Posse Incitatus

Gratitude and Solemn Memorial

The older I get, the more I learn about the remarkable deeds of our military service men and women since the founding of our great nation: Their courage, valor, suffering and sacrifice, often exhibited against long odds and in harsh conditions.

Today, we take time to remember our fallen heroes and recognize that our freedom and high quality of life would not be possible were it not for the selfless, courageous acts and character of millions of our nation's finest. These dedicated individuals were devoted to a cause greater than themselves, to use a well-worn, albeit useful cliché.

Memorial Day to me is like Good Friday. It is a time for solemn reflection, for acknowledging the physical suffering, psychological pain, and loss of life of far too many wonderful human beings, as well as the devastated families they left behind. It is a time of taking stock, contemplating perspective, counting blessings.

If people want to get drunk, hang out at the beach, sleep 'til noon or sit around watching sports on TV, that's their prerogative. But it does one good to pause and reflect upon the suffering and sacrifice endured by Americans in the armed forces -- men and women who stoically did their duty and accepted their fate. Think about what it was like for young men -- often teenagers -- who bravely entered hellacious killing zones such as Normandy in June 1944, knowing full well they would probably never see their parents, siblings or spouses again.

Maybe you can't place some flowers at the gravestone of a military veteran -- work, family commitments or a broken down car might be to blame. And in these tough economic times, you might not be able to contribute money to groups such as Disabled American Veterans or the National Military Family Association.

But the least we can do is take a few moments to appreciate those who gave their all on our behalf. If you believe in God, say a brief prayer for deceased military personnel and their families. And why not put forth some effort to learn about the horrors of war suffered by Americans in places like Omaha Beach, Iwo Jima, Fallujah, Peliliu, Khe Sanh, Flanders Field and Gettysburg.

Humility and gratitude are definitely in order on this important day. Thank you, Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Coast Guard and Airmen. May God Bless America.

Memorial Day 2016

How does one memorialize a losing cause?

This may be a strange question for an American on Memorial Day, but as I pause to reflect on those we lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere, it becomes increasingly important.

It is one thing to remember the fallen on D-Day, or Saipan or the Chosin Reservoir as sacrifices for the cause of freedom.  The Korean War ended without a decisive victory, but the southern portion of the peninsula is free, prosperous and a living vindication that the lives spend there were not spent in vain.

Even Vietnam no longer carries with it the sting it once did.  There is a strange affection growing between our two nations, a recognition that we were trying to help them, but couldn't.  Now they want us to help them against China, and so we will.

But in Iraq, the pain is still fresh and the outcome of the matter still in doubt.  When my old friend Capt. Sean Grimes was killed there in 2005, it felt like victory was assured.  Our cause was just, our strength overwhelming and it seemed impossible that we should abandon the field to a group of savage killers who make the Nazis look cultured and erudite.  (The Nazis stole priceless artifacts and adorned their homes with them; ISIL destroys them outright.)

There is much talk about mental illness among our returning vets, just as there was after Vietnam.  Part of this is the reflexive hatred of the left for military people.  To them, our military is populated with mind-numbed killers who were too stupid to study erotic renaissance poetry at Oberlin.

But how should people who were asked to risked their lives and who lost close friends supposed to feel about what is going on?  This administration has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and then pats itself on the back for its cleverness.

It is a strange placed to be. 

Bipartisan Failure Hath Spawned the Age of Trump

I commend my esteemed co-blogger for his insightful posts about the mistakes of contemporary conservative politicians. His analogy is spot-on about a litmus test where you must check the right boxes to pass the test.

I hadn’t thought of it in those terms, but K.N. McBride is correct in asserting that today’s conservatives are becoming as doctrinaire and pig-headed as their counterparts on the left. And that’s one thing I have long despised about liberals: In addition to advocating destructive policies and beliefs – invariably with a heavy dose of smug conceit toward those who disagree -- they typically are obstinate and rigid. You either get with the program, or you're scum.

Certain “triggers” will elicit a predictable, canned leftist response, just like the doc’s hammer on the kneecap causing that lower leg to pop forward. Hence the term: “knee-jerk liberal.” They’re hard-wired to think a certain way. Yet, for all of their certitude, many of their beliefs are based on emotion, idealism and imagery as opposed to rational thought, facts and history. President Obama is cool; he hangs out with Jay Z and Beyonce, shows up on "Jimmy Kimmell Live" and looks so elegant as he speaks with impressive eloquence and intellectual heft. Ooh, he's got that Ivy League pedigree and grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia. Such a worldly sophisticate!

