almost immediately, the Trump Administration, rightly so, are locking up the adult illegals. If they are accompanied by minors, those kids are put into facilities like the one you see here, undoubtedly the best places they’ve ever lived in their lives.

The kids are separated from their adult companions precisely because the adults are going into a cage, the slammer, which is where they belong.

If foreigners arrive with children at a port of entry and request asylum legally, they are not jailed, not separated, and are allowed to stay in the United States until their cases are decided. This can take years.

It all seems reasonable to me.

For more details, read this.

Sometimes, it’s not “cages” where Democrats say the kids are being held, it’s concentration camps! See this silliness right here.

 

Reconnecting with old compadres

RECENTLY I OPENED a Facebook page in my real name. I’ve been in and out of Facebook for years, mostly out. It can be a useful and fun tool, but its primary value for me is to see what folks I once knew are doing these days.

(Few, if any, are having anywhere near the fun I’m having.)

Many of these reconnections have been with people I worked with in the newspaper world. I have been saddened by this.

While it is common knowledge that those in the media are flaming leftists, for some reason I have been surprised — shouldn’t have been — to see that my old compadres are firmly in that category.

Their FB posts are unrelenting Trump Hate. Luckily, I decided before reentering the FB world that I would not touch politics. I failed in that resolve only once so far, and that was a link to a story about Trump’s hand in getting the first black woman promoted to Marine Corps general.

Nary a one of my former coworkers responded to that one. Of course, it flies in the face of what they all “know,” that Trump is a vile racist.

There is no evidence of his being a racist, of course. Quite the contrary. But all of those suffering from what has been dubbed Trump Derangement Syndrome know without a doubt he’s a racist, a misogynist, a xenophobe, just a crude man in general. Like the racist charge, there is no evidence of any of this.

On the crudity issue, they base their opinions on that famous recording of Trump in a locker room in which he referred to grabbing, well, you know. The fact that Bill Clinton got a BJ in the Oval Office from an intern slattern is ignored.

None of the sex business bothers me at all. Men in high places have always used that power to attract very willing women. It’s human nature.

As the French politician Marine Le Pen has noted, There is no more Right or Left. There are only Globalists and Nationalists. I think that is correct, and much of the anti-Trump hysteria comes from his belief in national borders and the need to protect them.

Living in another nation with a drastically different culture opens one’s eyes to the fact that cultures can be stunningly incompatible. There are two points to be made. One is that differences are good and interesting, so trying to blur the lines is bad. Do we really want a one-world culture? Secondly, some cultures are inferior. Do those in positive cultures want to poison themselves?

The classic, modern example, of course, is Western Europe’s opening its borders to Mohammedans, something Europe is coming to regret in a grand way due to the Mohammedan culture’s being all the things that leftists loathe.

Logic is not their strong suit.

And assimilation is not Mohammedans’ strong suit, to state it mildly.

I read FB posts of my former compadres, reeking of Trump loathing, but I see no reasons stated. They simply believe it because everyone they know believes it. Group-Think. They have tasted the Kool-Aid, and it is savory.

Unlike so many on both Right and Left, I do not “hate” people who disagree with me on political matters. With some exceptions, I believe them to be simply naive and misinformed, primarily of human nature and history.

I wish everyone reacted in the same way to differences of opinion. So I wish all my former coworkers the best, that one day they will see the beauty of Trump’s brashness, and that he’s a breath of fresh air in the Oval Office.

Among his many positives is that he supports Israel — unlike his lamentable predecessor — the sole nation in the Mideast where women walk free, unmasked, unmutilated and unstoned.

He ain’t perfect, but he isn’t Hillary. Thank the Goddess for favors bestowed.

Nikki_Haley_official_photoOne day, the United States will get a woman president. May she be like Margaret Thatcher or Nikki Haley (left) whose maiden name was Nimrata Randhawa. How on earth did that xenophobe Trump install Nimrata in the United Nations?

Did it slip his mind that he’s a sexist xenophobe?

* * * *

(The Moon has a new look. I hope you find it appealing. Aside from the header photo, it’s really not all that different.)

America’s sneaky despotism

(The PanAm Post, where I found this interesting piece, describes the writer, José Azel, as a “scholar and author.” It’s about Democratic Despotism, a phrase that I like and which I think applies not only to the United States now but to most of Western Europe.

(Azel makes the point that in Democratic Despotisms one finds “armed forces, securities agencies or administrative agencies [that evolve] beyond the effective control of the civilian political leadership.” Of these three, I believe it’s administrative agencies that are the biggest peril today to individual freedom in the United States. They constantly grow and spit out endless rules to keep themselves in business and you hog-tied.)

* * * *

The idea of democratic despotism appears to be an oxymoron – a contradiction in terms. But, in “Democracy in America” (1835-1840) Alexis de Tocqueville offered a powerful description of democratic despotism as “a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.”

Under Tocqueville’s democratic or soft despotism, “The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting.”

Democratic despotism “does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flow of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”

Soft despotism is not as obvious as hard despotism. It gives us the illusion of being in control; it degrades us rather than persecutes us. It often takes the form of a state within a state (imperium in imperio) where an internal organization, such as the armed forces, securities agencies or administrative agencies, evolves beyond the effective control of the civilian political leadership.

