First, thanks to those who take the time to read my sometimes random and oft verbose thoughts. The last post's views were the most since the Curmudgeon returned.
The title of tonight's post is a reference to the children's book of the same name, which recounted the story of the little Dutch boy who stuck his finger in the dike and saved Holland.
President Trump needs his own little Dutch boy.
The leaks by staffers of the various intelligence agencies that are either holdovers from The Golfing President's administration, or leftist sympathizers, or both, are insidious, and the President needs to plug them post-haste.
The left likely views the leakers' acts as heroic. In fact, they are treasonous. When there's a new sheriff in Washington, D.C., like him (or her) or not, those who work in government are bound by duty to serve him as they did the predecessor. If they don't like it, they should do the honorable thing and quit, and try to get a job in the real world. But if they work to undermine the government just because they disagree with the outcome of the election, they should be fired without severance at a minimum, and perhaps prosecuted.
That's a little extreme, my left-leaning friends might say. Well, if a staffer leaks the transcript of a phone conversation between the nominee for Security Advisor and a foreign diplomat, or between the President and a foreign head of state, how far will they go? What if there's a plan to take out a terror cell, but said staffer disagrees with it, so he or she leaks the details of the plan, and the terrorists are never caught - or worse yet, accelerate the attack they'd been planning?
Leaking confidential information is a slippery slope, and it can end in a justifiable treason charge. So why not nip it in the bud? (This will be misconstrued as fear-mongering - more on that in a musing below regarding the Executive Order on travel.)
Either way, President Trump may need to clean house.
*********************************************
Having said the above, I'm glad Flynn's gone, because he screwed up. He lied to a superior, and as a former general, he ought to know better. Firing him was the responsible thing to do.
Tim Geithner was found to have cheated on his taxes, but President Obama supported him anyway, and he wound up being (a disastrous) Treasury Secretary. Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton in an airplane during an investigation of Mrs. Clinton (then a POTUS candidate) for leaking classified information, and she didn't even get a wrist slap. Mrs. Clinton herself used an unsecure private email server, and her former boss called it "a mistake."
It's refreshing to see a President to whom the word "accountability" has meaning.
*********************************************
Regarding the travel EO, the left likes to make a big deal of the fact that there has never been a terror attack on U.S. soil by a refugee from any of the countries on the list.
True. However:
1. Given that, why did President Obama come up with the list to begin with, and where was the fake outrage from the left when he did?
2. It's not about being reactive, it's about being proactive. Refugees have committed acts of terror in Europe, and ISIS has threatened to infiltrate refugee programs to commit acts of terror in the U.S. It's about prevention - should Americans have to die before we act to protect our citizens from threats?
My house has never caught fire, but I have a fire extinguisher. I've never been personally sued, but I have an umbrella policy. I've never been robbed, but I lock my doors at night and have an alarm system.
Do I do those things because I'm scared? No.
I do those things because I'm not stupid. And I have a home, a family and assets to protect.
**********************************************
On to the infamous 77-minute presser. I have to admit I cringed at times while watching it.
But I laughed more than I cringed.
Sure, the President said some things that were cringe-worthy. But he also had his way with the media, in a way I haven't seen since Ali played rope-a-dope with George Foreman.
Actually, rope-a-dope is an apt analogy when speaking of the media.
I've been waiting for a President to take on the press like that for decades. Today's media is nothing more than a leftist propaganda machine (okay, Fox News is a right-wing propaganda machine), and they don't deserve straight answers, because their questions - and their reporting of the answers - are about as straight as a West Virginia road.
Besides, the questions are intolerably vapid. What are the qualifications to be a "journalist" these days? Graduating at the bottom of your class? Flunking every civics, economics, logic and English course you take?
Trump was having a field day with the press, enjoying every bit of it, and even predicting (accurately, it turns out) what they'd report the next day. And it was very good theater.
********************************************
More protests. But let's just call them what they are: tantrums. Just like those thrown by toddlers who don't get the toy they wanted, and have to settle for a toy that their siblings chose.
Now, I fully support the right of every American to tantrum (tanter? tant? If we're going to make "tantrum" a verb to replace "protest," someone will need to help me conjugate it).
But - do these people have jobs? Is it the same several hundred unemployed migrant tanters who turn out for every tantrum? Or has the entire left given up their jobs for tanting?
Again, it's fine with me - until it becomes, or borders on, a criminal act. For example, the tanters who prevented Betsy DeVos from visiting a school - basically keeping a government official from doing her job - should have been jailed. As should those who destroy property or injure people.
********************************************
Now, about the ICE raids. Let's start with the facts:
1. They were planned during the Obama presidency, but the left still idolizes him.
2. In fact, under Obama, ICE carried out numerous such raids, and on a much larger scale. He deported more illegal immigrants than any POTUS in history. Yet, the left still idolizes him.
3. Those deported had committed illegal acts AFTER the illegal act of crossing the border - well, illegally. Had Americans crossed into Mexico illegally, and committed crimes once there, they'd have been jailed and deported as well.
But the left were conjuring up images of jack-booted brownshirts - something they didn't do when their beloved Golfing President did. the. same. thing.
However, these are the same people who cry "fear-mongering!" when anyone supports the EO on travel, yet they monger fear when ICE does its job, at least under a Republican President.
Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle is on line one.
********************************************
A final note: if one supports Trump in any way, shape or form, one is subjected to ridicule, hatred, and even death threats.
It happened to the electors. It even happened to a celebrity who dared show up at an awards show (which have become nothing more than another venue for tanting) wearing a pro-Trump gown.
Her album sales, by the way, have soared.
One reader even asked whether I was concerned. I'm not.
First, those on the left are anti-gun, so there needn't be any worry about being shot. Second, they're pretty much all show and no go. Remember, these are the same people who threatened to move to Canada if Trump was elected.
They're still here.
So what are they going to do to those they threaten: drown them in their tears? Scald them to death with hot cocoa? Smother them with those giant Vermont teddy bears? Send them sailing into the stratosphere with the breeze from their flailing (and often misspelled) signs?
The only people who need fear the left are future Democrat candidates. Because the left is increasingly turning off the rest of America with their extremist, nuclear rancor, to the point that everyone else is fed up, and may never vote for a Democrat again.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Monday, February 13, 2017
True Confessions
After the first time I did it, I enjoyed it so much, I did it again. And again. And again, and again, and again. I couldn't help myself, even though on some level I knew I probably shouldn't have enjoyed it so much. But every time I did it, I enjoyed it every bit as much as I did that first time, so I didn't stop. In fact, if I did it again, right now, I'm willing to bet I'd enjoy it every bit as much as the first time.
Okay, get your salacious mind out of the gutter. I'm speaking, of course, about watching Elizabeth Warren get put in her place by Senators Steve Daines and Mitch McConnell. Warren was blathering on in opposition of the appointment of Sen. Jeff Sessions as Attorney General - no surprise there.
Never mind that everyone has known since Sessions' nomination that he'd be confirmed. Warren had breath to waste, and she was determined to waste it.
Twenty minutes into Warren's 47-minute diatribe (it would have gone longer had Daines not ordered her to take her seat) by quoting the late Sen. Ted Kennedy when he called Sessions "a disgrace."
Yeah, that Ted Kennedy - you know, Chappaquiddick Teddy? If getting drunk and driving your car into a tidal pool, then letting your passenger - the woman with whom you were having an extramarital affair - drown, while you, a strong swimmer, swim away to safety, then wait ten hours to report the incident, doesn't make you a disgrace, I'm not sure what does.