Never mind that people's health care premiums have gone through the roof; black unemployment is worse under Obama than under G.W. Bush; we are experiencing the weakest economic recovery in our nation's history; wages are stagnant; 93 million adults are not even in the labor force; scores of Veterans have died or grown sicker waiting for months to get the medical attention they so richly deserve at poorly run VA hospitals; illegal immigrants are flooding across our border sieve and swamping the Southwest; airline passengers stand in line for hours while inept TSA employees rifle through their bags and harass them to no end; the Middle East is aflame; and the national debt has nearly doubled in 7 years.

The facts simply don't matter. The O-man is cool; he's got panache; he looks great in a tuxedo and has such a beautiful family. The news media is so in-the-tank for Obama that, as talk show host Michael Savage likes to say, "The Fourth Estate has become the Fifth Column." So there. There's my irresistible rant against the Narcissist-in-Chief. I know he's a "dead horse," yet I still enjoy doing the flogging! But I digress, big-time. Back to conservatives and Republicans.

As K.N. McBride notes, the Republican Party used to advocate tariffs and other forms of "protectionism" (a loaded term) that were in our best interests. Before we were a world military power, we regarded strengthening and fostering our industrial base as a critical priority. Makes sense. I guess if you consider the current conservative orthodoxy in another light, homeowners who keep a loaded weapon on the premises in case a thug tries to break in at 3 a.m. are "protectionists." Man, ya gotta be more welcoming! Don't be paranoid! You're only going to enflame angry feelings and mistrust! A reality check is definitely in order.

K.N. McBride also expounds on how disingenuous today's Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio RINOS are about the issue of immigration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street Journal editorial page share their naivete´and delusion. Oh, we're a nation of immigrants...we need to be welcoming....opportunity society....we are the world.... blah x 3.... Um, wake-up call, guys: A HUGE percentage of today's immigrants are coming here to leech off the welfare state, and have NO intention of learning English or assimilating. They don't give a rat's ass about the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta or federalism.

As I have said before, at least the hispanic immigrants, mainly from Mexico but also from various Central American countries, are not Muslims. Even if they don't want to learn English, assimilate and say goodbye to from whence they came, at least they have no intention of blowing themselves up in a cafe or movie theater. But despite the fact they may be good people and harbor no ill intentions toward our great nation, they will compete for jobs, drive down wages in an already sickly economy, burden social services and impose an encumbrance on our K-12 schools. It is insanity to brush off the immigration deluge as a minor issue. Out-of-control immigration -- much of it illegal -- in conjunction with millions of foreigners overstaying their visas and remaining here illegally, can and will send this nation into a death spiral in short order.

What this rambling treatise is leading up to is this: The formulaic bromides of conservatism (or "check the box" qualifiers, to use K.N. McBride's analogy) are as irrelevant in 2016 as Blockbuster Video or 8-track tapes. It's a whole different ballgame, folks. Put down your Canadian Club on the rocks, and tune out the clueless hacks like William Kristol and Karl Rove. The American people are a lot more intelligent and perceptive than you think. They know the score. They know that the boilerplate GOP talking points are not working. And they have already demonstrated their contempt for establishment candidates such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.

Donald Trump represents their last, best hope. Yes, he's a bull-in-a-china-shop and a disruptive force. But as long as he grasps the suffering of tens of millions of Americans under the bipartisan fiascos that have brought us to our knees, it's quite all right if he not only overturns the moneychangers' tables in the temple, but does so with an explosion of profanity and venom. As the expression goes, "Yes, he's an a**hole, but he's our a**hole."

Conservatism has become imprisoned by its own dogma Part III: Civility

 My previous two articles focused on dogmas relating to policy.  This one is unique in that it is tied to the tactics used to advocate those policies and is arguably more important.

Conservatism has a strong sense of nostalgia and tradition, which in the positive sense gives it the ability to understand the importance of preserving institutions and avoiding the latest social fad.

The price for this seems to be the tendency to aspire for a fantasy world where men wear frock coats, women wear ball gowns in the important matters of the day are discussed over warm brandies by the fire.

Civility is an important element in culture and I'm particularly fond of it.  I've tried to structure my life and educate my children on the finer points of etiquette.  At the same time, however, I understand that these rules require mutual consent to function.  I'm happy to be charming and polite, but if you push me, I'll be a world-class asshole.

