Justplainbill's Weblog

July 30, 2017

Trump, by Evan Sayet [c]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 12:28 am

July 14, 2017 by Evan Sayet

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.” Here’s my answer:

We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency. We tried statesmanship. Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain? We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney? And the results were always the same.

This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party. I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks. I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent. Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.

With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming. Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”

General George Patton was a vulgar-talking, son-of-a-bitch. In peacetime, this might have seen him stripped of rank. But, had Franklin Roosevelt applied the normal rules of decorum, then Hitler and the Socialists would barely be five decades into their thousand-year Reich.

Trump is fighting. And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!” That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics.

That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis. It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do.

First, instead of going after “the fake media” – and they are so fake that they have literally gotten every single significant story of the past 60 years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth, from the Tet Offensive to Benghazi, to what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri – Trump isolated CNN. He made it personal. Then, just as Alinsky suggests, he employs ridicule which Alinsky described as “the most powerful weapon of all.”

Everyone gets that it’s not just CNN – in fact, in a world where Al Sharpton and Rachel Maddow, Paul Krugman and Nicholas Kristof are people of influence and whose “reporting” is in no way significantly different than CNN’s – CNN is just a piker.

Most importantly, Trump’s tweets have put CNN in an untenable and unwinnable position. With Trump’s ability to go around them, they cannot simply stand pat. They need to respond. This leaves them with only two choices.

They can either “go high” (as Hillary would disingenuously declare of herself and the fake news would disingenuously report as the truth) and begin to honestly and accurately report the news or they can double-down on their usual tactics and hope to defeat Trump with twice their usual hysteria and demagoguery.

The problem for CNN (et al.) with the former is that, if they were to start honestly reporting the news, that would be the end of the Democratic Party they serve. It is nothing but the incessant use of fake news (read: propaganda) that keeps the Left alive.

Imagine, for example, if CNN had honestly and accurately reported then-candidate Barack Obama’s close ties to foreign terrorists (Rashid Khalidi), domestic terrorists (William Ayers), the mafia (Tony Rezko) or the true evils of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright’s, church.

Imagine if they had honestly and accurately conveyed the evils of the Obama administration’s weaponizing of the IRS to be used against their political opponents or his running of guns to the Mexican cartels or the truth about the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the Obama administration’s cover-up.

This makes “going high” a non-starter for CNN. This leaves them no other option but to ratchet up the fake news, conjuring up the next “nothing burger” and devoting 24 hours a day to hysterical rants about how it’s “worse than Nixon.”

This, obviously, is what CNN has chosen to do. The problem is that, as they become more and more hysterical, they become more and more obvious. Each new effort at even faker news than before and faker “outrage” only makes that much more clear to any objective observer that Trump is and always has been right about the fake news media.

And, by causing their hysteria, Trump has forced them into numerous, highly embarrassing and discrediting mistakes. Thus, in their desperation, they have lowered their standards even further and run with articles so clearly fake that, even with the liberal (lower case “l”) libel laws protecting the media, they’ve had to wholly retract and erase their stories repeatedly.

Their flailing at Trump has even seen them cross the line into criminality, with CNN using their vast corporate fortune to hunt down a private citizen for having made fun of them in an Internet meme. This threat to “dox” – release of personal information to encourage co-ideologists to visit violence upon him and his family — a political satirist was chilling in that it clearly wasn’t meant just for him. If it were, there would have been no reason for CNN to have made their “deal” with him public.

Instead, CNN – playing by “Chicago Rules” – was sending a message to any and all: dissent will not be tolerated.

This heavy-handed and hysterical response to a joke on the Internet has backfired on CNN, giving rise to only more righteous ridicule.

So, to my friends on the Left – and the #NeverTrumpers as well — do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”? Of course I do. These aren’t those times. This is war. And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years.

So, say anything you want about this president – I get it, he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times. I don’t care. I can’t spare this man. He fights.

[If you can find a copy, after reading this, read Thomas W. Chittum’s “Civil War II”.]

July 19, 2017

The Fifth American War, by Victor Hanson, [c]

The Fifth American War
July 18, 2017 11:05 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
by Victor Davis Hanson// National Review

The country is coming apart, and the advocates of radical egalitarianism are winning.

The wars between Trump, the media, the deep state, and the progressive party — replete with charges and counter-charges of scandal, collusion, and corruption — are merely symptoms of a much larger fundamental and growing divide between Americans that is reaching a dangerous climax.