Anyway, Sen. Daines, presiding over the Sessions debate, warned Warren that she was in violation of Senate Rule 19, which prohibits a Senator from impugning the character of a colleague on the Senate floor.
Undaunted, Warren pressed on. At the 47-minute mark, she began quoting a letter penned by Coretta Scott King, MLK's widow, in which Mrs. King had opposed Sessions' appointment to a federal judgeship in 1986 (the same occasion of Kennedy's "disgrace" comment).
Now, had Sen. Warren been permitted to continue, do you suppose she would have also noted that later, at the 2000 dedication of the Rosa Parks Library on the campus of Troy University, Mrs. King acknowledged Sessions and other politicians who had been instrumental in making the library dedicated to the late civil rights leader possible? In those comments, she said of Sessions and the other politicians, "It's a great honor and privilege to join you in celebrating the grand opening of the Rosa Parks Library and Museum."
I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and venture a guess that Sen. Warren would have managed to overlook those more recent remarks.
But as the Tootsie Pop owl said, "The world may never know," because Sen. McConnell then objected to Sen. Warren't second violation of Rule 19 in less than 18 minutes, which may be a Senate record.
Sen. Warren became indignant, in a petulant way. She said plaintively - like a Brownie Scout who is incensed that her prospective customer doesn't want to listen to a detailed explanation of why Do-Si-Dos are superior to Thin Mints - "Mr. President [addressing Sen. Daines], I am surprised that the words of Coretta Scott King are not suitable for debate in the United States Senate. I ask leave of the Senate to continue my remarks."
"I ask leave." How Victorian. At least she didn't call Daines "my liege."
McConnell and Daines weren't going to let Warren hide behind Mrs. King's skirt, however. Daines called for objections to her request, and McConnell provided one. At that point, Daines instructed Warren to take her seat.
So why do I take such pleasure in watching this scenario unfold over and over again?
Simple: I don't like Elizabeth Warren. Never have. From her almost single-handed creation of the CFPB, an unchecked government entity with almost unlimited power to wreak baseless havoc on financial institutions, increasing the cost of credit for all of us, to her stated belief that student loan rates should be equal to what banks pay to borrow from the Fed, she has demonstrated an astonishing lack of understanding of basic economic and financial principles.
Anyone who thinks student loans should be priced at the Fed borrowing rate has no knowledge of simple concepts like collateral, credit ratings, reserves, and being subject to regulation - things that apply to bank borrowings, but not to student borrowers. And no such person should be allowed anywhere near the nation's banking system.
Yet, there she sits on the Senate Banking Committee. It's the biggest travesty since Barney Frank chaired the House Financial Services Committee, a role in which he created the housing crisis. With Warren, the results could be even more dire. (Barney was also from Massachusetts. Maybe we should stop allowing legislators from that state to serve on banking committees.)
Some pundits said that the GOP would have been better off letting Warren blather on. After all, whether Sessions would ultimately be confirmed was never in doubt, and no amount of bloviating by Sen. Warren was going to change that. These pundits argue that, by silencing her (the Senate later voted to make that official), the GOP handed her significant political capital, almost guaranteeing her nomination as the 2020 Democrat Party candidate for the Presidency.
I agree that it was a crazy move - crazy like a fox. By helping cement Warren's prospects of becoming the Dem's 2020 nominee, the GOP may have guaranteed that the Democrats put up a candidate with no hope of winning. See, Elizabeth Warren is slightly left of Bernie Sanders, albeit not as intelligent or ethical but a whole lot more strident.
So take the worst aspects of Hillary Clinton (a strident tone and dishonesty - Warren claimed to be a Native American in order to land a job at Harvard) and Bernie (a far-left, socialist agenda with no comprehension of basic financial principles), and you have Elizabeth Warren.
And that's a pretty low hurdle for Donald Trump to clear.
Okay, get your salacious mind out of the gutter. I'm speaking, of course, about watching Elizabeth Warren get put in her place by Senators Steve Daines and Mitch McConnell. Warren was blathering on in opposition of the appointment of Sen. Jeff Sessions as Attorney General - no surprise there.
Never mind that everyone has known since Sessions' nomination that he'd be confirmed. Warren had breath to waste, and she was determined to waste it.
Twenty minutes into Warren's 47-minute diatribe (it would have gone longer had Daines not ordered her to take her seat) by quoting the late Sen. Ted Kennedy when he called Sessions "a disgrace."
Yeah, that Ted Kennedy - you know, Chappaquiddick Teddy? If getting drunk and driving your car into a tidal pool, then letting your passenger - the woman with whom you were having an extramarital affair - drown, while you, a strong swimmer, swim away to safety, then wait ten hours to report the incident, doesn't make you a disgrace, I'm not sure what does.
Anyway, Sen. Daines, presiding over the Sessions debate, warned Warren that she was in violation of Senate Rule 19, which prohibits a Senator from impugning the character of a colleague on the Senate floor.
Undaunted, Warren pressed on. At the 47-minute mark, she began quoting a letter penned by Coretta Scott King, MLK's widow, in which Mrs. King had opposed Sessions' appointment to a federal judgeship in 1986 (the same occasion of Kennedy's "disgrace" comment).
Now, had Sen. Warren been permitted to continue, do you suppose she would have also noted that later, at the 2000 dedication of the Rosa Parks Library on the campus of Troy University, Mrs. King acknowledged Sessions and other politicians who had been instrumental in making the library dedicated to the late civil rights leader possible? In those comments, she said of Sessions and the other politicians, "It's a great honor and privilege to join you in celebrating the grand opening of the Rosa Parks Library and Museum."
I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and venture a guess that Sen. Warren would have managed to overlook those more recent remarks.
But as the Tootsie Pop owl said, "The world may never know," because Sen. McConnell then objected to Sen. Warren't second violation of Rule 19 in less than 18 minutes, which may be a Senate record.
Sen. Warren became indignant, in a petulant way. She said plaintively - like a Brownie Scout who is incensed that her prospective customer doesn't want to listen to a detailed explanation of why Do-Si-Dos are superior to Thin Mints - "Mr. President [addressing Sen. Daines], I am surprised that the words of Coretta Scott King are not suitable for debate in the United States Senate. I ask leave of the Senate to continue my remarks."
"I ask leave." How Victorian. At least she didn't call Daines "my liege."
McConnell and Daines weren't going to let Warren hide behind Mrs. King's skirt, however. Daines called for objections to her request, and McConnell provided one. At that point, Daines instructed Warren to take her seat.
So why do I take such pleasure in watching this scenario unfold over and over again?
Simple: I don't like Elizabeth Warren. Never have. From her almost single-handed creation of the CFPB, an unchecked government entity with almost unlimited power to wreak baseless havoc on financial institutions, increasing the cost of credit for all of us, to her stated belief that student loan rates should be equal to what banks pay to borrow from the Fed, she has demonstrated an astonishing lack of understanding of basic economic and financial principles.
Anyone who thinks student loans should be priced at the Fed borrowing rate has no knowledge of simple concepts like collateral, credit ratings, reserves, and being subject to regulation - things that apply to bank borrowings, but not to student borrowers. And no such person should be allowed anywhere near the nation's banking system.