The term for this is reciprocity.  It's a simple concept and ironically the British are some of its best practitioners in this respect.  These people can go from polished, sophisticated "Oxford Rules" debates to throwing every slur imaginable without missing a beat.   The change is fascinating and funny to watch. 

"As my esteemed opponent - oh, so that's how it is?  Piss off, you bastard!"

American establishment conservatives have lost that ability - assuming they ever had it.  Even Saint Bill Buckley once lost it on national television.

This is a problem because the left always takes the cheap shot, gangs up whenever possible and never flinches from a low blow.  The conservative establishment refuses to "go there," and insists on playing the left's game.  In fact, they've become the left's enforcers, policing their own side for incendiary and "unhelpful" language.  They seem to have bought into the fiction that if their own behavior is utterly flawless and their language perfectly modulated, they will inoculate themselves against the usual charges of racism, sexism, etc.

The end result is conservatives have learned to be marvelously polite losers.

The truth is the left will always throw these slurs because they work.  They work in large part because the conservative establishment refuses to respond in kind.

Now there is an exception to these rules of civility and we are seeing it play out before us.  The writers at the Weekly Standard and National Review have finally opened up their urban dictionaries to dump all manner of insults at Donald Trump.

It must be exhilarating for them to finally use all the gutter language they've been holding in check - against another Republican.   So much for high-brow class and civility.

Near the end of his run, establishment champion Marco Rubio started making dick jokes against Trump, and the NRO crowd was giddy, like a bunch of old ladies learning to swear.  "Finally, Trump is getting his just deserts!" they swooned.

It was pathetic to watch.

Yesterday I saw Trump utterly destroy - and I mean destroy - Elizabeth Warren.   Dilbert creator Scott Adam calls this sort of thing a "linguistic kill shot." Just as "low energy" demolished Jeb Bush, calling the senator from Massachusetts "Pocahontas" pretty much takes her out of the picture.   Whenever she speaks, whenever her name is mentioned, people will think:  "Pocahontas" which equals "white woman pretended to be an American Indian to get ahead."

Adams calls Trump a master wizard persuader, but it isn't that hard.  Newt Gingrich did a little of it in 2012.  Mitt Romney could have done it with great effect, but he was too civil, so both Obama and the moderator walked all over him.

Romney is a very experienced and polite loser.

The #NeverTrumpers like to go on about issues and insist that the ideal candidate pays homage to all the right dogma, but in fact none of that matters unless he wins.  Their big argument against Trump - that he will damage the movement - is in this sense correct.  If Trump wins, more conservative candidates will adopt his tactics and in the short run, politics will be coarsened.

But the left will actually be put on defense for a change.  Conservatives will finally be able to take back not only the political leadership of the country but (more importantly) the terms of discussion about its culture.

In that environment, the exquisite neo-Victorian sensibilities of the establishment conservatives will no longer have value.  That is why Trump is truly an existential threat to them.

The red pill reaches the conservative movement

One of the side effects of the Trumpening is that a lot of people (like me) are finally coming to terms with just how awful the conservative establishment media really is.

But first, a digression…

Some years ago I knew a fellow who I thought was remarkably smart and talented.  He absolutely looked the part, knew all the jargon and kept up with the latest developments in the field.  It seemed to me that his success was assured.

And yet, time and again, his efforts were thwarted, often on the very brink of breakthrough success.  He would work for months to achieve some goal and appear to have things sewn up, and then the bottom would fall out.

He claimed these events were almost always beyond his control, and if they weren’t (that is to say if he made a bad call), he always claimed that he had been given bad information.  It was never his fault.

At first, I thought he was just having a bad run of luck, but as his losing streak stretched into its second decade, I had to question my assumptions about his competence and talent.  Maybe he wasn’t all that smart.  Maybe it wasn’t bad luck.  Maybe he failed because he deserved to fail.  Basically, he was a loser.

This brings me to National Review and the conservative establishment.

For many years we on the right assumed that the writers at various rightist magazines (which includes Reason and The Weekly Standard) were people like us – people with principles, a unique insight into economics and filled with the conviction to write about what was Right and Just.

And yet, despite their impeccable credentials and sparkling wit, conservatism itself suffered defeat after defeat.  Government is bigger, more expensive, less responsive, less effective, less lawful, and the culture has been utterly debased.

