Day: October 11, 2017

An Epic Lack of Congressional Fortitude


A few days ago, the Congress passed aid for damage caused by two hurricanes, a three-month continuing resolution, and an extension of the debt ceiling for three more months.  The debt ceiling and calls to raise it come up entirely too often, and each incidence exposes another failure of Congress to control the purse strings as the Constitution mandates.

Ask yourself why, with the astronomical amounts of money collected in taxes, it is so often deemed necessary to raise the debt ceiling and why members of the House and Senate feel that they can cover up their failure to do their jobs with this simple but long-term dangerous cop-out.  You might also wonder why the news media don’t look critically at this go-along-to-get-along and kick-the-can-down-the-road good-old-boy networking, practiced by Republicans and Democrats alike, that is picking the pockets of our children and grandchildren.

Budgeting in Congress is not like budgeting anywhere else.  First, not much attention is given to budgeting priorities, and budgets do not start at zero.  The budget for each department is “plus-ed up” by some figure – say, 5% – before starting.  Should the final figure for any department be below that 5%, that is said to be a cut!  So a particular department could actually have an increase in budget from last year and could still be said to be cut!  Moreover, having a budget at all is often shirked in favor of a “continuing resolution.”  In this case, there is no new budget at all.  The spending on all departments is “plus-ed up” by some amount and “continued” for another year or other period.  So the Congress has set itself up to shirk its duty to spend the taxpayer’s money carefully and authorize only what is necessary so that priority spending can be directed to priority areas and the budget can be balanced without borrowing.

It has long been time to stop this exercise in non-statesmanship, and I have argued in the past that not permitting the debt ceiling to rise might force the Congress to do its duty and allocate better between competing and differing priority needs.  Raising the debt ceiling is, after all, a cop-out to cover for a lack of fortitude in allocating the funds available.  Living within our means as a country might be difficult and full of messy arguments; however, it is what should be done and what would be done if the members of Congress really had the courage of their convictions.

It now appears that some other carrot or stick will be necessary to prevent Congress from using this cop-out on a regular basis.  There has even been talk about making the debt ceiling rise automatically in the future.  This would eliminate it as a visible bump in the road to congressional overspending, and that would cover this dereliction of duty even better than now.  How can we get the Congress to live up to its fiscal responsibility and live within its receipts so it can stop borrowing from our grandchildren? 

Our congressmen and our senators seem to be motivated primarily by re-election and only secondarily, if at all, by the welfare of the Republic.  If we, as constituents, can convince our senators and congressmen that we will vote for their re-election only if they properly care for the welfare of the Republic and their duty to carefully husband the money we send them via taxes, then maybe we can cure this tendency to go along, get along and kick the can down the road to our grandchildren.

For their part our individual congressmen and two senators can pledge to take action to be more responsible and stop regarding our tax money and borrowing authority as an endless deep pocket to buy re-election.  Continuing resolutions should be out.  The appropriations bills should be considered individually in both the House and the Senate.  No omnibus bills.  Every department of government should submit its budget and justifications starting from zero and not as a plus-up from the previous year (zero-based budgeting).  Congress should demonstrate that it can get a grip on spending and will authorize only that spending that is necessary to do the job while keeping the overall budget in balance.  Spending to correct past failures to spend enough for infrastructure and defense must be offset by deep cuts in other areas.  This will be difficult, and there will be a lot of crying from areas that are cut.  However, it is necessary for Congress to get a grip on spending before the debt gets any bigger, and the rising cost of debt service makes this recovery even more difficult. 

There are a few more things, harder to do, but worth a try.  “Log rolling” is a common tactic in Congress to get agreement.  Vote for my bill, and I will vote for yours or let you insert something into mine that will benefit your constituents or someone else to whom you owe a favor.  This practice has to stop.  Bills should stand on their own.  If they are not advantageous to the country as a whole, they should not progress through Congress and soak up any of our tax money.

Additional federalism might also be a good idea.  Many functions currently performed at the federal level or at the federal and state levels can be delegated to the states in their entirety.  This would reduce the cost (and size) of government at the federal level and help the Congress to live within its tax receipts means.  A general trimming of the size of the federal government would also help.  Suggest to your congressman and senators that the federal bureaucracy be trimmed by at least 33% across the board in order to save money and promote bureaucratic efficiency.  After a year with this adjustment, further cuts to some departments or across the board could be enacted to gain more efficiency and save more money.  

Finally, you should make it clear to your congressman and senators that you want to see more prioritizing with federal spending, with important federal functions like diplomacy and defense being funded on a priority basis and other “nice to have” functions receiving a much lower priority.  And you do not want to see any more log rolling or special favors that benefit only one part of the country.  In short, we should expect our congressional delegations to have some common sense, some regard for the current taxpayer, and some regard for our grandchildren!

Jeff Scribner is a retired Army officer and president of ASI Enterprises, Inc., an investment bank serving small and medium-sized businesses.  He can be reached at jscribner@asienterprises.com.

A few days ago, the Congress passed aid for damage caused by two hurricanes, a three-month continuing resolution, and an extension of the debt ceiling for three more months.  The debt ceiling and calls to raise it come up entirely too often, and each incidence exposes another failure of Congress to control the purse strings as the Constitution mandates.

Ask yourself why, with the astronomical amounts of money collected in taxes, it is so often deemed necessary to raise the debt ceiling and why members of the House and Senate feel that they can cover up their failure to do their jobs with this simple but long-term dangerous cop-out.  You might also wonder why the news media don’t look critically at this go-along-to-get-along and kick-the-can-down-the-road good-old-boy networking, practiced by Republicans and Democrats alike, that is picking the pockets of our children and grandchildren.

Budgeting in Congress is not like budgeting anywhere else.  First, not much attention is given to budgeting priorities, and budgets do not start at zero.  The budget for each department is “plus-ed up” by some figure – say, 5% – before starting.  Should the final figure for any department be below that 5%, that is said to be a cut!  So a particular department could actually have an increase in budget from last year and could still be said to be cut!  Moreover, having a budget at all is often shirked in favor of a “continuing resolution.”  In this case, there is no new budget at all.  The spending on all departments is “plus-ed up” by some amount and “continued” for another year or other period.  So the Congress has set itself up to shirk its duty to spend the taxpayer’s money carefully and authorize only what is necessary so that priority spending can be directed to priority areas and the budget can be balanced without borrowing.

It has long been time to stop this exercise in non-statesmanship, and I have argued in the past that not permitting the debt ceiling to rise might force the Congress to do its duty and allocate better between competing and differing priority needs.  Raising the debt ceiling is, after all, a cop-out to cover for a lack of fortitude in allocating the funds available.  Living within our means as a country might be difficult and full of messy arguments; however, it is what should be done and what would be done if the members of Congress really had the courage of their convictions.

It now appears that some other carrot or stick will be necessary to prevent Congress from using this cop-out on a regular basis.  There has even been talk about making the debt ceiling rise automatically in the future.  This would eliminate it as a visible bump in the road to congressional overspending, and that would cover this dereliction of duty even better than now.  How can we get the Congress to live up to its fiscal responsibility and live within its receipts so it can stop borrowing from our grandchildren? 