Yet, there she sits on the Senate Banking Committee. It's the biggest travesty since Barney Frank chaired the House Financial Services Committee, a role in which he created the housing crisis. With Warren, the results could be even more dire. (Barney was also from Massachusetts. Maybe we should stop allowing legislators from that state to serve on banking committees.)
Some pundits said that the GOP would have been better off letting Warren blather on. After all, whether Sessions would ultimately be confirmed was never in doubt, and no amount of bloviating by Sen. Warren was going to change that. These pundits argue that, by silencing her (the Senate later voted to make that official), the GOP handed her significant political capital, almost guaranteeing her nomination as the 2020 Democrat Party candidate for the Presidency.
I agree that it was a crazy move - crazy like a fox. By helping cement Warren's prospects of becoming the Dem's 2020 nominee, the GOP may have guaranteed that the Democrats put up a candidate with no hope of winning. See, Elizabeth Warren is slightly left of Bernie Sanders, albeit not as intelligent or ethical but a whole lot more strident.
So take the worst aspects of Hillary Clinton (a strident tone and dishonesty - Warren claimed to be a Native American in order to land a job at Harvard) and Bernie (a far-left, socialist agenda with no comprehension of basic financial principles), and you have Elizabeth Warren.
And that's a pretty low hurdle for Donald Trump to clear.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
A Rose by Any Other Name
Short post tonight from the road - I'm in the middle of my quarterly gauntlet of client reports and visits, so while my head has been swimming with material, the rest of me has been treading water.
I don't know why so many on the left seem threatened by perfectly accurate, descriptive and inoffensive labels - yet these same people love applying labels to those with whom they disagree, no matter how offensive they may be.
My pet (peeve?) example is the use of the term "progressive" in lieu of the term "liberal."
These same people have no qualms about calling those on the right "conservative," an equally descriptive and accurate term. In fact, they decided a number of years ago that "conservative" wasn't sufficiently damning, so they coined the term "neo-con" (the veiled reference to neo-Nazis is not lost; remember that "Reductio ad Hitlerum" is the practice of invoking Hitler's name in an attempt to win an argument that one realizes is about to be lost). In any event, I was a conservative long before any progre- er, liberal dreamed up the term "neo-con," so I'd say there's nothing "neo" about me.
But back to "progressive." The name implies that the individuals that claim it as their descriptor are not liberal. But they are. Further, it implies that anyone who doesn't see the world the way they do isn't progressive. The insinuation is that they're somehow against progress.
Well, count me as a progressive, because I definitely want to see progress. Progress in reducing our bloated national debt. Progress in making our corporate tax code more competitive, and our individual tax code less complex. Progress in ensuring our security, cyber and otherwise. Progress in protecting the rights of all, including those who are alive (and thus have the right to life, as well as liberty and the pursuit of happiness), even if they haven't yet breathed outside their mothers' wombs.
So let's stop already with the use of the label "progressive" as some sort of badge of superiority, when in fact the wearers of the label are simply liberal, and no better (or worse) than their counterparts who are conservative. In fact, I'd prefer that we reach a point where we don't feel the need to use labels at all. Dr. Suess predicted all of this in his famous story of the Sneetches.
While we're on the subject of labels, though, let's debunk the whole pro-choice, pro-life nonsense.
The so-called pro-choice group argues that they support a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body. Now, they typically aren't talking about the vitally important choice not to become pregnant if the woman doesn't want to give birth to a baby, whether she plans to raise it or let someone else do the job. What they're talking about is abortion.
Well, here's the deal - there's a saying about rights: Your right to punch me in the face ends at my nose. In other words, when the exercise of your rights infringes on the rights of another, you no longer may exercise that right.
So when a woman exercises her "right to choose" by choosing to abort a life, she is infringing on the unborn child's unalienable right to life. We can argue the science all we want, but the indisputable fact is that legal abortion applies, in many states, to unborn children that could clearly live outside the womb. Ask the mother of any preemie. Or ask the mothers and fathers who have suffered the pain of an early miscarriage, knowing with certainty that the child was alive at some point after conception, and desperately wanting to hold, love and raise that child. Or ask the mother who, after a positive home pregnancy test, immediately stops drinking alcohol and coffee, and begins pre-natal care, clearly recognizing that there is a life inside her in need of nurturing.
Also, the "pro-choice" crowd generally isn't in favor of my right to choose to legally own a handgun, or to choose not to pay any more in taxes than I absolutely have to under the code.
So they're not really "pro-choice," not even as it relates to whether a woman can legally terminate a pregnancy. (I won't delve into other nuances of the abortion debate here, such as the false narrative that if abortion were illegal, women would be "forced" to subject themselves to dangerous back-alley abortions.)
Simply put, these people are pro-legal abortion. Now, I'm not implying that they like the idea of abortion, or want to see more abortions; I'm simply stating the fact that they support abortion being legal. Thus, they are "pro-" legal abortion.
Likewise, many in the "pro-life" crowd are in favor of capital punishment and being able to shoot and kill a criminal in self-defense. They may try to draw "quality of life" distinctions, but that's a slippery slope. What about the falsely accused, or the unborn child who grows up to be a mass murderer?
Thus, a more appropriate moniker would be "anti-abortion." After all, it's not the sanctity of life under all circumstances that they support (usually), it's that they oppose legal abortion. Thus, they are "anti-" abortion.
The reason too many people - especially on the left, in my experience - feel a need to shift from the more accurate labels is that they perceive those labels cast them in an undesirable light. They're looking for a kinder, gentler way to say they're liberal, or they're pro-legal abortion. But, to paraphrase the Bard, a rose by any other name carries the same scent.
I don't know why so many on the left seem threatened by perfectly accurate, descriptive and inoffensive labels - yet these same people love applying labels to those with whom they disagree, no matter how offensive they may be.
My pet (peeve?) example is the use of the term "progressive" in lieu of the term "liberal."
These same people have no qualms about calling those on the right "conservative," an equally descriptive and accurate term. In fact, they decided a number of years ago that "conservative" wasn't sufficiently damning, so they coined the term "neo-con" (the veiled reference to neo-Nazis is not lost; remember that "Reductio ad Hitlerum" is the practice of invoking Hitler's name in an attempt to win an argument that one realizes is about to be lost). In any event, I was a conservative long before any progre- er, liberal dreamed up the term "neo-con," so I'd say there's nothing "neo" about me.
But back to "progressive." The name implies that the individuals that claim it as their descriptor are not liberal. But they are. Further, it implies that anyone who doesn't see the world the way they do isn't progressive. The insinuation is that they're somehow against progress.
Well, count me as a progressive, because I definitely want to see progress. Progress in reducing our bloated national debt. Progress in making our corporate tax code more competitive, and our individual tax code less complex. Progress in ensuring our security, cyber and otherwise. Progress in protecting the rights of all, including those who are alive (and thus have the right to life, as well as liberty and the pursuit of happiness), even if they haven't yet breathed outside their mothers' wombs.
So let's stop already with the use of the label "progressive" as some sort of badge of superiority, when in fact the wearers of the label are simply liberal, and no better (or worse) than their counterparts who are conservative. In fact, I'd prefer that we reach a point where we don't feel the need to use labels at all. Dr. Suess predicted all of this in his famous story of the Sneetches.
While we're on the subject of labels, though, let's debunk the whole pro-choice, pro-life nonsense.