There have been some conservative victories, but they came about entirely independently of magazines like National Review.  The Pro-life movement is gaining strength thanks to ultrasounds and the Roe Effect.  Gun rights were boosted by grassroots efforts in state legislatures and a series of brilliantly conceived and flawlessly executed strategic lawsuits.

The beltway bunch really don’t like either issue, regarding them as divisive.  Oh, they may take on a token true believer, but their support for those causes is perfunctory, merely checking the box.  They cover the stories and hype the wins, but had nothing to do with it.

Major inroads have been made in tearing down the liberal media, but once again, that was done entirely outside the Washington/New York conservative corridor.  Bomb-throwers like Andrew Breitbart and James O’Keefe took the fight to liberal media and won while the establishment clucked about how coarse the debate had gotten – and who let these roughnecks into the movement, anyway?

A watershed was reached when NR began to purge its staff of everyone who challenged orthodoxy – Coulter, Derbyshire and finally Steyn. 

Mark Steyn is perhaps the most important of the three because his case (the Climategate defamation suit) involved the core of what conservative media stands for:  free speech.  And yet, given an opportunity to fight in open court, they crawled under their desks and hid, hoping white-shoe lawyers would get them sprung on a technicality.

Oh, they still use the legal case for their annual fund-raisers, but only Steyn has made an attempt to fight back.  In fact, one might surmise that they want the case to keep going indefinitely for that very reason.  Can’t milk a case for donations once it’s dismissed.

Conservative journalists have always been somewhat of a paradox.  In a profession that is overwhelmingly liberal, why would people come out and advertise themselves as a member of a hated minority that can only limit their options for success?

The answer was long assumed that these were rebels, men and women of rare courage who were willing to put conviction before profit.

There was of course another possibility.  That was that these people figured the job market would be easier (less competition) and the standards of success less demanding (because conservative has been on a long losing streak).

As an extra bonus, from these secure perches, they were free to take potshots at the dimmest of the left, and thereby make themselves seem great wits.

Reading the back and forth between these people and the gifted amateurs (some of them from this strange “alt-right” thing I never heard of before), it’s clear that the “pros” are utterly out of their depth.

I’ve said it before but it bears repeating:  These people are supposed to be the greatest communicators the conservative movement can produce.  As Trump rose in the polls, they summoned all of their powers, gathered their best and greatest and failed.

They failed to even convince their own side.

This should have made them humble, but instead they’re busy saying that everyone who doesn’t agree with them is stupid.   For years they took our money and told us how bright, and insightful we were because we paid for their futile efforts and dutifully followed their lead.  Now that we question it, they claim we’re idiots.

If I were Jonah Goldberg, I’d be deeply embarrassed by this.  I’d put up a disclaimer that I was drunk or high or both – or that it was written by a parallel bearded me from the “Mirror, Mirror” National Review.  (That’s a Star Trek reference.  He’s all about them.)

The campaign is really only beginning and much of what passes now will be forgotten by November, but it's still an interesting window into what happened and also provides insight into why Trump isn't trying to win them over.  He knows they're useless.  For someone widely derieded as an ignorant blowhard, I'd say that's a pretty astute observation.

Art fairs are the one form of capitalism the left loves

This weekend is the annual Art Fair in East Lansing, a delightful time when the downtown streets are blocked off and given over to music, food and a staggering variety of art.

I'd bet that the exhibitors range from left to far left on the ideological spectrum, and yet here they are, competing for sales and offering their wares to the public.   Many of them forbid photography - which seems rather greedy, doesn't it?

No doubt they'd rather have a grant, but I think that they derive greater pleasure from having people actually seek out and praise their work. 

I suspect one of the reason public art grants produce such miserable art is that the creators are pissed off that they can't get anyone to buy it of their own free will.  A guaranteed income is nice if you're doing drudge work, but for creativity, nothing beats actual fans of your creation.

Anyhow, as is usual in such situations, the crowds were well-behaved and the place was peaceful.   This is because the people who show up share a common set of values, foremost among them a sense of order, respect for property and a desire to get along with others.  There was obviously a fair degree of affluence, but given that the event takes place on public streets with no admission fee, a truer statement would be that people who tend to enjoy art fairs tend to be people whose other traits lead them to become affluent.

This dovetails with my esteemed co-blogger's previous post, which notes that the feds want to cram more public assistance housing into affluent neighborhoods.  The stated reason is for equality, the likely reason is resentment but the theoretical underpinning is based on the notion that if disadvantaged people are dumped into an affluent area, they will take on the social traits of those around them and magically become affluent themselves.