Our congressmen and our senators seem to be motivated primarily by re-election and only secondarily, if at all, by the welfare of the Republic.  If we, as constituents, can convince our senators and congressmen that we will vote for their re-election only if they properly care for the welfare of the Republic and their duty to carefully husband the money we send them via taxes, then maybe we can cure this tendency to go along, get along and kick the can down the road to our grandchildren.

For their part our individual congressmen and two senators can pledge to take action to be more responsible and stop regarding our tax money and borrowing authority as an endless deep pocket to buy re-election.  Continuing resolutions should be out.  The appropriations bills should be considered individually in both the House and the Senate.  No omnibus bills.  Every department of government should submit its budget and justifications starting from zero and not as a plus-up from the previous year (zero-based budgeting).  Congress should demonstrate that it can get a grip on spending and will authorize only that spending that is necessary to do the job while keeping the overall budget in balance.  Spending to correct past failures to spend enough for infrastructure and defense must be offset by deep cuts in other areas.  This will be difficult, and there will be a lot of crying from areas that are cut.  However, it is necessary for Congress to get a grip on spending before the debt gets any bigger, and the rising cost of debt service makes this recovery even more difficult. 

There are a few more things, harder to do, but worth a try.  “Log rolling” is a common tactic in Congress to get agreement.  Vote for my bill, and I will vote for yours or let you insert something into mine that will benefit your constituents or someone else to whom you owe a favor.  This practice has to stop.  Bills should stand on their own.  If they are not advantageous to the country as a whole, they should not progress through Congress and soak up any of our tax money.

Additional federalism might also be a good idea.  Many functions currently performed at the federal level or at the federal and state levels can be delegated to the states in their entirety.  This would reduce the cost (and size) of government at the federal level and help the Congress to live within its tax receipts means.  A general trimming of the size of the federal government would also help.  Suggest to your congressman and senators that the federal bureaucracy be trimmed by at least 33% across the board in order to save money and promote bureaucratic efficiency.  After a year with this adjustment, further cuts to some departments or across the board could be enacted to gain more efficiency and save more money.  

Finally, you should make it clear to your congressman and senators that you want to see more prioritizing with federal spending, with important federal functions like diplomacy and defense being funded on a priority basis and other “nice to have” functions receiving a much lower priority.  And you do not want to see any more log rolling or special favors that benefit only one part of the country.  In short, we should expect our congressional delegations to have some common sense, some regard for the current taxpayer, and some regard for our grandchildren!

Jeff Scribner is a retired Army officer and president of ASI Enterprises, Inc., an investment bank serving small and medium-sized businesses.  He can be reached at jscribner@asienterprises.com.



Source link

Now, We Know My Mother Has Flaws, But…


There’s a disclaimer many of us have been conditioned to utter, quite reflexively, and it’s something that has got to stop. When preparing a defense of the United States (against, lamentably, other “Americans”), we may preface it with, “Well, I know our country isn’t perfect” or, as pundit Tucker Carlson said while debating a bigoted lawyer last month, “I don’t deny…that this country is flawed….” Actually, our perspective is flawed.

To gain some perspective, imagine you were giving a speech about your mother and opened with, “Now, we know my mother has flaws, but….” Sound good?

Consider the message sent. Since we’re all imperfect, it’s a given your mother has flaws and, therefore, it isn’t something you’d normally even think to mention. Thus, the very act of mentioning it involves the implication that your mother isn’t just saddled with the usual imperfections — but that she’s uniquely flawed. It’s not something you do unless she’s a somewhat horrible person.

Or you’re a horrible child — or a horribly brainwashed one.

Statue of Thomas Jefferson at the College of William & Mary

Of course, if America were uniquely flawed, it would follow that there are a host of nations better. If we know of one, we may want to consider moving there. If we don’t, we should stop parroting that stupid disclaimer. Russians don’t do it. Chinese don’t do it. Japanese don’t do it. Not even Sudanese, Iranians or North Koreans do it.

In fact, while there’s no nation without sin, can you think of one beyond the waning West whose citizens feel compelled to issue self-flagellating we’re-so-flawed utterances? So why do many Americans, despite occupying history’s greatest nation, feel such a compulsion? What are they comparing America to? Heaven?

Speaking of the spirit world, many cultures would engage in ancestor worship. We engage in ancestor condemnation. Just recently, while defending Columbus Day against Indigenous Peoples Day dunderheads, a quite well-meaning commentator wrote that there “are 364 other days in the year on which we could acknowledge the sins of our ancestors….”

Sorry, but I don’t do ancestors. First, I’ll consider condemning our forebears when other groups and nations begin condemning theirs. Second, I’m no more responsible for their trespasses than I am for their triumphs. (Speaking of which, when I start getting royalty checks for all the inventions and innovations birthed by history’s great white men, I’ll consider offering reparations.) Lastly, I have no interest in continually “acknowledging” my ancestors’ sins — I have enough problems with my own.

This brings us to another aspect of this matter, one well illustrated by another comment Tucker Carlson made: that our country “is deeply flawed on questions of race.”

Actually, no, it’s not. As in the 1990s Rwandan genocide, racial/ethnic/tribal/religious conflicts elsewhere often have resulted in massive bloodshed. In contrast, it’s hard to think of a nation in which so many disparate peoples get along as well as in the U.S. (though the Left is trying feverishly to change that). The point is that in all this talk about “our flaws,” we’re not even talking about “our” flaws.

We’re talking about the flaws of people long dead (that is, when the flaws aren’t wholly imaginary).

In other words, we’re fighting yesterday’s battles — harping on our ancestors’ sins in an infinite loop — and ignoring today’s.

As to this, if a man seeing a therapist fixated constantly on his late father’s faults, wouldn’t the therapist point out that, not only is he living in the past, but that incessantly focusing on another’s flaws can be a way of avoiding having to confront your own?

Leftists haven’t the foggiest idea what our “flaws” are for the simple reason that, being moral relativists/nihilists (not believing in Truth, absolute by definition), they have no standard of perfection to use as a yardstick. And if you have no objective standard of right, you can’t know what’s wrong — not any more than you could identify unhealthful foods without believing in and knowing the rules of human nutrition.

We do have real flaws, today, now, things such as confusion over marriage, sex and the sexes (“transgender” agenda); the mainstreaming of perversion; decadent entertainment; rampant vulgarity; racial demagoguery; profligate spending; leftist propaganda everywhere; and, what lies at the heart of it all, moral relativism. But it’s easier to talk about those dastardly dead white males — they’re not around to defend themselves.  

One of the great victories of the Left is that it has woven so many of its suppositions so seamlessly into the culture that even good people accept them, unknowingly, unthinkingly. Thus will we utter, cowed and callow, “Look, I know our country has flaws….”

The irony is that if we could purge so-called leftism from the hearts and minds of Americans, most of our flaws would be gone overnight.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

There’s a disclaimer many of us have been conditioned to utter, quite reflexively, and it’s something that has got to stop. When preparing a defense of the United States (against, lamentably, other “Americans”), we may preface it with, “Well, I know our country isn’t perfect” or, as pundit Tucker Carlson said while debating a bigoted lawyer last month, “I don’t deny…that this country is flawed….” Actually, our perspective is flawed.