The so-called pro-choice group argues that they support a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body. Now, they typically aren't talking about the vitally important choice not to become pregnant if the woman doesn't want to give birth to a baby, whether she plans to raise it or let someone else do the job. What they're talking about is abortion.
Well, here's the deal - there's a saying about rights: Your right to punch me in the face ends at my nose. In other words, when the exercise of your rights infringes on the rights of another, you no longer may exercise that right.
So when a woman exercises her "right to choose" by choosing to abort a life, she is infringing on the unborn child's unalienable right to life. We can argue the science all we want, but the indisputable fact is that legal abortion applies, in many states, to unborn children that could clearly live outside the womb. Ask the mother of any preemie. Or ask the mothers and fathers who have suffered the pain of an early miscarriage, knowing with certainty that the child was alive at some point after conception, and desperately wanting to hold, love and raise that child. Or ask the mother who, after a positive home pregnancy test, immediately stops drinking alcohol and coffee, and begins pre-natal care, clearly recognizing that there is a life inside her in need of nurturing.
Also, the "pro-choice" crowd generally isn't in favor of my right to choose to legally own a handgun, or to choose not to pay any more in taxes than I absolutely have to under the code.
So they're not really "pro-choice," not even as it relates to whether a woman can legally terminate a pregnancy. (I won't delve into other nuances of the abortion debate here, such as the false narrative that if abortion were illegal, women would be "forced" to subject themselves to dangerous back-alley abortions.)
Simply put, these people are pro-legal abortion. Now, I'm not implying that they like the idea of abortion, or want to see more abortions; I'm simply stating the fact that they support abortion being legal. Thus, they are "pro-" legal abortion.
Likewise, many in the "pro-life" crowd are in favor of capital punishment and being able to shoot and kill a criminal in self-defense. They may try to draw "quality of life" distinctions, but that's a slippery slope. What about the falsely accused, or the unborn child who grows up to be a mass murderer?
Thus, a more appropriate moniker would be "anti-abortion." After all, it's not the sanctity of life under all circumstances that they support (usually), it's that they oppose legal abortion. Thus, they are "anti-" abortion.
The reason too many people - especially on the left, in my experience - feel a need to shift from the more accurate labels is that they perceive those labels cast them in an undesirable light. They're looking for a kinder, gentler way to say they're liberal, or they're pro-legal abortion. But, to paraphrase the Bard, a rose by any other name carries the same scent.
Thursday, February 2, 2017
My Immigration Song
My last post title took a page from a Beatles song. This time, I borrow from Led Zeppelin, another band I listened to during my misspent youth.
Herewith are my views on immigration, which will no doubt lead some to label me all kinds of terrible things. So be it. I'll let my record speak for itself.
First, we are indeed a nation of immigrants. My own progenitors hailed from England, Scotland and Wales, as far as I know. On my father's mother's side, I am a third-generation American.
I've had many friends who are first-generation Americans - from Canada, South Africa, India, Iran, Nepal, France, Russia, Pakistan, Greece, Malawi, Mexico, the DRC and other countries. I love them, and I welcome them to America with open arms.
On my trips to New York City, I've been as moved by visiting Lady Liberty and Ellis Island as I have by visiting Ground Zero.
And yet, there is a Ground Zero. For a reason.
You see, when the British and Dutch originally settled the U.S., fleeing religious persecution in their home countries, they wished to start a new life. They didn't wish death to Americans (though they did kill numerous native Americans, but they came here to settle in a new land, not with a pre-planned vendetta or fatwah against the country's original inhabitants).
When the Irish, Italians, Germans and Scots flowed through Ellis Island, they came solely to make a better life for themselves, and often fleeing persecution. The same is true of the Chinese who flocked to California after the Gold Rush began, and the Mexicans who came across the border after the revolution there.
So how is that different from those coming to the U.S. today, seeking a better life than they could find in Mexico or Central America, or fleeing persecution in places like Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Libya?
Let's first look at the former question, then the latter.
The immigrants who came through Ellis Island, California and from Mexico after the revolution, came here legally. Yes, they wanted the better life that America offered, the economic opportunity, the freedom from heavy-handed central government oppression that quashed their opportunity to make their own way in the world and make a better life for themselves.
In other words, they were fleeing the kind of central government control and life-dictating oppression that Democrats in America seek today.
They worked their tails off, and made better lives for themselves, and made America a better place. Sure, we imported La Cosa Nostra and the Russian Mafia and some gang warfare. But by and large, because these people were committed to coming here legally, gaining citizenship through prescribed channels, they were committed to doing better by doing good. (And we had our fair share of home-grown crime as well, dating from the days of the Mayflower to today.)
So I have a problem with those coming here illegally. (I actually have a problem with anything illegal, because it's - well, illegal. We are a nation of laws, and I am a law-abiding citizen. Except when it comes to speed limits.)
Now, I don't for a minute believe that we could conceivably deport all illegal immigrants. There have been decades of unaddressed illegal immigration, and it represents too much toothpaste having left the tube, and spread itself to every corner of the bathroom.
But when politicians say they want to focus on those who have come here illegally and then committed a crime, my legalistic brain says, "Whoa - stop right there." They don't call it "illegal" immigration for nothing.
The minute you step across this nation's borders illegally, you have broken the law. So why do you have to rape, or steal, or murder, before we determine that you've committed an illegal act? Every illegal immigrant has broken the law, by simply coming here illegally. Like it or not, this is fact. The law is clear; there is no nuance here.
Granted, we have brought some of this upon ourselves. Mollycoddled Americans who refuse to do basic construction or landscaping work for less than what they could earn as a CPA or a dental hygienist have created an environment that invites immigrants unafraid to do an honest day's hard work for an honest day's fair wage to flow across our borders.
I once hired a landscape company - a small sole proprietorship - to do my yard work. The owner told us that his crews were hard-working and dependable. He noted that, other than the foreman, they may not speak English. But he also noted that, unlike his American crews, they showed up on time, worked hard, and didn't have to be bailed out of the drunk tank every Monday morning.
I get that. However, it still doesn't justify coming here illegally. Hard-working immigrants can come here through legal channels, obtain a green card or gain citizenship, and pursue a living. It's been happening for centuries.
Other countries - including Mexico (where much of our illegal immigration originates from) and Canada (where many in the liberal left have threatened to go if they didn't get their way, but dammit, they just won't follow through) have much stricter immigration laws than we do. In fact, Canada - taking a page from France, which settled much of our neighbor to the north - has laws protecting its language, refusing to acquiesce to the practice of making everything multilingual. In other words, if you want to live in Quebec, you had better be willing to learn French, or you'll find yourself in a monde de merde.
So what would I do about the illegal immigration problem?
First, I'd provide a path to citizenship for those already here, though even that would probably still leave us with millions of illegal immigrants. Second, I'd secure our borders, as most other countries have done, and as Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama have advocated, so that the problem doesn't perpetuate. Whether that involves a wall - something that Presidents Bush and Obama worked to build, and Senators Clinton and Obama advocated - is secondary.
Third, I'd make it clear: if you're here illegally, but haven't committed ANOTHER crime, we may not deport you, but you will not vote, you will not participate in Social Security or any government health care programs, and your children will not be citizens, even if they're born here. That means they won't have the right to free public education. And if they commit a crime, they will not be jailed here, they will be deported to your home country.
Now, what about President Trump's executive order on immigration?