This is long been an obsession of the left - confusing the signs of success with the success itself.  For example, years ago a college degree was a pretty consistent indicator of future income and prosperity.  The reason for this wasn't the degree, but rather the self-discipline required to earn it.

The left refused to accept that and instead proceeded to try to give everyone a degree - often encouraging unqualified people to take on ruinous debt in the the process.

The number of degree holder has increased, but now the degree is worth a great deal less.  The days when "any old bachelor's will do" are gone - thanks in large part to the left's trying to ensure everyone get one.

An even clearer example of this is the participation trophy.  Champions earn trophies because they posses the traits necessary to achieve excellence.  Somewhere along the line, the left figured that it wasn't fair that only the best got them, so they began handing out trophies to everyone.  "We're all champions now!  Hooray!"

Of course no one bought into it, and it only cheapened the fact of the trophy.  In fact, I'd argue that at least part of the increase in obesity is the notion that since everyone's a winner, no one needs to actually exert themselves.  Time was that one fat kid who came in last place got a lot of abuse.   Now he gets the same trophy as everyone else.  Yay!  Progress!

The left is working overtime to level us all, but the art fair shows the one place where they cannot succeed.  There's no denying that some artists are making good money with their wares and others aren't.  Among the artistic community, there may be support for welfare and every other leftist policy preference (lots of rainbow flags, natch) but when it comes to their work, it is jealously guarded.

Everyone knows who is popular and who isn't.  The unsuccessful ones may resent their betters, but their real dream is to switch places.  It's an essential part of human nature and I find it comforting that even in one of the most liberal venues one can find, the market and free choice is flourishing.

Leftist Tentacles Threaten Strangulation

Busybody liberals just cannot leave others alone. They keep pushing and pushing and pushing, with no end in sight. There is no end game, no ideal goal or standard that they seek. In fact, the adage that the journey, not the destination, is what's most important, often applies to the liberal mindset.

Leftist progressives love to create chaos, to upset the apple cart of society's traditional values, mores and lifestyles. It is telling that in a world where Islamofascists are beheading, crucifying and burning people in cages, a world in which tens of millions of middle class Americans are scraping by on low-paying jobs, small towns are dying throughout the heartland, drug and alcohol abuse are rampant, roads and bridges are crumbling and illiterate illegal immigrants pour across our border sieve, the Obama administration has issued an edict requiring K-12 schools to adopt transgendered restroom and locker room policies.

As Texas Gov. Greg Abbott quipped, JFK said he wanted to put a man on the moon. Barack Obama wants to put a man in a women's restroom. A devastating indictment of the trifling and inane nature of this catastrophically misguided administration.

Yes, the hits just keep coming. Here's the latest: Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julian Castro wants to force suburbs to accept more Section 8 housing in the name of "fairness" and "diversity." It seems the social engineers in Washington resent the fact that some suburbs are too white, and their residents have better schools, less crime and higher housing values than many urban residents.

The other day, the lame, go-along-to-get-along Republicans in Congress rolled over on the 2017 Transportation-HUD appropriations bill. Obama's Affirmative Further Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, surreptitiously placed into the Federal Register last July (After all, who really reads that thing?), will be allowed to continue. The rule will force low-income housing on suburbs and funnel money to left-wing community organizing groups seeking to bring about the "fundamental transformation" of suburbia. This is a blatant violation of federalism, private property rights and the constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness.("Happiness" for millions of Americans, it should be noted, may well include a safe neighborhood with low crime, good schools for the children and appreciating real estate values, as opposed to a trophy wife, fancy car, rich cuisine and European vacations.)

Using a sort of twisted carrot-and-stick approach, Uncle Sam promises the carrot to the poor people who are the "lab rats" -- to give them generous housing choice vouchers so they can afford rental housing in suburbs. The "stick" goes to city and county governments: Noncompliant suburbs will have community development block grants withheld, and be threatened with lawsuits promulgated by the feds' vast army of lawyers. Not a good scenario, to be sure.

If you want to see what the future holds for many American suburbs should this misguided policy go unchecked, take a look at the Dallas suburbs of Frisco, Plano and McKinney -- all recipients of Section 8 transfers. These formerly safe towns have suffered unprecedented spikes in rapes, assaults and break-ins, including home invasions. 