To gain some perspective, imagine you were giving a speech about your mother and opened with, “Now, we know my mother has flaws, but….” Sound good?

Consider the message sent. Since we’re all imperfect, it’s a given your mother has flaws and, therefore, it isn’t something you’d normally even think to mention. Thus, the very act of mentioning it involves the implication that your mother isn’t just saddled with the usual imperfections — but that she’s uniquely flawed. It’s not something you do unless she’s a somewhat horrible person.

Or you’re a horrible child — or a horribly brainwashed one.

Statue of Thomas Jefferson at the College of William & Mary

Of course, if America were uniquely flawed, it would follow that there are a host of nations better. If we know of one, we may want to consider moving there. If we don’t, we should stop parroting that stupid disclaimer. Russians don’t do it. Chinese don’t do it. Japanese don’t do it. Not even Sudanese, Iranians or North Koreans do it.

In fact, while there’s no nation without sin, can you think of one beyond the waning West whose citizens feel compelled to issue self-flagellating we’re-so-flawed utterances? So why do many Americans, despite occupying history’s greatest nation, feel such a compulsion? What are they comparing America to? Heaven?

Speaking of the spirit world, many cultures would engage in ancestor worship. We engage in ancestor condemnation. Just recently, while defending Columbus Day against Indigenous Peoples Day dunderheads, a quite well-meaning commentator wrote that there “are 364 other days in the year on which we could acknowledge the sins of our ancestors….”

Sorry, but I don’t do ancestors. First, I’ll consider condemning our forebears when other groups and nations begin condemning theirs. Second, I’m no more responsible for their trespasses than I am for their triumphs. (Speaking of which, when I start getting royalty checks for all the inventions and innovations birthed by history’s great white men, I’ll consider offering reparations.) Lastly, I have no interest in continually “acknowledging” my ancestors’ sins — I have enough problems with my own.

This brings us to another aspect of this matter, one well illustrated by another comment Tucker Carlson made: that our country “is deeply flawed on questions of race.”

Actually, no, it’s not. As in the 1990s Rwandan genocide, racial/ethnic/tribal/religious conflicts elsewhere often have resulted in massive bloodshed. In contrast, it’s hard to think of a nation in which so many disparate peoples get along as well as in the U.S. (though the Left is trying feverishly to change that). The point is that in all this talk about “our flaws,” we’re not even talking about “our” flaws.

We’re talking about the flaws of people long dead (that is, when the flaws aren’t wholly imaginary).

In other words, we’re fighting yesterday’s battles — harping on our ancestors’ sins in an infinite loop — and ignoring today’s.

As to this, if a man seeing a therapist fixated constantly on his late father’s faults, wouldn’t the therapist point out that, not only is he living in the past, but that incessantly focusing on another’s flaws can be a way of avoiding having to confront your own?

Leftists haven’t the foggiest idea what our “flaws” are for the simple reason that, being moral relativists/nihilists (not believing in Truth, absolute by definition), they have no standard of perfection to use as a yardstick. And if you have no objective standard of right, you can’t know what’s wrong — not any more than you could identify unhealthful foods without believing in and knowing the rules of human nutrition.

We do have real flaws, today, now, things such as confusion over marriage, sex and the sexes (“transgender” agenda); the mainstreaming of perversion; decadent entertainment; rampant vulgarity; racial demagoguery; profligate spending; leftist propaganda everywhere; and, what lies at the heart of it all, moral relativism. But it’s easier to talk about those dastardly dead white males — they’re not around to defend themselves.  

One of the great victories of the Left is that it has woven so many of its suppositions so seamlessly into the culture that even good people accept them, unknowingly, unthinkingly. Thus will we utter, cowed and callow, “Look, I know our country has flaws….”

The irony is that if we could purge so-called leftism from the hearts and minds of Americans, most of our flaws would be gone overnight.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com



Source link

The NFL Doesn't Know Who or What It Is


Chicago Cubs fans endured decades of futility but stuck like glue to their team.  Ditto for the Golden State Warriors.  Both teams were awful for what seemed like forever but never had any shortage of loyalty.  And when the teams finally reached the pinnacle of success, every fan claimed the victory as his own.

In the National Football League, “taking a knee” used to be part of the “two-minute drill.”  The quarterback would stop the clock and allow a team time to bring different players on the field or a new play in from the coach.  If your team did it, you cheered.  You had one more chance to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Now “taking a knee” means protesting something.  And nobody knows quite what they’re protesting.  The explanations sound like one side of a conversation over a horrible cell phone connection.  But we aren’t allowed to try to get a better signal.  So millions are simply pushing the red button.

Every person has an innate need to belong to a greater cause.  Even the Unabomber, a notorious hermit, was serving what he saw as a greater good.  Antifa members see a common interest they join, even when they can’t articulate it.  There are numerous other causes.

Christians serve a God who “will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake [you]” (Hebrews 13:5).  The God of Islam is less personal, but “All Forgiving” and “the Source of Peace and Safety.”  We could go on.

There is a common thread here, most explicitly stated in Christianity.  When someone becomes a true Christian, he becomes a part of a team he can never be kicked out of.  Think about that.  Unless you decide to leave, you are secure.  (We can discuss “eternal security” elsewhere.)  There is nothing your true team will do to make you insecure.  However small your contribution is to the goal, it is still treasured as a contribution.  You are a valuable cog in a larger wheel.  There will be a loss to the team if you leave.  What a wonderful contribution to your self-esteem!

The same thing happens with devoted fans.  They are important parts of larger teams.  The NFL even refers to fans as the “twelfth man” on a team with eleven actual players.  What’s really going on?

Every one of these “teams” is selling something.  That is, the team has something you want, and there is some cost you are willing to pay to be part of it.  While some are defined as religions, the others are also religions in some essential way.  And they all offer a reward for loyalty.  Christianity offers heaven, Islam offers paradise, and Greenpeace offers a better world.  Sports offer the hope of victory with the guarantee of camaraderie among those of like mind.  And there is one thing more.

Teams love you back.  The more one is sold out to the team, the greater the love that returns.  It comes in various forms, but it always comes.  And there is one, very important aspect of that love: it is unconditional.  Your team will never reject you.  You will always be accepted.

We all have this great need for acceptance.  We seek out the teams that offer us the greatest perceived returns as long as we can be accepted into them.  And until now, sports franchises accepted all comers.  That was the nature of sports.  It did not matter who you were or what you looked like.  If you were a fan, everything else followed.

But when the NFL took a knee, it violated this social compact.  Instead of loving its fans, it reviled them.  The same people who love NASCAR and the NFL also love country music.  Their enemies even took a knee to say that there was no reason to have compassion for the victims of the Las Vegas Massacre.

“Compassion” – a word that built from the idea of having strong feelings together.  “No compassion” means “we don’t care about you.”  That is exactly what taking a knee says to us.  You don’t care about us.  We aren’t welcome on your team.  You reject us.