First, anyone who calls it a "Muslim ban" has already lost my attention, because it is neither. That rhetoric only serves to give voice to what I said in my last post: by having no nuance less than nuclear, your reaction is rendered moot. In other words, if you distort the truth, you're not worth listening to.
The order places a temporary halt to immigration from seven countries that the previous administration identified as exporters of terror. (I'd have actually taken it a step further, and included Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia on the list. Why we continue to delude ourselves into believing that Saudi Arabia is an ally is beyond me, especially after 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. Of course, the answer is oil. Hopefully, this administration's commitment to domestic traditional energy production will reduce our dependence upon Saudi oil - let's face it, we aren't going solar anytime soon, and those who advocate that we should are still largely driving gas-powered cars and flying on airplanes and trains fueled by petroleum products.)
The halt is temporary. Until this administration can put in place proper vetting of immigrants from those countries, something past administrations failed - or refused - to do. Yes, they are predominantly Muslim, but it shouldn't be lost on any thinking person that radical Islamic terrorists have pledged egregious harm against Americans, and that ISIS has sworn that it will infiltrate refugee programs.
I concede that, to date, no Syrian refugee has committed an act of terror on U.S. soil. The operative words are, "to date." ISIS has promised that it will happen. It has happened in Europe. Just because it hasn't happened here yet is no reason to invite it to happen. Were members of my family to be slaughtered by a radical jihadist infliltrating a refugee program, I would first and foremost hold to account those who blindly argued that it wasn't a risk.
This temporary halt is based in part on testimony from the intelligence community under President Obama that we presently cannot properly vet those who come into this country from those nations. Think San Bernardino. Think Orlando.
Some of my liberal friends have argued, "What about Oklahoma City? Charleston? Should we not also deport white Christian males?" That is mere misdirection. No one is talking about deporting terrorists of any stripe. We prosecute them, whether they're Muslim, Christian or Buddhist (there are probably not too many Buddhist terrorists, though). If we could have stopped Timothy McVeigh from coming into this country, we should have. But he was already a citizen, as was Charles Manson. There will always be crime, and mass murder, and terror. But we needn't encourage or enable it. And McVeigh and Manson did not tell the world that they wanted to kill Americans. We learned of their deeds after the fact.
To that point, the halt also isn't limited to Muslims. There are Christians, and probably Hindus and Buddhists and atheists, in the seven countries identified in the executive order. There are also Muslims in many other countries throughout the world. The order addresses only those countries identified by the previous (liberal) administration as being sponsors of terror against the U.S. Of course, the left takes no issue with the origination of that list, only that it is now being used by a Republican administration.
I have faith that we can get the vetting process down. That faith is bolstered by the fact that the 109 detainees from the executive order were vetted and released. But if we don't, I'm fine with those restrictions remaining in place ad infinitum. If Canada wants to take them, let them do so (but let's add Canada to the list then, because we share a border with them). I'd prefer to err on the side of avoiding one more San Bernardino, one more Orlando, one Munich or Paris, than worrying about someone's irrational sensitivities being violated.
Now, regarding refugees. I have nothing but sympathy for those who are persecuted, those who are threatened by war, those whose lives are at risk, be it in Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan. (Or many nations in Africa outside of Somalia - funny how the left doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about the DRC or Nigeria or Rwanda, back when it was in civil war.)
Anyone who knows me, knows this about me. I have participated in mission work from the Gulf after Hurricane Katrina, to the inner reaches of Kansas City, to Malawi in Africa, to the Navajo Nation in the U.S. I have traveled extensively and seen poverty everywhere, from 48 of the 50 U.S. states to more than 20 countries on three continents plus numerous island nations. I have been generous toward the native population in all of those places, from the homeless from New York City to San Diego to the school kids in Malawi for whom I established a scholarship fund with $50,000 of my hard-earned dollars to taxi drivers in places like Antigua and Tortola whom I tipped generously, just because I knew they needed the money more than I.
I understand all of the scripture that speaks to how we should treat the refugee living among us. But nowhere in scripture do I find reference to a mandate to bring the refugee living elsewhere to where I am. I am called to be a brother to those who are living among us, and to provide for them where they are, but not necessarily to bring them here.
And that brings me to a final, important point. The strongest support we can provide to refugees in foreign lands is to aid them in securing those lands. If America were suddenly overrun by some radical force that threatened our freedom (and I recognize that the left will say that's exactly what happened on January 20, but they're delusional), I would not want some foreign government to provide me asylum.
Unless it was someplace with a perfect year-round climate, lots of beaches, great food and a perfect mojito.
I wouldn't want to move to Syria, where my embrace of Christian principles would not be welcomed, where my adherence to traditional western laws would be subverted to Sharia, where I would be expected to support female genital mutilation and honor killings.
Instead, I'd hope that some ally would come in and help me overthrow the forces that were threatening my homeland. Because I've lived here all my life, and I love my country, and would prefer to stay here, free and safe.
Likewise, I assume that most Syrians and Afghans and Iranians would prefer to remain in their homeland, but have it be safe from the tyrants that would threaten their freedoms and their rights. Tyrants that would prohibit their daughters from being educated, and would persecute them for practicing any faith that did not align with the tyrants' most radical views. That is the ultimate refugee protection program, not bringing them all here and expecting them to assimilate into a culture that may be anathema to their own mores and beliefs.
So, noting that I've probably done more for "the least of these" than the vast majority of those protesting President Trump's executive orders, I have no problem with securing our southern border, stemming the flow of illegal immigration, deporting those who have committed further crimes after coming here illegally, and temporarily halting immigration from countries that have demonstrated a commitment to doing us harm until we can better vet those incoming visitors and would-be residents.
Herewith are my views on immigration, which will no doubt lead some to label me all kinds of terrible things. So be it. I'll let my record speak for itself.
First, we are indeed a nation of immigrants. My own progenitors hailed from England, Scotland and Wales, as far as I know. On my father's mother's side, I am a third-generation American.
I've had many friends who are first-generation Americans - from Canada, South Africa, India, Iran, Nepal, France, Russia, Pakistan, Greece, Malawi, Mexico, the DRC and other countries. I love them, and I welcome them to America with open arms.
On my trips to New York City, I've been as moved by visiting Lady Liberty and Ellis Island as I have by visiting Ground Zero.
And yet, there is a Ground Zero. For a reason.
You see, when the British and Dutch originally settled the U.S., fleeing religious persecution in their home countries, they wished to start a new life. They didn't wish death to Americans (though they did kill numerous native Americans, but they came here to settle in a new land, not with a pre-planned vendetta or fatwah against the country's original inhabitants).
When the Irish, Italians, Germans and Scots flowed through Ellis Island, they came solely to make a better life for themselves, and often fleeing persecution. The same is true of the Chinese who flocked to California after the Gold Rush began, and the Mexicans who came across the border after the revolution there.
So how is that different from those coming to the U.S. today, seeking a better life than they could find in Mexico or Central America, or fleeing persecution in places like Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Libya?
Let's first look at the former question, then the latter.
The immigrants who came through Ellis Island, California and from Mexico after the revolution, came here legally. Yes, they wanted the better life that America offered, the economic opportunity, the freedom from heavy-handed central government oppression that quashed their opportunity to make their own way in the world and make a better life for themselves.
In other words, they were fleeing the kind of central government control and life-dictating oppression that Democrats in America seek today.