Regulatory policy should be viewed with extraordinary suspicion and used frugally.

For example, historically, efforts to separate Church and State were anchored on the perception that the Church could turn into an imperium in imperio undermining civilian leadership. In other examples, in the Soviet Union, the secret police (KGB) was considered a State within a State. The same is true of its successor, The Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB).  And, in the United States, the government’s bureaucracy is often portrayed as a modern-day example of an imperium in imperio.

The modern definition of bureaucracies comes from German sociologist Max Weber who, in the 1920s, defined bureaucracies as any system of administration conducted by trained professionals according to fixed rules. And, although Weber considered bureaucracies necessary in a modern world, he also warned that bureaucratization was a threat to individual freedoms where individuals would be trapped in a soulless “iron cage” of rule-based controls.

Bureaucracies are also characterized by unrelenting growth. In the United States, the original bureaucracy of the federal government consisted of only the employees of three small departments; State, Treasury, and War. Today the federal branch employs nearly 3 million people. The old Soviet KGB employed one officer for every 428 citizens. In today’s “freer” Russia the FSB employs one officer for every 297 citizens.

Tocqueville forewarned, back in 1835, of a degrading despotic democracy of “small complicated rules.” Imagine what he would say today. During the last few years of the George W. Bush administration regulations increased dramatically, and in the first seven years of the Obama Administration over 20,600 new regulations were added for an estimated regulatory cost burden in excess of $100 billion annually.

Conceptually, government regulations represent a way for people to give up managing their own affairs and turn those affairs over to a government agency.

According to Tocqueville, a byproduct of turning over the management of our affairs to a government institution is that we become incompetent to choose good leaders. Thus, government regulations would ruin the American experiment by combining the vices of those who govern with the weaknesses of the governed.

This regulatory paternalism embodies the philosophy that people cannot be trusted to make good decisions, requiring government to impose its judgment over the voluntary decisions that represent our needs and preferences. Yes, some regulations are necessary and inherent to the rule of law. Regulations to protect children and those unable to make reasonable judgments are essential. But regulatory policy should be viewed with extraordinary suspicion and used frugally.

Fortunately, we seem to have finally understood that the soft despotism of regulations undermines the very concept of personal responsibility.

New ImageIn January 2017, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order requiring government agencies to slash two regulations for every new regulation put in place. The President has now reported a success ratio of 22 regulations eliminated for every new one enacted.

The measure is being touted as an economic success. It is much more than that. It is a restoration of personal freedoms.

In praise of window locks and border walls

train
The Criminal Special: Central Americans ride the rails through Mexico.

NATIONS NEED border walls because a nation is a family, and families are good things, so nations are good things too, the concept.

Nations, like regular family units, are groups of people connected by race, religion, history, language and culture. Some families are dysfunctional, and some nations are dysfunctional. Those latter are the ones President Trump allegedly labeled “shitholes.”

A bit harsh but correct in some cases.

The dysfunctional families and nations are dysfunctional not so much due to race but to a troubled culture, religion and history. Some cultures are superior to others, sometimes far superior. How do you grade a culture, giving it an A-plus, a C or an F?

Its grade depends on the lifestyle it provides its people. Thus, Haiti gets an F, Bolivia gets a D and Canada, Australia and New Zealand get an A. Due to the problem the United States created for itself centuries ago with the slavery thing and now its blowback, it gets a B on average though some states get an A (Texas), and others get a C-minus (California).

If you’ve got a well-functioning nation (or family), which depends, as we have already established, on race, religion, language, history and culture, you must exercise caution when people from other nations (or families) want to move into the house with you.

Sweden had an A-plus culture for a long time. They were a homogeneous people with a common culture, language, etc. Sweden then decided it would be a swell idea to open its borders to hordes of people from the Middle East, no questions asked.

Sweden is now known as the “Rape Capital of Europe.” This should come as no surprise when you consider they invited into their midst a staggeringly different culture, one that suppresses women and embraces an extremist, macho religion.

Sweden shot itself in the head with an AR-15. In the name of multiculturalism.

If you’ve got a successful nation (or family), caution is in order before unlocking the door to your neighbors. That’s why border walls — and locks on your home windows — are very wise things. When Trump said he would build a wall, he also said it would have a “big beautiful door” for the deserving to enter. That latter part is seldom mentioned.

Mexico is very insulted by Trump’s border wall idea. How dare he? And yet millions of Mexicans have entered the United States illegally, so many that the culture in some parts of the United States seems more like Mexico than the United States.

And to add the proverbial insult to injury, Mexico lets Central Americans enter through its southern border, hoists them atop that famous train where they jump off near the Rio Bravo to swim, hike, tunnel and fence-climb into the United States.

How dare Trump suggest a wall? The man has such gall.

The United States already has many miles of border wall, but it needs lots more and even higher. Maybe a moat with gators. But Mexico needs a wall down south too. Sweden needed one, but it seems too late now. Sweden is a goner. R.I.P.

All nations need border walls if they want to maintain their integrity, and if the nation is a very successful one (great culture), the need for a wall grows exponentially.

* * * *

(Note: It is common knowledge that Jews and Asians are smarter than the rest of us. Do the Asian nations or Israel leave their doors wide open in the name of multiculturalism and diversity? Not on your life, Bub, proving their high IQ.)