Longtime Posse readers may recall my August 2012 post, "The Next Big Democrat Money Grab", which mentioned a book by Stanley Kurtz, "Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities." More of that left-wing claptrap about "fairness" and "equality" (i.e., equal outcomes as opposed to opportunity and individual initiative).

One thing is for sure about Alinskyite Barack Hussein Obama: He wants to raise a ruckus each and every day until he leaves office. He strongly desires to put his statist, progressive imprint on America, the consequences and facts be damned. Rest assured, he won't go quietly.

 

Conservatism has become imprisoned by its own dogma part II: Immigration

Is there any other issue where the conservative dogma is so at odds with actual conservatism, let along popular sentiment?

The Chamber of Commerce wing of the conservative establishment (and its mouthpiece, the Wall Street Journal) would have us believe that immigration is pretty much always a good thing.

“We’re  a nation of immigrants!  More people means more customers, more growth and rising prosperity.  There’s a serious labor shortage in tech fields.  We need these new arrivals do the jobs native-born Americans just won’t do.”

That’s what we usually see from the Big Bidness folks who regularly lobby for the right to replace native-born workers with lower-paid foreign-born ones (many of whom are effectively indentured servants).

How is that in any way conservative?

Everyone with even a passing knowledge of basic economics knows that increasing the supply of something decreases the price.  We need look no farther than oil production.  Since US fracking became economical, oil prices have dropped by 2/3 from their previous high.  The glut is killing OPEC producers but it’s great news to people who use the stuff.

Well, the same thing applies to workers.  Constant downward pressure on wages is great for employers but it sucks for everyone else.  Seriously, do any of these immigrants demand MORE money than their native-born competitors?  Of course not, that’s why the Chamber wants them to come here in the first place.

Historically, immigration policy cared more about the nation as a whole.  When immigration started to force wages too low, people demanded (and generally got) a halt in the rate of foreign arrivals.  Again, going back to the 1860 GOP platform, it was very clear that immigration could not be a vehicle to harm American working people.  Their needs came first.

The Marco Rubio/Jeb Bush wing insists that by opposing immigration (and amnesty for illegal immigrants) the GOP is committing political suicide.  The idea is that it’s a bad issue and the Dems keep using it to drive minority turnout to their side.  By adopting their issue, we take it off the table.

The GOP establishment has been using this form of argument for decades and it basically boils down to:  “Let’s be Democrat Lite so that if we lose, we can at least keep our cushy jobs in DC.  Besides, once in a while we’ll get a win and enjoy a taste of power.”  It’s nothing more than a sellout.

There’s also a cultural element to immigration.  Here again the historic conservative position is that America is nothing more than an idea, a shared vision of freedom.  From many peoples, we become one and are united not by ethnicity or religion but by a shared belief in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Previous waves of immigration brought in diverse people, but they retained a common culture: that of Judeo-Christian values.  It seems strange to us now that people would regard Poles and Russians and Italians as “separate races” from Germans and English, but they did.  Yet these people assimilated quite well because they shared these values and often found themselves sharing pews with the older arrivals.  It wasn’t always easy, but it worked.

The thing was, we also had the wisdom to cut off the tap after a while.  After the huge wave of the early 20^th Century, immigration was tightly restricted until the 1960s.  That allowed the new arrivals to become fully American.

I should note here that not all of these people fit in – one of the more-overlooked stories is how many immigrants ended up failing and going home or being deported. 

There were also issues with the treatment of women, particularly in some of the Mediterranean cultures.  I’m old enough to remember made-for-TV-movies about this sort of thing and how feminists crusaded against the belittlement of women.

When I first heard of ‘honor killings,’ I was certain that this would get the same treatment, but instead feminists avert their eyes and mutter about ‘diversity.’

How can we assimilate people who refuse it?  Will the United States degenerate into a millet system where different laws apply to different populations? 

There is also the difference of the welfare state.  In 1900, it did not exist.  People who hopped off the boat could expect very little in the way of public support.  They had to work if they wanted to eat.

Now it is basically a given that one can get free food, housing and medical treatment just for showing up.  There is no incentive to work. 

Another difference:  They were screened for health conditions.  If they appeared ill, they went into quarantine to protect the rest of the population. 

Now we do the exact opposite – we deliberately import sick people and offer only the most cursory screening for life-threatening illnesses.  The entire preventative model of heath care has been discarded in favor of ad-hoc feel-good measures.