They worked their tails off, and made better lives for themselves, and made America a better place. Sure, we imported La Cosa Nostra and the Russian Mafia and some gang warfare. But by and large, because these people were committed to coming here legally, gaining citizenship through prescribed channels, they were committed to doing better by doing good. (And we had our fair share of home-grown crime as well, dating from the days of the Mayflower to today.)
So I have a problem with those coming here illegally. (I actually have a problem with anything illegal, because it's - well, illegal. We are a nation of laws, and I am a law-abiding citizen. Except when it comes to speed limits.)
Now, I don't for a minute believe that we could conceivably deport all illegal immigrants. There have been decades of unaddressed illegal immigration, and it represents too much toothpaste having left the tube, and spread itself to every corner of the bathroom.
But when politicians say they want to focus on those who have come here illegally and then committed a crime, my legalistic brain says, "Whoa - stop right there." They don't call it "illegal" immigration for nothing.
The minute you step across this nation's borders illegally, you have broken the law. So why do you have to rape, or steal, or murder, before we determine that you've committed an illegal act? Every illegal immigrant has broken the law, by simply coming here illegally. Like it or not, this is fact. The law is clear; there is no nuance here.
Granted, we have brought some of this upon ourselves. Mollycoddled Americans who refuse to do basic construction or landscaping work for less than what they could earn as a CPA or a dental hygienist have created an environment that invites immigrants unafraid to do an honest day's hard work for an honest day's fair wage to flow across our borders.
I once hired a landscape company - a small sole proprietorship - to do my yard work. The owner told us that his crews were hard-working and dependable. He noted that, other than the foreman, they may not speak English. But he also noted that, unlike his American crews, they showed up on time, worked hard, and didn't have to be bailed out of the drunk tank every Monday morning.
I get that. However, it still doesn't justify coming here illegally. Hard-working immigrants can come here through legal channels, obtain a green card or gain citizenship, and pursue a living. It's been happening for centuries.
Other countries - including Mexico (where much of our illegal immigration originates from) and Canada (where many in the liberal left have threatened to go if they didn't get their way, but dammit, they just won't follow through) have much stricter immigration laws than we do. In fact, Canada - taking a page from France, which settled much of our neighbor to the north - has laws protecting its language, refusing to acquiesce to the practice of making everything multilingual. In other words, if you want to live in Quebec, you had better be willing to learn French, or you'll find yourself in a monde de merde.
So what would I do about the illegal immigration problem?
First, I'd provide a path to citizenship for those already here, though even that would probably still leave us with millions of illegal immigrants. Second, I'd secure our borders, as most other countries have done, and as Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama have advocated, so that the problem doesn't perpetuate. Whether that involves a wall - something that Presidents Bush and Obama worked to build, and Senators Clinton and Obama advocated - is secondary.
Third, I'd make it clear: if you're here illegally, but haven't committed ANOTHER crime, we may not deport you, but you will not vote, you will not participate in Social Security or any government health care programs, and your children will not be citizens, even if they're born here. That means they won't have the right to free public education. And if they commit a crime, they will not be jailed here, they will be deported to your home country.
Now, what about President Trump's executive order on immigration?
First, anyone who calls it a "Muslim ban" has already lost my attention, because it is neither. That rhetoric only serves to give voice to what I said in my last post: by having no nuance less than nuclear, your reaction is rendered moot. In other words, if you distort the truth, you're not worth listening to.
The order places a temporary halt to immigration from seven countries that the previous administration identified as exporters of terror. (I'd have actually taken it a step further, and included Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia on the list. Why we continue to delude ourselves into believing that Saudi Arabia is an ally is beyond me, especially after 9/11 and Osama bin Laden. Of course, the answer is oil. Hopefully, this administration's commitment to domestic traditional energy production will reduce our dependence upon Saudi oil - let's face it, we aren't going solar anytime soon, and those who advocate that we should are still largely driving gas-powered cars and flying on airplanes and trains fueled by petroleum products.)
The halt is temporary. Until this administration can put in place proper vetting of immigrants from those countries, something past administrations failed - or refused - to do. Yes, they are predominantly Muslim, but it shouldn't be lost on any thinking person that radical Islamic terrorists have pledged egregious harm against Americans, and that ISIS has sworn that it will infiltrate refugee programs.
I concede that, to date, no Syrian refugee has committed an act of terror on U.S. soil. The operative words are, "to date." ISIS has promised that it will happen. It has happened in Europe. Just because it hasn't happened here yet is no reason to invite it to happen. Were members of my family to be slaughtered by a radical jihadist infliltrating a refugee program, I would first and foremost hold to account those who blindly argued that it wasn't a risk.
This temporary halt is based in part on testimony from the intelligence community under President Obama that we presently cannot properly vet those who come into this country from those nations. Think San Bernardino. Think Orlando.
Some of my liberal friends have argued, "What about Oklahoma City? Charleston? Should we not also deport white Christian males?" That is mere misdirection. No one is talking about deporting terrorists of any stripe. We prosecute them, whether they're Muslim, Christian or Buddhist (there are probably not too many Buddhist terrorists, though). If we could have stopped Timothy McVeigh from coming into this country, we should have. But he was already a citizen, as was Charles Manson. There will always be crime, and mass murder, and terror. But we needn't encourage or enable it. And McVeigh and Manson did not tell the world that they wanted to kill Americans. We learned of their deeds after the fact.
To that point, the halt also isn't limited to Muslims. There are Christians, and probably Hindus and Buddhists and atheists, in the seven countries identified in the executive order. There are also Muslims in many other countries throughout the world. The order addresses only those countries identified by the previous (liberal) administration as being sponsors of terror against the U.S. Of course, the left takes no issue with the origination of that list, only that it is now being used by a Republican administration.
I have faith that we can get the vetting process down. That faith is bolstered by the fact that the 109 detainees from the executive order were vetted and released. But if we don't, I'm fine with those restrictions remaining in place ad infinitum. If Canada wants to take them, let them do so (but let's add Canada to the list then, because we share a border with them). I'd prefer to err on the side of avoiding one more San Bernardino, one more Orlando, one Munich or Paris, than worrying about someone's irrational sensitivities being violated.
Now, regarding refugees. I have nothing but sympathy for those who are persecuted, those who are threatened by war, those whose lives are at risk, be it in Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan. (Or many nations in Africa outside of Somalia - funny how the left doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about the DRC or Nigeria or Rwanda, back when it was in civil war.)
Anyone who knows me, knows this about me. I have participated in mission work from the Gulf after Hurricane Katrina, to the inner reaches of Kansas City, to Malawi in Africa, to the Navajo Nation in the U.S. I have traveled extensively and seen poverty everywhere, from 48 of the 50 U.S. states to more than 20 countries on three continents plus numerous island nations. I have been generous toward the native population in all of those places, from the homeless from New York City to San Diego to the school kids in Malawi for whom I established a scholarship fund with $50,000 of my hard-earned dollars to taxi drivers in places like Antigua and Tortola whom I tipped generously, just because I knew they needed the money more than I.
I understand all of the scripture that speaks to how we should treat the refugee living among us. But nowhere in scripture do I find reference to a mandate to bring the refugee living elsewhere to where I am. I am called to be a brother to those who are living among us, and to provide for them where they are, but not necessarily to bring them here.