You NFL players created a new rule about who can be part of your team.  And when there are more rules, you will have fewer team members.  NFL fans come from many walks of life but tend to be strong patriots, even when they oppose the New England team.  So should we be surprised when the NFL’s strong negatives reach 40%, as they just did?  Perhaps we should be surprised that they haven’t gone higher!

Jerry Jones, the owner of America’s Team, the Dallas Cowboys, gets it.  Whatever he may have done last week, which was confusing at best, he has now declared that any player who disrespects our flag – yes, our flag – will not play for him.  He recognizes two things: taking a knee is disrespecting our country, and taking a knee is disowning his team’s fans.

The NFL survives because it is the National Football League.  When it recognizes that, it will enforce its rule that players will stand at attention facing the flag during our national anthem.  That is a salute to its fans, the twelfth man on the team.  It is also recognizing that the NFL has no business other than football, and politics should remain off the field.

The NFL had a chance to nip this in the bud when Colin Kaepernick took a knee.  But it dithered.  And it insulted America by refusing to allow players to wear a decal memorializing murdered police officers in Dallas.

The only question is whether it is too late for the NFL to recover from this self-inflicted wound.

Chicago Cubs fans endured decades of futility but stuck like glue to their team.  Ditto for the Golden State Warriors.  Both teams were awful for what seemed like forever but never had any shortage of loyalty.  And when the teams finally reached the pinnacle of success, every fan claimed the victory as his own.

In the National Football League, “taking a knee” used to be part of the “two-minute drill.”  The quarterback would stop the clock and allow a team time to bring different players on the field or a new play in from the coach.  If your team did it, you cheered.  You had one more chance to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Now “taking a knee” means protesting something.  And nobody knows quite what they’re protesting.  The explanations sound like one side of a conversation over a horrible cell phone connection.  But we aren’t allowed to try to get a better signal.  So millions are simply pushing the red button.

Every person has an innate need to belong to a greater cause.  Even the Unabomber, a notorious hermit, was serving what he saw as a greater good.  Antifa members see a common interest they join, even when they can’t articulate it.  There are numerous other causes.

Christians serve a God who “will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake [you]” (Hebrews 13:5).  The God of Islam is less personal, but “All Forgiving” and “the Source of Peace and Safety.”  We could go on.

There is a common thread here, most explicitly stated in Christianity.  When someone becomes a true Christian, he becomes a part of a team he can never be kicked out of.  Think about that.  Unless you decide to leave, you are secure.  (We can discuss “eternal security” elsewhere.)  There is nothing your true team will do to make you insecure.  However small your contribution is to the goal, it is still treasured as a contribution.  You are a valuable cog in a larger wheel.  There will be a loss to the team if you leave.  What a wonderful contribution to your self-esteem!

The same thing happens with devoted fans.  They are important parts of larger teams.  The NFL even refers to fans as the “twelfth man” on a team with eleven actual players.  What’s really going on?

Every one of these “teams” is selling something.  That is, the team has something you want, and there is some cost you are willing to pay to be part of it.  While some are defined as religions, the others are also religions in some essential way.  And they all offer a reward for loyalty.  Christianity offers heaven, Islam offers paradise, and Greenpeace offers a better world.  Sports offer the hope of victory with the guarantee of camaraderie among those of like mind.  And there is one thing more.

Teams love you back.  The more one is sold out to the team, the greater the love that returns.  It comes in various forms, but it always comes.  And there is one, very important aspect of that love: it is unconditional.  Your team will never reject you.  You will always be accepted.

We all have this great need for acceptance.  We seek out the teams that offer us the greatest perceived returns as long as we can be accepted into them.  And until now, sports franchises accepted all comers.  That was the nature of sports.  It did not matter who you were or what you looked like.  If you were a fan, everything else followed.

But when the NFL took a knee, it violated this social compact.  Instead of loving its fans, it reviled them.  The same people who love NASCAR and the NFL also love country music.  Their enemies even took a knee to say that there was no reason to have compassion for the victims of the Las Vegas Massacre.

“Compassion” – a word that built from the idea of having strong feelings together.  “No compassion” means “we don’t care about you.”  That is exactly what taking a knee says to us.  You don’t care about us.  We aren’t welcome on your team.  You reject us.

You NFL players created a new rule about who can be part of your team.  And when there are more rules, you will have fewer team members.  NFL fans come from many walks of life but tend to be strong patriots, even when they oppose the New England team.  So should we be surprised when the NFL’s strong negatives reach 40%, as they just did?  Perhaps we should be surprised that they haven’t gone higher!

Jerry Jones, the owner of America’s Team, the Dallas Cowboys, gets it.  Whatever he may have done last week, which was confusing at best, he has now declared that any player who disrespects our flag – yes, our flag – will not play for him.  He recognizes two things: taking a knee is disrespecting our country, and taking a knee is disowning his team’s fans.

The NFL survives because it is the National Football League.  When it recognizes that, it will enforce its rule that players will stand at attention facing the flag during our national anthem.  That is a salute to its fans, the twelfth man on the team.  It is also recognizing that the NFL has no business other than football, and politics should remain off the field.

The NFL had a chance to nip this in the bud when Colin Kaepernick took a knee.  But it dithered.  And it insulted America by refusing to allow players to wear a decal memorializing murdered police officers in Dallas.

The only question is whether it is too late for the NFL to recover from this self-inflicted wound.



Source link

Middle East Studies Profs Gone Bad


“I’m a professor!”  So cried Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA) professor Anila Daulatzai as she was forcibly removed from a Southwest Airlines flight for lying about having a life-threatening allergy to the two dogs in the cabin.  Unable to provide the required medical certificate, Daulatzai, who had demanded that the dogs be removed, then refused to leave the plane.  Daulatzai’s Muslim faith was the likely cause of her aversion to dogs, but it was her dishonesty and unwillingness to cooperate that ended in her arrest.

A former visiting assistant professor of Islamic studies at Harvard Divinity School, Daulatzai has joined the growing ranks of Middle East studies academics who run afoul of the law.  Their misdeeds, which range from sexual harassment to domestic abuse and murder to terrorism, demonstrate that being “a professor” is no barrier to criminality.

Just last month, a professor in McGill University’s Institute of Islamic Studies whose name has not been released to the public was accused of “sexual violence” by way of stickers left in women’s restrooms on campus.  The professor, who is up for tenure this semester, denies the charges, despite former students testifying to his “predatory” behavior.  An open letter to Robert Wisnovsky, director of the Institute of Islamic Studies, from the World Islamic and Middle East Studies Student Association reiterated the allegations, recommending against tenure and concluding that “women are at a disadvantage within the Islamic Studies department.”

Likewise, it emerged in 2016 that two prominent professors, U.C. Berkeley’s Nezar AlSayyad and UCLA’s Gabriel Piterberg, had been sexually harassing female graduate students for years.  AlSayyad, former chair of U.C. Berkeley’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, and Piterberg, former director of UCLA’s Center for Near Eastern Studies, exploited their positions of power to take advantage of the young women entrusted to their care.  Both universities’ perceived negligence and leniency in handling the cases led to student protests and loss of faith of the system.     