So the historic picture of immigrant tells us one overriding thing:  It was set up in such a way as to prevent harm to people already here.  We were willing to welcome people in, but only so long as they:

1. Didn’t drive down wages,
2. Shared our vision of freedom,
3. Were motivated to work immediately,
4. Didn’t make everyone else sick.

The current unthinking dogma ignores all of these points.  It isn’t based on what works or what is good for the country, but what the chattering classes like to hear - and what their paymasters want to see.

Conservatism has become imprisoned by its own dogma Part I: Free Trade

One of the things that drives Trump's critics insane is the way The Donald constantly shifts his policy positions.  Instead of making definite pledges to do this or that, he hedges, hides behind ambiguity and routinely contradicts himself.

This is anathema to the modern conservative movement, that has increasingly come to resemble the left:  Demanding unthinking obedience to a series of check-the-box statements of belief.

The irony is that conservatism itself is supposed to be the "anti-ideology," a collection of discrete solutions to various problems rather than a holistic solution to all of life's problems.  Indeed, modern conservatism emerged precisely because of the left's once-size-fits all approach to problem solving.

In the next few blogs I'm gong consider some of the core conservative beliefs and why simply checking the box no longer works.

Free Trade

I find it ironic that so many Republicans are denouncing Trump for questioning the utility of free trade.  Historically, the GOP was very protectionist, and there were good reasons for this.

In the first place, not all trading partners were equal.  While the United States was one of the first nations to experience the industrial revolution, England was the pioneer.  Having achieved its benefits, it was both possible and desirable for them to use their ability to produce cheaper goods to prevent competition from emerging.  US manufacturers understood this and the GOP embraced this concept.  In fact, take a look at this campaign poster from 1860:

Look at that.  "Free Speech, Free Homes, Free Territory, Protection to American Industry."

Gosh, I'd say Trump is more true to the GOP's roots than the conservatives are.

Long before the US was a major military power, there were concerns about our ability to defend our nation.  Developing independent industrial capacity was viewed as a matter of national survival.  Limiting cheap imports therefore helped enrich our local communities by providing jobs and also made us less dependent on foreign powers for critical goods.

It is also important to remember that "free trade" was not viewed as a universal thing, but rather a bilateral arrangement.  The US would negotiate trade agreements on a case-by-case basis where it made sense. 

Back in the day, we would never dream of having free trade agreements with a slave empire, which is essentially what China is.  I find it fascinating when the various think tanks tough free trade as an unalloyed good.  Is it?

Consider the toy market.  Almost all toys are now made in China.  This makes them cheap, but at the cost of destroying the American toy manufacturing industry.  Toys are an interesting case because by definition no one actually needs toys.  Let's be even more specific and confine ourselves to action figures.

So let us imagine a situation where a tariff is placed on action figure imports.  As a result, prices double. 

People are going to buy a lot less action figures now, which will impact retail stores.  How it impacts them isn't clear, though because while the quantity sold will fall, the price per unit would go up.

Imports would drop, and those imports that were brought in would increase federal revenue.  This would also reduce our trade deficit.  In addition, it would now make economic sense to produce action figures domestically.

The thing to remember is that this isn't a blanket levy on all action figure imports.  It would be targeted to those nations with the most unfair economic circumstances.  Action figures from Europe would be unaffected (I'm thinking of those Schleich ones) because their labor market and living conditions are very similar to ours.

Conservatives tell us that China would retaliate and this would lead to a trade war.  But would it?  Why would China, which unquestionably would take a hit, make its pain even worse?  This isn't the 1930s were trade is confined to a half-dozen developed nations.  There are plenty of partners out there and if China gets belligerent, we can simply look to broaden relations with India or, ahem, Taiwan and Japan.

It is true that prices will rise, sales will fall and less toys will be purchased, but the American toy stockpile isn't a critical national resource is it?  Most of these guys are going to end up in landfills anyway.

The other problem (which the black-hearted conservatives at National Review refuse to address) is what happens to the displaced workers?  Not everyone can be a college graduate working for Google (and even those that have the skills are being replaced by indentured servants - more on that later).

Kevin Williamson infamously wanted the communities of Appalachia broken up and paved over - or perhaps returned to a state of nature.  The jobs are gone, the mines have closed and those people need to deal with it.

Okay, so where do they go?  Texas?  They should uproot themselves so they can compete with illegals for construction jobs and mow lawns for a living?  That's the big solution to revitalize the working class?