And that brings me to a final, important point. The strongest support we can provide to refugees in foreign lands is to aid them in securing those lands. If America were suddenly overrun by some radical force that threatened our freedom (and I recognize that the left will say that's exactly what happened on January 20, but they're delusional), I would not want some foreign government to provide me asylum.
Unless it was someplace with a perfect year-round climate, lots of beaches, great food and a perfect mojito.
I wouldn't want to move to Syria, where my embrace of Christian principles would not be welcomed, where my adherence to traditional western laws would be subverted to Sharia, where I would be expected to support female genital mutilation and honor killings.
Instead, I'd hope that some ally would come in and help me overthrow the forces that were threatening my homeland. Because I've lived here all my life, and I love my country, and would prefer to stay here, free and safe.
Likewise, I assume that most Syrians and Afghans and Iranians would prefer to remain in their homeland, but have it be safe from the tyrants that would threaten their freedoms and their rights. Tyrants that would prohibit their daughters from being educated, and would persecute them for practicing any faith that did not align with the tyrants' most radical views. That is the ultimate refugee protection program, not bringing them all here and expecting them to assimilate into a culture that may be anathema to their own mores and beliefs.
So, noting that I've probably done more for "the least of these" than the vast majority of those protesting President Trump's executive orders, I have no problem with securing our southern border, stemming the flow of illegal immigration, deporting those who have committed further crimes after coming here illegally, and temporarily halting immigration from countries that have demonstrated a commitment to doing us harm until we can better vet those incoming visitors and would-be residents.
You Say You Want a Revolution?
That line is from the Beatles' classic, "Revolution," which appeared on the incredibly innovative White Album. For the youngsters out there, the White Album, the band's ninth (recorded in 1968) was actually titled, "The Beatles"; it was dubbed the White Album due to its all-white cover, with no graphics. It consisted of a two-record set (again, for the youngsters, you can google what a record album was - it was the precursor to the eight-track tape, which was followed by the cassette tape, then the CD, all of which pre-dated iTunes, Apple Music, Pandora and Spotify).
The Beatles wrote the album after extensive experimentation with LSD and transcendental meditation, and it shows in their music. The band was not shy about making political statements, and the album contains a number of them. "Revolution" is foremost among them, though. While the Beatles' politics were liberal, the song takes a jab at the protesters of the day, admonishing them to avoid going to extremes to try and achieve their ends. More on those protests later.
The New Left movement, which was an extreme radical movement in the late '60s and '70s, decried the song as being a "betrayal." But the Beatles were speaking truth, and their words still ring true today. The lyrics include these lines:
"You say you want a revolution, well, you know, we all want the world to change ... But when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out ... You say you got a real solution, well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan ... You ask me for a contribution, well, you know, we're all doing what we can ... But if you want money for people with minds that hate [the Beatles recognized that there was at least as much hatred on the part of the radical New Left as on the part of those they opposed, a truism that still holds today], all I can tell you is brother you'll have to wait ..."
The lyrics go on: "You say you'll change the Constitution, well, you know, we all want to change your head [the Beatles recognized that the Constitution is not the problem; it exists for sound reasons if people would only understand its genesis and meaning] ... You tell me it's the institution, well, you know, you better free your mind instead [in other words, let go of your biases and try to achieve understanding] ..."
And this: "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao [again, for the youngsters, Chairman Mao was the leader of the brutal and oppressive Chinese Revolution], you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
In other words, the Beatles were saying that if you're going to go to extremes, placing on pedestals leaders like Mao and Che Guevara and Castro - leaders revered by the left, but who were far more oppressive than the perceived oppression of Donald Trump or George W. Bush or Richard Nixon, the President back then - nobody will pay attention to you.
And that, boys and girls, is the real subject of this post.
We've seen political protests in this country before - real protests, over real issues. The Civil Rights movement, which was led by Martin Luther King. He overcame bigotry and inequality with love - not empty slogans like "Love Trumps Hate," but truly preaching resistance by loving those who would oppress you, and then practicing what he preached. You can't win hearts and minds by preaching love while spewing hate.
The Vietnam War protests, with leaders like Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, the Black Panthers. Today's protesters are but mere pikers by comparison. These weren't latte-sipping, celebrity-worshiping wannabes who carried signs with misspelled words and posted memes from Occupy Democrats on Facebook. These were revolutionaries. And they weren't hired guns, paid by the likes of George Soros. They organized themselves, and acted on principle.
Yes, there was violence, but they didn't smash Starbucks windows or punch police horses. Four protesters were killed by state police at Kent State University, and that incident was immortalized by Crosby, Stills and Nash in the song, "Ohio," with the refrain, "Four dead in Ohio." Even the musical artists of the day made the likes of Madonna, Katy Perry and Miley Cyrus look like pikers (and those early artists had a lot more talent) - CSN, the Beatles, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Country Joe and the Fish.
Yeah, I know, Madonna said she's thought about blowing up the White House, but no one actually believes that she'd actually do it, or that she could even figure out how if she wanted to. (Interestingly, after her comments, she said they were "taken out of context." Hmmm. "I've thought a lot about blowing up the White House" leaves little room for ambiguity. She added that she "spoke in metaphor and shared two ways of looking at things." Hey - is that like an "alternative fact?")
Here's what's interesting: the radical revolutionaries of the late '60s and early '70s became the establishment of the '80s - entrepreneurs who turned capitalist, realizing that they could do more to change the world by actually contributing to it, generating capital to foment meaningful change, than by toting an incomprehensible sign or busting out a Starbucks window or verbally abusing someone on an airplane.
Consider Jerry Rubin. After leading the Yippie movement (google away, youngsters), he became a stockbroker, saying, "I know that I can be more effective today wearing a suit and tie and working on Wall Street than I can be dancing outside the walls of power."
He also said, "Wealth creation is the real American revolution. What we need is an infusion of capital into the depressed areas of our country." (Rubin was one of the early investors in Apple, and became a multimillionaire. By the way, Steve Jobs chose the Apple brand and logo based on the Beatles' record label of the same name. Counterculture turned into massive market cap.)
In other words, Rubin was saying, get off your ass and do something about the problems, don't just bitch about them and expect someone else to fix them in the way you think they ought to be fixed, when you can't even articulate what those solutions are. Mobilize your ideals (if you truly have ideals) into something tangible - with a capital $.
So will today's young "radicals" become the establishment, the leaders of future generations of capitalist entrepreneurs? I'm not seeing it. But who knows?
Back to the Beatles' song. What they're saying is very nicely summed up by what a very smart friend of mine posted on Facebook, but first, let's look at what he was talking about (and what the Beatles were talking about).
Everything Donald Trump has done since being elected President has been protested. The electoral college vs. the popular vote (even though, if the shoe were on the other foot, those opposing the electoral system would be defending it). Every appointment he's made, sometimes for no reason at all. (Trump could have appointed Barack Obama to the Supreme Court and the left would have been outraged). Every executive order, even the ones that were essentially the same as orders signed by Obama and Bill Clinton. Even his visit to the return of the body of a fallen Navy Seal didn't earn him a pass with the left.
At some point, all that noise becomes nothing more than so much crying wolf. And what did the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf teach us?
If you cry wolf at every turn, people stop listening. And then, when the wolf does appear and you try to alert everyone, you've lost all credibility.
We're fast approaching that point, a scant two weeks since Trump's inauguration. What my friend posted on Facebook is this (and I paraphrase):
"When there is no nuance between nothing and nuclear, pretty soon the nuclear response is treated as nothing. And then, when something is done that is truly egregious, no one will listen to the response." (By the way, this friend is not a Trump supporter, but is an astute observer.)