Another kind of relationship between student and teacher underpinned a controversy earlier this year involving Rollins College professor Areeje Zufari.  Zufari, a Muslim, resigned in April following a conflict with Christian student Marshall Polston, whom she had falsely accused of stalking after he challenged her anti-Christian, Islamist assertions.  After a wrongful suspension and a disciplinary hearing, Polston was reinstated, while Zufari now teaches at Valencia College.  Even more sordid is Zufari’s past, including numerous ties to Islamist associations and an affair with a married man under FBI investigation for terrorist activity.

The violent abuse of women raised its ugly head in the case of former University of Central Florida (UCF) history professor Vibert L. White.  During a 2010 campaign for Orlando City Commissioner, it emerged that would-be candidate White had been arrested at least three times on domestic violence charges involving two former wives.  He was not convicted of any of the charges and claimed that his ex-wives had fabricated the allegations.  The same year, an Orlando judge issued an injunction ordering White to stay away from an ex-girlfriend after she accused him of beating her.

White, no stranger to frivolous lawsuits and accusations of “Islamophobia,” is currently suing UCF for discrimination, claiming he was forced to resign in 2015 because, as reported by the Orlando Sentinel, “he is black and Muslim, and because he proposed recruiting more black and Muslim students to the school.”  He alleges that he received threats and that the university rejected his early proposals to initiate the now extant Islamic Studies and Middle East Studies programs, but UCF spokesman Chad Binette contends that “his claims have no merit.”  Predictably, White, who now bills himself as a “devout Islamic scholar,” is being represented by the Islamist organization the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Meanwhile, Youssif Zaghwani Omar, a Libyan-born teacher’s assistant in Arabic – not an assistant professor as reported at the time – at the University of Missouri, was arrested on suspicion of child abuse for the violent assault of a 14-year-old female relative in 2015.  Omar drove to her high school, saw that she wasn’t wearing a hijab (headscarf), and proceeded to grab her by the hair, slap her across the face, and pull her by the hair down a flight of stairs and into his car.

Villanova University history professor and director of the Center for Arab American Studies Mine Ener’s case is perhaps the most horrific.  In 2003, Ener admitted to slashing the throat of her six-month-old Down syndrome-stricken daughter at her mother’s home.  Charged with second-degree murder, Ener then committed suicide in jail by smothering herself with a plastic bag.  Reportedly, she had suffered from post-partum depression and expressed thoughts of suicide and harming her baby in order to end her “suffering.”  In 2008, Villanova made the controversial decision to dedicate a new section of its library to Ener.

In the realm of terrorism, three University of South Florida Middle East studies professors, Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, Bashir Musa Mohammed Nafi, and Sameeh Hammoudeh, were among eight men charged with racketeering and conspiracy to murder in 2003.  Indicted as “material supporters” of the “foreign terrorist organization” Palestinian Islamic Jihad, all three were praised afterward by their colleagues and described as “scholarly” and “highly respected.”

The case of Hassan Diab, a Lebanese-born dual Canadian citizen and a former sociology professor at Carleton University and the University of Ottawa, is less straightforward.  French authorities allege that Diab was the leader of a commando team that perpetrated the 1980 bombing of the Rue Copernic synagogue in Paris.  The bombing, which was attributed to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, killed three Frenchmen and an Israeli woman and wounded 40.

Diab was arrested in 2008 and extradited from Canada to France in 2014, where several court decisions to grant him bail have been overturned on appeal.  The investigation ended in July, but the judge’s decision on whether to drop the charges or proceed to trial is pending.  Meanwhile, Diab maintains his innocence, and his supporters are asking Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to encourage French authorities to release him.

While every profession has its bad actors, the field of Middle East studies is riddled with them.  It suffers from the violence, radicalism, and misogyny afflicting the region from which so many of its academics hail.  Moreover, it is arrogant and self-righteous, rejecting the outside criticism that exposes its misdeeds in favor of a closed circle that affirms its worst inclinations. Condemning the democratic West while elevating Islamism, the field betrays its moral confusion.  Is it any wonder that the worst follows?    

Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.  She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

“I’m a professor!”  So cried Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA) professor Anila Daulatzai as she was forcibly removed from a Southwest Airlines flight for lying about having a life-threatening allergy to the two dogs in the cabin.  Unable to provide the required medical certificate, Daulatzai, who had demanded that the dogs be removed, then refused to leave the plane.  Daulatzai’s Muslim faith was the likely cause of her aversion to dogs, but it was her dishonesty and unwillingness to cooperate that ended in her arrest.

A former visiting assistant professor of Islamic studies at Harvard Divinity School, Daulatzai has joined the growing ranks of Middle East studies academics who run afoul of the law.  Their misdeeds, which range from sexual harassment to domestic abuse and murder to terrorism, demonstrate that being “a professor” is no barrier to criminality.

Just last month, a professor in McGill University’s Institute of Islamic Studies whose name has not been released to the public was accused of “sexual violence” by way of stickers left in women’s restrooms on campus.  The professor, who is up for tenure this semester, denies the charges, despite former students testifying to his “predatory” behavior.  An open letter to Robert Wisnovsky, director of the Institute of Islamic Studies, from the World Islamic and Middle East Studies Student Association reiterated the allegations, recommending against tenure and concluding that “women are at a disadvantage within the Islamic Studies department.”

Likewise, it emerged in 2016 that two prominent professors, U.C. Berkeley’s Nezar AlSayyad and UCLA’s Gabriel Piterberg, had been sexually harassing female graduate students for years.  AlSayyad, former chair of U.C. Berkeley’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, and Piterberg, former director of UCLA’s Center for Near Eastern Studies, exploited their positions of power to take advantage of the young women entrusted to their care.  Both universities’ perceived negligence and leniency in handling the cases led to student protests and loss of faith of the system.     

Another kind of relationship between student and teacher underpinned a controversy earlier this year involving Rollins College professor Areeje Zufari.  Zufari, a Muslim, resigned in April following a conflict with Christian student Marshall Polston, whom she had falsely accused of stalking after he challenged her anti-Christian, Islamist assertions.  After a wrongful suspension and a disciplinary hearing, Polston was reinstated, while Zufari now teaches at Valencia College.  Even more sordid is Zufari’s past, including numerous ties to Islamist associations and an affair with a married man under FBI investigation for terrorist activity.

The violent abuse of women raised its ugly head in the case of former University of Central Florida (UCF) history professor Vibert L. White.  During a 2010 campaign for Orlando City Commissioner, it emerged that would-be candidate White had been arrested at least three times on domestic violence charges involving two former wives.  He was not convicted of any of the charges and claimed that his ex-wives had fabricated the allegations.  The same year, an Orlando judge issued an injunction ordering White to stay away from an ex-girlfriend after she accused him of beating her.

