Posse Incitatus

Another China retreat?

Over the weekend, Communist China announced that it was lifting tariffs against soy and pork products from the US.

If this is the case (note that the ChiComs lie early and often), it would be a significant win for Trump's trade policies.

As we've pointed out several times, the US holds the upper hand in this dispute.  The US is almost entirely self-sufficient, and only allowed itself to become dependent on Chinese manufactured goods through a combination of laziness and corporate greed.

China, on the other hand, cannot even feed itself.  This dependency goes behind basic nutrition to prestige items like pork, which is highly-valued in China.

The Communist regime's legitimacy rests in large part on increasing prosperity.  Forcing people to cut back on favorite foods while factories close undermines that legitimacy and strikes at the heart of the regime's power. 

There is also the problem that the rest of the world doesn't have enough soy or pork to feed China.  America remains the garden of the world, and without our foodstuffs, global famine is a certainty.

Trump's economic team has always known this, and it's worth noting that while the national security and political appointees seem to have regular turnover, the economic side of the administration remains stable and successful.  This is perhaps because Trump understands that without a firm economic footing, all else is weakened.  China's leaders are now learning the same lesson.

Accomplishments Amidst Headwinds

Evaluations of personal performance -- e.g. in school, on the job, or in athletic endeavors -- must take context into consideration if the assessment is to be fair and realistic.

A student who comes from a chaotic family background and who suffers from undiagnosed psychological problems, yet still manages to maintain a 3.0 GPA, is arguably a harder worker and more intelligent than one with a 3.5 GPA whose family has a tradition of high academic achievement, and offers him all sorts of support. A quarterback playing with a sub-par offensive line who still completes 60 percent of his passes, yet has taken his share of sacks and thrown some interceptions, might be more talented than a glamour boy who completes 68 percent of his passes behind an NFL-caliber line, with stud receivers and tremendous running backs.

Consider this line of thought when evaluating the presidency of one Donald John Trump. The reprehensible and thoroughly corrupt news media pounds on him day and night, with 90 percent negative coverage. Yet the Trumpster's approval rating, repeatedly mentioned by said media, usually is in the 36-44 percent range. That's remarkable, considering the nonstop negativity.

Contrast this with former President Obama's approval rating in year four of his first term: Typically in the 45-50 percent range. But that was with the media doing everything in its power to build him up and kiss his ass 24/7. Judge for yourself what the reality is. Suffice it to say, Obama's approval ratings would have been abysmal with a hostile media constantly slandering him.

And then there are interest rates... Year after year while Obama was in the White House, the Federal Reserve lowered rates. But for many months during Trump's first couple years in office, the Fed was raising interest rates. Yet the economic numbers are better for Trump than for Obama -- on GDP growth, wages, unemployment, and work force participation. Blacks and Hispanics have never fared so well in the jobs market since the U.S. Department of Labor began recording wage and unemployment statistics by race during the 1970s. Ask yourself: How bad would Obama's economic figures have been had the Fed raised, instead of lowered rates (i.e., "Quantitative Easing")?

Now, let's turn to tariffs and trade policy. Once again, the media has piled on, emphasizing the negative (and make no mistake, there are negative things happening, such as Midwestern farmers suffering from lower prices due to a drop-off in demand for soybeans, corn and pork, among other commodities). But some good things are happening, too, and there are signs China is ready to head back to the bargaining table with a sense of urgency.

Many companies have pulled out of China or reduced production. This hurts Chinese consumers, many of whom already are reeling with heavy credit card debt. Add to that higher prices for American products, and hundreds of millions of Chinese are in a world of hurt. With the unrest in Hong Kong, plus the never-ending tensions with the Uyghurs in the western region, China can ill afford a restive population of young people in the heartland. Meanwhile, back in the U.S., manufacturing jobs are more plentiful as factories are opening up or expanding all over the place. The domestic steel industry is faring well, too.

Trump has done the right thing in standing up to China. Ditto for his decision to scrap NAFTA and the Trans Pacific Partnership. Being the shrewd operator he is (quite the opposite of how the media simpletons portray him), Trump devised the ingenious strategy of using the threat of tariffs as the stick to get Mexico to crack down on illegal immigration by boosting border security. News flash: It's working.

We're winning, and will continue to do so. I highly doubt anyone will get sick of it. Onward and upward, Orange Julius. Into the teeth of a gale!