So what the left risks is being tuned out, which is already beginning to happen. And when they are tuned out, that will only mobilize the rest of the country - moderate to right - to vote in opposition come 2020. In other words, the left is well on its way to virtually guaranteeing Donald Trump's re-election, as a visceral response to their own nuclear lunacy. Just as his initial election was a visceral response to eight years of the same.
In parting, let's recall the final refrain of the choruses from "Revolution":
"Don't you know it's gonna be all right."
It was in the '60s and '70s, and it will be in the years to come.
So rest easy, snowflakes. Go to your safe space and have a hot cocoa if you must. But please, just be sure and buy it from Starbucks.
Why would I say that, when I don't like their overpriced mediocre coffee and I don't agree with their management's liberal views?
I'm a shareholder. Jerry Rubin would be so proud.
The Beatles wrote the album after extensive experimentation with LSD and transcendental meditation, and it shows in their music. The band was not shy about making political statements, and the album contains a number of them. "Revolution" is foremost among them, though. While the Beatles' politics were liberal, the song takes a jab at the protesters of the day, admonishing them to avoid going to extremes to try and achieve their ends. More on those protests later.
The New Left movement, which was an extreme radical movement in the late '60s and '70s, decried the song as being a "betrayal." But the Beatles were speaking truth, and their words still ring true today. The lyrics include these lines:
"You say you want a revolution, well, you know, we all want the world to change ... But when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out ... You say you got a real solution, well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan ... You ask me for a contribution, well, you know, we're all doing what we can ... But if you want money for people with minds that hate [the Beatles recognized that there was at least as much hatred on the part of the radical New Left as on the part of those they opposed, a truism that still holds today], all I can tell you is brother you'll have to wait ..."
The lyrics go on: "You say you'll change the Constitution, well, you know, we all want to change your head [the Beatles recognized that the Constitution is not the problem; it exists for sound reasons if people would only understand its genesis and meaning] ... You tell me it's the institution, well, you know, you better free your mind instead [in other words, let go of your biases and try to achieve understanding] ..."
And this: "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao [again, for the youngsters, Chairman Mao was the leader of the brutal and oppressive Chinese Revolution], you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
In other words, the Beatles were saying that if you're going to go to extremes, placing on pedestals leaders like Mao and Che Guevara and Castro - leaders revered by the left, but who were far more oppressive than the perceived oppression of Donald Trump or George W. Bush or Richard Nixon, the President back then - nobody will pay attention to you.
And that, boys and girls, is the real subject of this post.
We've seen political protests in this country before - real protests, over real issues. The Civil Rights movement, which was led by Martin Luther King. He overcame bigotry and inequality with love - not empty slogans like "Love Trumps Hate," but truly preaching resistance by loving those who would oppress you, and then practicing what he preached. You can't win hearts and minds by preaching love while spewing hate.
The Vietnam War protests, with leaders like Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, the Black Panthers. Today's protesters are but mere pikers by comparison. These weren't latte-sipping, celebrity-worshiping wannabes who carried signs with misspelled words and posted memes from Occupy Democrats on Facebook. These were revolutionaries. And they weren't hired guns, paid by the likes of George Soros. They organized themselves, and acted on principle.
Yes, there was violence, but they didn't smash Starbucks windows or punch police horses. Four protesters were killed by state police at Kent State University, and that incident was immortalized by Crosby, Stills and Nash in the song, "Ohio," with the refrain, "Four dead in Ohio." Even the musical artists of the day made the likes of Madonna, Katy Perry and Miley Cyrus look like pikers (and those early artists had a lot more talent) - CSN, the Beatles, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Country Joe and the Fish.
Yeah, I know, Madonna said she's thought about blowing up the White House, but no one actually believes that she'd actually do it, or that she could even figure out how if she wanted to. (Interestingly, after her comments, she said they were "taken out of context." Hmmm. "I've thought a lot about blowing up the White House" leaves little room for ambiguity. She added that she "spoke in metaphor and shared two ways of looking at things." Hey - is that like an "alternative fact?")
Here's what's interesting: the radical revolutionaries of the late '60s and early '70s became the establishment of the '80s - entrepreneurs who turned capitalist, realizing that they could do more to change the world by actually contributing to it, generating capital to foment meaningful change, than by toting an incomprehensible sign or busting out a Starbucks window or verbally abusing someone on an airplane.
Consider Jerry Rubin. After leading the Yippie movement (google away, youngsters), he became a stockbroker, saying, "I know that I can be more effective today wearing a suit and tie and working on Wall Street than I can be dancing outside the walls of power."
He also said, "Wealth creation is the real American revolution. What we need is an infusion of capital into the depressed areas of our country." (Rubin was one of the early investors in Apple, and became a multimillionaire. By the way, Steve Jobs chose the Apple brand and logo based on the Beatles' record label of the same name. Counterculture turned into massive market cap.)
In other words, Rubin was saying, get off your ass and do something about the problems, don't just bitch about them and expect someone else to fix them in the way you think they ought to be fixed, when you can't even articulate what those solutions are. Mobilize your ideals (if you truly have ideals) into something tangible - with a capital $.
So will today's young "radicals" become the establishment, the leaders of future generations of capitalist entrepreneurs? I'm not seeing it. But who knows?
Back to the Beatles' song. What they're saying is very nicely summed up by what a very smart friend of mine posted on Facebook, but first, let's look at what he was talking about (and what the Beatles were talking about).
Everything Donald Trump has done since being elected President has been protested. The electoral college vs. the popular vote (even though, if the shoe were on the other foot, those opposing the electoral system would be defending it). Every appointment he's made, sometimes for no reason at all. (Trump could have appointed Barack Obama to the Supreme Court and the left would have been outraged). Every executive order, even the ones that were essentially the same as orders signed by Obama and Bill Clinton. Even his visit to the return of the body of a fallen Navy Seal didn't earn him a pass with the left.
At some point, all that noise becomes nothing more than so much crying wolf. And what did the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf teach us?
If you cry wolf at every turn, people stop listening. And then, when the wolf does appear and you try to alert everyone, you've lost all credibility.
We're fast approaching that point, a scant two weeks since Trump's inauguration. What my friend posted on Facebook is this (and I paraphrase):
"When there is no nuance between nothing and nuclear, pretty soon the nuclear response is treated as nothing. And then, when something is done that is truly egregious, no one will listen to the response." (By the way, this friend is not a Trump supporter, but is an astute observer.)
So what the left risks is being tuned out, which is already beginning to happen. And when they are tuned out, that will only mobilize the rest of the country - moderate to right - to vote in opposition come 2020. In other words, the left is well on its way to virtually guaranteeing Donald Trump's re-election, as a visceral response to their own nuclear lunacy. Just as his initial election was a visceral response to eight years of the same.
In parting, let's recall the final refrain of the choruses from "Revolution":
"Don't you know it's gonna be all right."
It was in the '60s and '70s, and it will be in the years to come.
So rest easy, snowflakes. Go to your safe space and have a hot cocoa if you must. But please, just be sure and buy it from Starbucks.
Why would I say that, when I don't like their overpriced mediocre coffee and I don't agree with their management's liberal views?
I'm a shareholder. Jerry Rubin would be so proud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)