White, no stranger to frivolous lawsuits and accusations of “Islamophobia,” is currently suing UCF for discrimination, claiming he was forced to resign in 2015 because, as reported by the Orlando Sentinel, “he is black and Muslim, and because he proposed recruiting more black and Muslim students to the school.”  He alleges that he received threats and that the university rejected his early proposals to initiate the now extant Islamic Studies and Middle East Studies programs, but UCF spokesman Chad Binette contends that “his claims have no merit.”  Predictably, White, who now bills himself as a “devout Islamic scholar,” is being represented by the Islamist organization the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Meanwhile, Youssif Zaghwani Omar, a Libyan-born teacher’s assistant in Arabic – not an assistant professor as reported at the time – at the University of Missouri, was arrested on suspicion of child abuse for the violent assault of a 14-year-old female relative in 2015.  Omar drove to her high school, saw that she wasn’t wearing a hijab (headscarf), and proceeded to grab her by the hair, slap her across the face, and pull her by the hair down a flight of stairs and into his car.

Villanova University history professor and director of the Center for Arab American Studies Mine Ener’s case is perhaps the most horrific.  In 2003, Ener admitted to slashing the throat of her six-month-old Down syndrome-stricken daughter at her mother’s home.  Charged with second-degree murder, Ener then committed suicide in jail by smothering herself with a plastic bag.  Reportedly, she had suffered from post-partum depression and expressed thoughts of suicide and harming her baby in order to end her “suffering.”  In 2008, Villanova made the controversial decision to dedicate a new section of its library to Ener.

In the realm of terrorism, three University of South Florida Middle East studies professors, Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, Bashir Musa Mohammed Nafi, and Sameeh Hammoudeh, were among eight men charged with racketeering and conspiracy to murder in 2003.  Indicted as “material supporters” of the “foreign terrorist organization” Palestinian Islamic Jihad, all three were praised afterward by their colleagues and described as “scholarly” and “highly respected.”

The case of Hassan Diab, a Lebanese-born dual Canadian citizen and a former sociology professor at Carleton University and the University of Ottawa, is less straightforward.  French authorities allege that Diab was the leader of a commando team that perpetrated the 1980 bombing of the Rue Copernic synagogue in Paris.  The bombing, which was attributed to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, killed three Frenchmen and an Israeli woman and wounded 40.

Diab was arrested in 2008 and extradited from Canada to France in 2014, where several court decisions to grant him bail have been overturned on appeal.  The investigation ended in July, but the judge’s decision on whether to drop the charges or proceed to trial is pending.  Meanwhile, Diab maintains his innocence, and his supporters are asking Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to encourage French authorities to release him.

While every profession has its bad actors, the field of Middle East studies is riddled with them.  It suffers from the violence, radicalism, and misogyny afflicting the region from which so many of its academics hail.  Moreover, it is arrogant and self-righteous, rejecting the outside criticism that exposes its misdeeds in favor of a closed circle that affirms its worst inclinations. Condemning the democratic West while elevating Islamism, the field betrays its moral confusion.  Is it any wonder that the worst follows?    

Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.  She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.



Source link

The Congressional Black Caucus Prayer Breakfast: The Great Black Deception


Flipping through my TV channels, I stumbled upon the 2017 Congressional Black Caucus Annual Prayer Breakfast on the Word Network; the world’s largest black religious channel. This year’s theme was, “And Still I Rise”.

Folks, I thought, “Oh my gosh, these people have no shame.” This breakfast was all about exploiting black’s Christian heritage to deceive them for the purpose of furthering Leftists’ anti-Christian agenda. Every musical performance praised Jesus. Leftists despise Jesus, aggressively seeking to ban the God of Christianity from the public square. Several of the all-Democrat speakers quoted the Bible to strengthen their political deceptions. The truth is, quoting the Bible is as repulsive to Leftists as showing Dracula the cross.

I thought, does anyone in that hall know Obama led a leftist war on Christianity, making him the most anti-Christian president in U.S. history? Do y’all know the 2017 Women’s March and Trump resisters whom you’ve praised at this breakfast seek to continue the Leftists’ war on Christianity? 

The CBC Prayer Breakfast had nothing to do with Jesus or spreading His Love. Quite the opposite. It was about spreading hate for police, strengthening the Trump resistance, and strengthening black’s bogus belief that they are victims in America. The breakfast was also about despicably instilling hate and fear to register new Democrat voters.

Oh, how I wish I could grab my fellow black Americans by their collar and slap them into reality. America is the greatest land of opportunity on this planet for all who choose to go for it. Forget the Democrat/Leftist victim nonsense and pursue your dreams.

My 89-year-old black dad was extremely active in the early civil rights movement. As a kid, I accompanied Dad to the 1963 March on Washington at which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his remarkable, “I Have a Dream” speech. The modern civil rights movement has abandoned the vision of unity articulated by Dr. King in his speech, “I have a dream that one day right there in Alabama little black boys and little black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” Oh, how the civil rights movement has fallen.

Though opposed by his peers, Dr. King stood firm on the principle of nonviolent activism. Today, Democrats praise violent hate groups Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Obama honored Black Lives Matter at the White House. You have not heard a single word of criticism from the CBC against Black Lives Matter calling for the killing of cops and whites. 

Dad pressured/shamed me and my four younger siblings into voting and joining the NAACP. Dad said, “A lot of folks suffered and died to give y’all the right to vote.”

As a young man in the 1970s, I joined the NAACP. Upon attending my first meeting, I thought, “What is wrong with these people?” It felt like I stepped back into 1950s. The vibe was depressing. I was surrounded by long-faced blacks singing, “We Shall Over Come.” I commented to Dad that the meeting felt like I walked through a time warp into days of black misery. Dad chuckled.

I was a young black man enjoying the fruits of Dad’s and his fellow civil rights activist’s labors. I attended the mostly white Maryland Institute College of Art on scholarships. I was the first black graphic designer employed at WJZ-TV, ABC affiliate in Baltimore. Life was good. But the folks at the NAACP meeting were sad, depressed and angry; acting as though black slavery was alive and well in America.

Watching the 2017 CBC Prayer Breakfast, I witnessed the same absurd lie that America is still a hellhole of racism for blacks. The “And Still I Rise” theme means blacks stand strong despite being persecuted daily in America.

All that hate promoted at the Congressional Black Caucus Prayer Breakfast was insidiously shrouded in Christianity. As a Christian, I found the so-called “prayer breakfast” a sad, evil deception.

As a black American, in the name of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I command Leftists to, “Let my people go!”

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Author: “Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America.”

Singer/Songwriter and Conservative Activist

http://LloydMarcus.com

Flipping through my TV channels, I stumbled upon the 2017 Congressional Black Caucus Annual Prayer Breakfast on the Word Network; the world’s largest black religious channel. This year’s theme was, “And Still I Rise”.

Folks, I thought, “Oh my gosh, these people have no shame.” This breakfast was all about exploiting black’s Christian heritage to deceive them for the purpose of furthering Leftists’ anti-Christian agenda. Every musical performance praised Jesus. Leftists despise Jesus, aggressively seeking to ban the God of Christianity from the public square. Several of the all-Democrat speakers quoted the Bible to strengthen their political deceptions. The truth is, quoting the Bible is as repulsive to Leftists as showing Dracula the cross.

I thought, does anyone in that hall know Obama led a leftist war on Christianity, making him the most anti-Christian president in U.S. history? Do y’all know the 2017 Women’s March and Trump resisters whom you’ve praised at this breakfast seek to continue the Leftists’ war on Christianity? 