"Globalization" is not an inevitable event.  Despite efforts to portray it as a tectonic shift, it is entirely a self-inflicted problem.  The US has made itself unable to compete - partly through regulation but also partly because its leaders have zero qualms about destroying the domestic manufacturing base.  They fail to see it as a strategic resource.

Safe Spaces and Microagression

One of my greatest fears if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency six months from now is that the loony left, which has thoroughly corrupted academia and the news media, will spread its cancer throughout society. With two and perhaps three appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, Clinton could refashion the court into a progressive "rubber stamp" to okay all manner of leftist schemes.

Between executive orders that bypass Congress and court rulings that overturn legislation and/or disregard referenda (e.g., California's Proposition 8, which created a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage), a leftist court would, in short order, radically transform our nation.

Gun owners would likely be harassed to no end and subject to heavy taxation and fees. Purchasing guns and ammo would become cost prohibitive. Health care providers wouldn't have a prayer (pun intended) opposing mandates that fly in the face of their beliefs (e.g., Roman Catholics would be forced to provided contraception and abortion services). And free speech would be curtailed severely to avoid offending liberal sensibilities. Conservative talk radio would be squelched considerably by the FCC and a return of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

This Detroit News story exemplifies how far-gone our universities are. For those who elect not to read the story, a summary: Students at Indiana University were in a panic because some of them thought a Dominican friar seen walking in a white robe was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. “There has been a person reported walking around campus in a KKK outfit holding a whip," a student stated in an ominous email. Turns out, the "whip" was really a rosary. These students have been so enmeshed in a secular-progressive world, they didn't even know what a Catholic priest looks like.

Paul Kengor, the political science professor who authored the article, notes an interesting irony: Fifth century monks, starting with the Benedictines, were among the earliest supporters of early higher ed, by preserving ancient texts and serving as instructors. But there's no time for today's youngsters to learn about that (remember "Hey-hey, ho-ho, Western Civ's got to go"?). No, far more important to focus on the crucial matters of the day. Classes in Transgender Studies, for example, or "Narrating Queer Drama." Got to get our priorities straight, mind you!

And while we're on the subject of ivory tower insanity, I have to laugh at the asinine talk of "safe spaces" where the poor little babies (students) can go so they don't have to be offended by someone with a dissenting viewpoint. Never mind that putting up with disagreement, criticism, ridicule and anger are part-and-parcel of everyday life -- especially for those who labor in the public eye, such as members of the media, lawyers, politicians and corporate CEOs. No, we must protect the sensitive little souls from the evil "micro-aggressions" that will be upsetting to them and poke a hole in their naive bubbles (bubbles often formed by SSRI drugs or Adderall).

Just for the sake of argument, let me concede that the secular-progressives are right: We do need safe spaces to prevent micro-agressions from making people feel uncomfortable or offended. Okay, then how about transgendered bathrooms ? This whole issue has blown up suddenly and has .001 percent of the population trying to dictate to the other 99.99 percent -- aka, the "tail wagging the dog." Threats of consumer boycotts, legal action, perhaps even legislation throwing the book at businesses or institutions that won't kowtow to the tiny minority have become commonplace.

But what the left/liberal/secular/progressive elitists simply won't acknowledge is that the rights of females -- especially vulnerable young girls -- are being trampled on if males who supposedly identify as females are allowed into female restrooms and locker rooms. If the leftists hear this legitimate and rational argument, they invariably revert in knee-jerk fashion to their infantile name-calling..."bigot"...."hater"....."reactionary"...."intolerant"....blah-blah...

So what's it gonna be, libs? Are we going to have "safe spaces" in bathrooms and girls' locker rooms to protect girls and women so boys and men won't be leering at them? Or would that be discriminatory toward the transgendered males? This whole transgender issues sums up the lunacy and moral depravity of the left, and how their positions on the issues so easily get twisted into a pretzel.

This is the type of confused, alien society that will poison the landscape if Hillary and her ilk are allowed the levers of power for 4 or 8 years. Barack Hussein Obama has done enough damage, and Hillary promises to double down on his destructive policies that prevent economic growth, degrade the healthcare system, balloon the deficit, prolong K-12 failure, politicize the military, and burden our nation with millions of immigrants who have no intention of assimilating.

Indeed, the destructive immigrants who've been let into our country from the Middle East, even if only a tiny percentage of the total, will make us pay a heavy price for our guileless ways. Make no mistake, evil seeds have been planted. The ill effects of Obama will play out for years after he's retired to his endless days of golf, Beyonce concerts and fawning groupies.