 

 

9/11 Comes of Age

The artificial outrage over the Trump Administration seeking a negotiated settlement to the Afghan War tells us all we need to know about the Bipartisan Establishment and the Democrat-funded "peace movement."

They are both incompetent and fake.

War is not a condition to be managed, it is an existential struggle for those involved.  It is true that a coldly rational policy might require sacrifice for a greater strategic aim, but no such vision is now being articulated regarding Afghanistan.  It's a quagmire so we must stay because that's what we have to do.

It's significant that our current Ruling Class is entirely insulated from the war's costs but richly rewarded by its benefits.

This is why Trump's effort to wind down the now-aimless struggle are being attacked from the left of all places.  So much for Cindy Sheehan.  The widows and orphans of the current war are drawn from the Deplorable class, so no attention need be paid them.

The desire to smear Trump as anti-military or defeatist will fail, just as all the other smears have failed because the truth is unmistakable.  Actual combatants and their families are tired of a war without end.  The ardent volunteers of 18 years ago are now watching their children come of military age to take up the torch from failing hands, but to what end? 

A punitive expedition to Afghanistan was always a good idea, and the installation of a friendly client government was a not unreasonable solution.  But one cannot "reconstruct" a society that never was.  George W. Bush ran for president in part by ridiculing "nation-building," and yet he was the worst nation-builder of them all.

Just as the attacks 18 years ago this morning tore away the illusions that our Ruling Class knew what it was doing, so the bumbling effort since has further destroyed their credibility.  In a sense, this is the 9/11 about 9/11.

The FBI as Golden Calf

I fully concur with my esteemed co-blogger: James Comey is indeed a "lying, sanctimonious prick."

My co-blogger and I, as well as many other conservatives, have stated repeatedly that it is ridiculous to puff up the intelligence community with its abysmal record of failure over the past 30 years and act like it is sacrosanct. It is especially absurd when the ones who are putting the FBI and CIA on a pedestal are the same liberals who, in years past, blanched at Big Brother spying on Americans and quashing free expression. Didn't liberals and progressives used to despise law enforcement and spying? 

Can we just dispense with the notion that the FBI and CIA are so awesome and reliable with their forecasts, recommendations and actions? Granted, these agencies do have some honest, hard working and patriotic employees. But these people are overshadowed by the bad apples, too many of whom are in positions of power.

The CIA has multiple major failures. To name a few: The 1973 Yom Kippur War, in which Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on the Sinai Peninsula. In 1978, the CIA was utterly unaware of the fragile and precarious nature of the regime of Iranian Shah Muhammed Reza Pahlavi. They had no clue he was about to be overthrown a year later. There were other failures, including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, beginning in 1991. Just three years ago, the CIA failed prevent Russian election meddling.

In recent years, the FBI has failed time and time again to get a clue. The FBI and CIA jointly failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks from occurring. Although different sections and officials in the FBI were tipped off that something was in the works, the dysfunctional "one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing" M.O. prevailed.

The FBI also failed to prevent numerous domestic terror attacks, including that of Maj. Nidal Hasan at Ft. Hood, Texas in 2009; the San Bernardino office shooters in 2015 ; and the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting in 2016, to name just a few. The FBI also tripped and stumbled all over itself in fumbling the Hillary Clinton email investigation -- basically banging a slam dunk off the rim, to use a basketball analogy. This agency is corrupt and compromised by hacks that infiltrate it like cockroaches. (See Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, et al.)

Yet here's a tweet Comey sent out on Sept. 3:

Despite two years of Trump’s lies aimed at degrading the FBI, it remains a revered institution made up of good people focused on finding truth and doing justice. Stay true to your mission. America needs you.

Is this guy full of himself, or what? "Revered institution?" Dream on, delusional one. 

I get damned sick of pompous-ass progressives lecturing me with conceit, arrogance and disdain. Especially when they're berating me for criticizing an institution that is rotten to the core with corruption, politics and mismanagement.

To use a great line from a classic movie -- "Animal House" -- that is rife with quotable one-liners (this one comes from character Dean Wormer, played by the late John Vernon): "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." 

Zip it up, Comey. Don't be a Lyndon Johnson! 

 

Walmart's death wish

There is a strange virus infecting corporate America.  This pathogen seems to be transmitted by social media and incubates chiefly among insular business executives seeking social status from one another.

How else to explain yet another corporation deciding to alienate its core customer base and court financial ruin?