The CBC Prayer Breakfast had nothing to do with Jesus or spreading His Love. Quite the opposite. It was about spreading hate for police, strengthening the Trump resistance, and strengthening black’s bogus belief that they are victims in America. The breakfast was also about despicably instilling hate and fear to register new Democrat voters.

Oh, how I wish I could grab my fellow black Americans by their collar and slap them into reality. America is the greatest land of opportunity on this planet for all who choose to go for it. Forget the Democrat/Leftist victim nonsense and pursue your dreams.

My 89-year-old black dad was extremely active in the early civil rights movement. As a kid, I accompanied Dad to the 1963 March on Washington at which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his remarkable, “I Have a Dream” speech. The modern civil rights movement has abandoned the vision of unity articulated by Dr. King in his speech, “I have a dream that one day right there in Alabama little black boys and little black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” Oh, how the civil rights movement has fallen.

Though opposed by his peers, Dr. King stood firm on the principle of nonviolent activism. Today, Democrats praise violent hate groups Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Obama honored Black Lives Matter at the White House. You have not heard a single word of criticism from the CBC against Black Lives Matter calling for the killing of cops and whites. 

Dad pressured/shamed me and my four younger siblings into voting and joining the NAACP. Dad said, “A lot of folks suffered and died to give y’all the right to vote.”

As a young man in the 1970s, I joined the NAACP. Upon attending my first meeting, I thought, “What is wrong with these people?” It felt like I stepped back into 1950s. The vibe was depressing. I was surrounded by long-faced blacks singing, “We Shall Over Come.” I commented to Dad that the meeting felt like I walked through a time warp into days of black misery. Dad chuckled.

I was a young black man enjoying the fruits of Dad’s and his fellow civil rights activist’s labors. I attended the mostly white Maryland Institute College of Art on scholarships. I was the first black graphic designer employed at WJZ-TV, ABC affiliate in Baltimore. Life was good. But the folks at the NAACP meeting were sad, depressed and angry; acting as though black slavery was alive and well in America.

Watching the 2017 CBC Prayer Breakfast, I witnessed the same absurd lie that America is still a hellhole of racism for blacks. The “And Still I Rise” theme means blacks stand strong despite being persecuted daily in America.

All that hate promoted at the Congressional Black Caucus Prayer Breakfast was insidiously shrouded in Christianity. As a Christian, I found the so-called “prayer breakfast” a sad, evil deception.

As a black American, in the name of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I command Leftists to, “Let my people go!”

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Author: “Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America.”

Singer/Songwriter and Conservative Activist

http://LloydMarcus.com



Source link

At Last, the Moment I've Long Anticipated!



The liberal obsession with identity politics and "intersectionality" has begun to turn on itself.



Source link

Trump Seeks a Pre-1945 Nationalism


Globalism threatens the essence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. President Donald Trump’s agenda is anti-globalist at the core. It is also nationalistic to the core, and senses in our history a national destiny. It is not manifest destiny as announced in the 1840s, nor is it the progressive/Marxist ideal of classlessness and world cooperation that has manifested aggressively since 1945. Rather, it grasps at the role of Providence — God’s will — as we move through time and space as a giver of hope (land of opportunity), producer of wealth, and respecter of personal autonomy within a lawful context.

Trump’s personal eccentricities and belligerent insecurities sometimes get in the way of this vision. But his nationalist agenda is less threatened by his personal shortcomings than by vested economic interests and ideological partisans that have a life and death stake in the globalist agenda. Globalism was set in motion at the end of World War II, and gathered momentum by the successes of the institutions created. With the creation of the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, it seemed at that time we were on a path of greater world cooperation, thus creating the likelihood of greater world peace. Then came the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) providing a shoring up of our defense against our communist enemies. This was followed by the initial steps towards the European Union by the signing of the Treaty of Paris founding the European Coal and Steel Community.

However, the goal of world cooperation was not the only item on the agenda. Globalism was also being promoted as part of a leftist platform that sees in capitalism an inherent tendency toward exploitation and imperialism. Thus, the globalist agenda is not merely a desire for world cooperation, but is being moved forward by individuals who oppose American sovereignty and our way of life. And there are still other individuals and corporate leaders who believe that they will benefit themselves and their shareholders by exploiting contacts in various governments throughout the world to their own advantage as national identities give way to world markets and, ultimately, to a one-world government.

Step by step, during the 72 years following WWII, multilateral engagement in regional bodies and international rules of trade were put into place. We moved gradually, some might say stealthily, from world cooperation to a globalist agenda, gradual loss of sovereignty, and deeper challenges to our legal system in favor of international legal standards. We entered into climate accords, restrained our own energy production by disallowing offshore drilling and important opportunities in Alaska near the Arctic Circle. Step by step, momentum grew from cooperation to a globalist manipulation of the world economy, accomplished often through executive and bureaucratic fiat. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the European Union, the World Trade Organization, various pan-African organizations, and the North American Free Trade Agreement spread tentacles of control throughout the world on a scale that meant encroachment on our national goals and identity. American companies with production and customer service operations overseas became commonplace, and overseas conglomerates were increasingly investing in American industries and sometimes building plants here. American jobs were sacrificed in the name of overall world efficiencies and wealth production for the planet. This was justified in university economics departments by David Ricardo’s comparative advantage principle.

Phenomenal advances in communications via Facetime, Whatsapp, Skype, etc. created a taste for one worldism that complements the political agenda that has developed in Washington D.C. and other world capitals.

Yet, it would be naïve to think that the acceleration of the globalist agenda was driven mainly by market forces. The Marxist ideology that is consciously internationalist has been in play in the USA since the 19th century, and gained momentum during the post-WWII decades. The left bought into the idea that under capitalism, nationalism led to excessive competition among nation-states which in turn led to imperialism which in turn led to wars to protect their bourgeois empires. By incessantly promoting the link between free markets, nationalism, and war, the Marxist/globalist agenda promoted itself not only in terms of the class struggle to bring about a classless, noncompetitive society but also as promoting peace in a war torn, selfish, capitalistic world. The left, as apostles first of justice and then, supposedly, of world peace, claimed a messianic role for itself.

However, despite strong historical evidence that noncapitalistic, nonrepublican models of government and economic organization not only do not work but are tied to chaos, crime, mass incarcerations, and corruption, for increasing numbers – especially those who self-define as Democrats — nationalism has become outdated and counterintuitive. The sense of the USA as having a providential role in mankind’s history is unacceptable because they have bought into the post-WWII left-propelled momentum away from the Puritan vision of America as a “city on a hill” with a Divine mission.

Yet, obviously, since he was elected, Trump represents that nationalist ideal that is not dead, but is a meaningful ideal of what America was once, and should be again. It is a recovery movement, a hope of cultural health restored after 70-plus years of globalist/leftist drift. Trump’s anti-globalism is a dynamic of liberation from the bureaucratic mindset that is part and parcel of internationalist expertise (the administrative state with vast office buildings turning out rules, regulations, and millions of sheets of paper is the child of a vision originally put forward by Woodrow Wilson). He is the first to demand protection from the Islamist threat to our national identity and security. He has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accord. He has rejected the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the latest foray into globalist economic deals. He is on the brink of downgrading the P5+1 deal (it was actually a treaty which was treated as a “deal”) we entered into with Iran. He is intent on inviting corporations to expand their U.S. operations by cutting the corporate income tax. And, instead of pacifying America’s enemies (called “strategic patience” by the Democrat pacifiers), he is rejecting their violent, anti-American agenda. He knows that our economy and national spirit cannot grow if we cower in a corner of our own making.

One last point: There are those who believe that making deals is inherently internationalist. If you are in deal-making mode, you will automatically be engaged in new markets with foreign players. Is Trump then denying this reality? Actually, he has addressed this numerous times.  First, bilateral or trilateral deals with one or two other countries should be made more often rather than the gargantuan multilateral deals that have become the basis of our international trade agreements. Second, multilateral deals need to have built-in more fairness to the export of U.S. products to other countries. There are mechanisms in those deals for resolving trade disputes that arise under the agreements, but he is claiming that the formulation of those agreements is skewed in favor of the international community.  

True nationalism then is a reality that inherently isolates Trump, but it is worth fighting for. Nationalism as projected by President Trump and his supporters is actually a pre-1945, not a 1950s, ideal. In the 1950s it still seemed that we were in the nationalist mode, but in reality, the juggernaut threatening American nationalism had already been set in motion.

Globalism threatens the essence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. President Donald Trump’s agenda is anti-globalist at the core. It is also nationalistic to the core, and senses in our history a national destiny. It is not manifest destiny as announced in the 1840s, nor is it the progressive/Marxist ideal of classlessness and world cooperation that has manifested aggressively since 1945. Rather, it grasps at the role of Providence — God’s will — as we move through time and space as a giver of hope (land of opportunity), producer of wealth, and respecter of personal autonomy within a lawful context.

Trump’s personal eccentricities and belligerent insecurities sometimes get in the way of this vision. But his nationalist agenda is less threatened by his personal shortcomings than by vested economic interests and ideological partisans that have a life and death stake in the globalist agenda. Globalism was set in motion at the end of World War II, and gathered momentum by the successes of the institutions created. With the creation of the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, it seemed at that time we were on a path of greater world cooperation, thus creating the likelihood of greater world peace. Then came the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) providing a shoring up of our defense against our communist enemies. This was followed by the initial steps towards the European Union by the signing of the Treaty of Paris founding the European Coal and Steel Community.

However, the goal of world cooperation was not the only item on the agenda. Globalism was also being promoted as part of a leftist platform that sees in capitalism an inherent tendency toward exploitation and imperialism. Thus, the globalist agenda is not merely a desire for world cooperation, but is being moved forward by individuals who oppose American sovereignty and our way of life. And there are still other individuals and corporate leaders who believe that they will benefit themselves and their shareholders by exploiting contacts in various governments throughout the world to their own advantage as national identities give way to world markets and, ultimately, to a one-world government.

Step by step, during the 72 years following WWII, multilateral engagement in regional bodies and international rules of trade were put into place. We moved gradually, some might say stealthily, from world cooperation to a globalist agenda, gradual loss of sovereignty, and deeper challenges to our legal system in favor of international legal standards. We entered into climate accords, restrained our own energy production by disallowing offshore drilling and important opportunities in Alaska near the Arctic Circle. Step by step, momentum grew from cooperation to a globalist manipulation of the world economy, accomplished often through executive and bureaucratic fiat. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the European Union, the World Trade Organization, various pan-African organizations, and the North American Free Trade Agreement spread tentacles of control throughout the world on a scale that meant encroachment on our national goals and identity. American companies with production and customer service operations overseas became commonplace, and overseas conglomerates were increasingly investing in American industries and sometimes building plants here. American jobs were sacrificed in the name of overall world efficiencies and wealth production for the planet. This was justified in university economics departments by David Ricardo’s comparative advantage principle.

Phenomenal advances in communications via Facetime, Whatsapp, Skype, etc. created a taste for one worldism that complements the political agenda that has developed in Washington D.C. and other world capitals.

Yet, it would be naïve to think that the acceleration of the globalist agenda was driven mainly by market forces. The Marxist ideology that is consciously internationalist has been in play in the USA since the 19th century, and gained momentum during the post-WWII decades. The left bought into the idea that under capitalism, nationalism led to excessive competition among nation-states which in turn led to imperialism which in turn led to wars to protect their bourgeois empires. By incessantly promoting the link between free markets, nationalism, and war, the Marxist/globalist agenda promoted itself not only in terms of the class struggle to bring about a classless, noncompetitive society but also as promoting peace in a war torn, selfish, capitalistic world. The left, as apostles first of justice and then, supposedly, of world peace, claimed a messianic role for itself.

However, despite strong historical evidence that noncapitalistic, nonrepublican models of government and economic organization not only do not work but are tied to chaos, crime, mass incarcerations, and corruption, for increasing numbers – especially those who self-define as Democrats — nationalism has become outdated and counterintuitive. The sense of the USA as having a providential role in mankind’s history is unacceptable because they have bought into the post-WWII left-propelled momentum away from the Puritan vision of America as a “city on a hill” with a Divine mission.

Yet, obviously, since he was elected, Trump represents that nationalist ideal that is not dead, but is a meaningful ideal of what America was once, and should be again. It is a recovery movement, a hope of cultural health restored after 70-plus years of globalist/leftist drift. Trump’s anti-globalism is a dynamic of liberation from the bureaucratic mindset that is part and parcel of internationalist expertise (the administrative state with vast office buildings turning out rules, regulations, and millions of sheets of paper is the child of a vision originally put forward by Woodrow Wilson). He is the first to demand protection from the Islamist threat to our national identity and security. He has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accord. He has rejected the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the latest foray into globalist economic deals. He is on the brink of downgrading the P5+1 deal (it was actually a treaty which was treated as a “deal”) we entered into with Iran. He is intent on inviting corporations to expand their U.S. operations by cutting the corporate income tax. And, instead of pacifying America’s enemies (called “strategic patience” by the Democrat pacifiers), he is rejecting their violent, anti-American agenda. He knows that our economy and national spirit cannot grow if we cower in a corner of our own making.

One last point: There are those who believe that making deals is inherently internationalist. If you are in deal-making mode, you will automatically be engaged in new markets with foreign players. Is Trump then denying this reality? Actually, he has addressed this numerous times.  First, bilateral or trilateral deals with one or two other countries should be made more often rather than the gargantuan multilateral deals that have become the basis of our international trade agreements. Second, multilateral deals need to have built-in more fairness to the export of U.S. products to other countries. There are mechanisms in those deals for resolving trade disputes that arise under the agreements, but he is claiming that the formulation of those agreements is skewed in favor of the international community.  

True nationalism then is a reality that inherently isolates Trump, but it is worth fighting for. Nationalism as projected by President Trump and his supporters is actually a pre-1945, not a 1950s, ideal. In the 1950s it still seemed that we were in the nationalist mode, but in reality, the juggernaut threatening American nationalism had already been set in motion.



Source link