Walmart's announcement regarding firearms is completely incoherent.  It is one thing to ban open carry, which may or may not alienate customers.  In police states like California and New York, it's already illegal.

In more enlightened jurisdictions, concealed carry is generally preferred by the gun rights community anyway.

Yet Walmart is going even further, announcing that it will ban the sale of certain calibers which it deems "bad" as well as donating to gun control organizations.

Both are insane.

As long-time readers of this blog know, there are no "safe" calibers to be shot with.  All of them can kill you.

Walmart singling out pistol calibers is however particularly daft since these are among the least lethal.  A .32 Auto or .380 packs far less punch than a 30.06 and is also less likely to over-penetrate and kill people behind the original target.

Indeed, if there's been a shooting spree conducted with a .380 or .357 Magnum, I'd like to hear about it.  I don't think it's happened.

Deciding not to sell these calibers on the basis of "safety" is stupid on the face of it, and the only goal is to leverage corporate power in support of an otherwise unobtainable political goal.

I'm sure the David French's of the world approve.

But in the real world, this is a slap in the face to Walmart's long-time customers, and I don't think it will end well for them.  Just as Gillette found, pissing on your customer base because you dream that a more "woke," and upscale one will appear out of thin air to replace it is not a recipe for success.

I'm surprised more shareholder lawsuits haven't materialized as the result of these shenanigans, but such things also take time.

Meanwhile, gun control has never been less popular, and the legal terrain has shifted sharply against the Democrats.  It's therefore no surprise they've decided to try to use Big Business to impose their will.

This is a dangerous path for them, though.  It reeks of the Gilded Age when workers were paid in scrip and forced to use the Company Store.  That provoked a severe populist backlash and a similar one is brewing now.

Smug, un-elected plutocrats living in gated communities flying jets around the world telling people what they can and cannot buy is not how one builds an electoral coalition.

The truth is the Democrats are now the funhouse mirror version of their own caricature of cigar-chomping Republicans.  Thomas Nast's cartoons of the trusts ruling over the Senate applies to the Dems, not the GOP.

Whoever the Dem nominee ends up being, it's going to be tough for them to keep screaming that they're for "the little guy" when they are on the size of Google, Apple, Amazon and now Walmart.

They are forcing Trump to become the second coming of Teddy Roosevelt and fundamentally shifting the political allegiance of millions of Americans.

Heckuva job, guys.

Legislative Redistricting: Judicial Thumbs on Scale?

Many of the policies liberals advocate come about through regulations, executive orders and judicial rulings. These methods supplant election results, which often are not to liberals' liking.

Much attention has been focused on the presidential and congressional elections of 2020. But there's something else that has major ramifications: legislative redistricting. It will follow the 2020 elections, and may well affect the political landscape for at least the next decade.

In recent months, we have seen a pitched battle in the courts about alleged gerrymandering by both of the major political parties. Last November, Michigan voters approved a ballot referendum ironically dubbed "Voters, Not Politicians" to put redistricting in the hands of a committee. Michigan's constitution will be amended to create a 13-member independent citizens' redistricting commission, composed of four Republicans, four Democrats and five people who don't identify with either party. (Really?) Then in April, a three-judge federal panel ruled Michigan must redraw its legislative maps because they were unconstitutionally gerrymandered to favor Republicans.

Earlier this week, a North Carolina state court panel threw out that state's legislative maps as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and ordered lawmakers to draw up new ones in two weeks.

These are among dozens of lawsuits alleging unconstitutional gerrymandering across the nation. Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, one of the most egregious partisans ever to serve in that office, now heads up the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. The committee seeks to boost the prospects of Democrat candidates at the expense of conservative candidates, despite its disingenuous B.S. about defending the constitution and leveling the playing field.

In June, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that partisan redistricting is a political question that ought not be reviewable by federal courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supremes rules that legislators are primarily in charge of redistricting. In short, redistricting is to be determined by the people the voters elected to represent them. This is what the founders intended, and abuses can be remedied at the ballot box.

When it comes to elected representatives drawing legislative boundaries, as opposed to courts imposing boundaries from on high, I guess you could draw an analogy with the age-old civil rights discussion about equal opportunity as opposed to equal outcomes. The Republicans want duly elected representatives to draw the boundaries. Democrats want equal or better-than-equal outcomes for members of their party, based on legislative district boundaries. If they can't do it legislatively, they rely on the judges to bring this about.