On four prior occasions in American history the country nearly split apart, as seemingly irreconcilable cultural, economic, political, social, geographical, and demographic fault lines opened a path to hatred and violence.

During the Jacksonian Revolution of the 1830s, factions nearly ripped the country apart over whether the East Coast Founders’ establishment of a half-century would relinquish its monopoly of political power to reflect the new demographic realties of an expanding frontier — and its populist champions often deemed unfit for self-governance. For the most part, the Jacksonians won.

Three decades later the nation divided over slavery, prompting the most lethal war in American history to end it and force the defeated Confederate southern states back into the Union.

The Great Depression, and the establishment’s inept responses to it, left a quarter of the country unemployed for nearly a decade — hungry and desperate to expand government even if it entailed curtailing liberty in a way never envisioned by the Founders. The result was eventually the redefinition of freedom as the right of the individual to have his daily needs guaranteed by the state.

In the 1960s, the hippie movement — fueled by furor over the Vietnam War, civil-rights protests, and environmental activism — turned holistic in a fashion rarely seen before. A quarter of the country went “hip,” grooming, dressing, talking, and acting in a way that reflected their disdain for the silent majority of “straight” or “irrelevant” traditional America. The hipsters lost the battle (most eventually cut their hair and outgrew their paisley tops to join the rat race) but won the war — as the universities, media, foundations, Hollywood, arts, and entertainment now echo the values of 1969 rather than those that preceded it.

Now we are engaged in yet a fifth revolutionary divide, similar to, but often unlike, prior upheavals. The consequences of globalization, the growth of the deep state, changing demographics, open borders, the rise of a geographic apartheid between blue and red states, and the institutionalization of a permanent coastal political and culture elite — and the reaction to all that — are tearing apart the country.

Despite its 21st-century veneer, the nature of the divide is often over ancient questions of politics and society.

The Deep State
Technological advances, the entrance of a billion Chinese into the global work force, and the huge growth in the administrative entitlement state have redefined material want. The poor today have access to appurtenances undreamed of just five decades ago by the upper middle classes: one or two dependable cars, big-screen televisions, designer sneakers and jeans, and an array of appliances from air conditioning to microwave ovens. The rub is not that a Kia has no stereo system but that it does not have the same model that’s in the rich man’s Lexus. Inequality does not mean starvation: Obesity is now a national epidemic among the nation’s poor; one in four Californians admitted for any reason to a hospital is found to suffer from diabetes or similar high-blood-sugar maladies due largely to an unhealthy diet and lifestyle choices.

In political terms, the conflict hinges on whether the powers of entrenched government will be used to ensure a rough equality of result — at the expense of personal liberty and free will. The old argument that a wealthy entrepreneurial class, if left free of burdensome and unnecessary government restrictions to create wealth, will enrich all Americans, is now largely discredited. Or rather it is stranger than that. The hyper wealthy — a Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, or Warren Buffett — by brilliant marketing and opportunistic politics are mostly immune from government audit, and from robber-baron and antitrust backlash. Instead, redistributive ire is aimed at the upper middle class, which lacks the influence and romance of the extremely wealthy and is shrinking because of higher taxes, ever-increasing regulations, and globalized trade.
It does not matter that the ossified European social model does not work and leads to collective decline in the standard of living. The world knows that from seeing the implosion of Venezuela and Cuba, or the gradual decline of the EU and the wreckage of its Mediterranean members, or the plight of blue states such as Illinois and California. Instead, it is the near-religious idea of egalitarianism that counts; on the global stage, it has all but won the war against liberty. We are all creatures of the Animal Farm barnyard now.

Indeed, if today’s student actually read Orwell’s short allegorical novel (perhaps unlikely because it was written by a white male heterosexual), he would miss the message and instead probably approve of the various machinations of the zealot pig Napoleon to do whatever he deemed necessary to end the old regime, even if it meant re-creating it under a new correct veneer.

The conservative effort to roll back the entitlement, bureaucratic, and redistributionist state has so far mostly failed. That today, coming off sequestration, we are on target to run up a $700 billion annual deficit, on top of a $20 trillion national debt, goes largely unnoticed. Eighteen trillion dollars in national debt later, Ronald Reagan’s idea of cutting taxes to “starve the beast’ of federal spending has been superseded by “gorge the beast” to ensure that taxes rise on the upper classes. To the degree that there is a residual war over entitlements, it is not over cutting back such unsustainable programs, but instead about modestly pruning the level of annual increases.

The government necessary to ensure such continued state borrowing and spending is now nearly autonomous and transcends politics — and is eager to use its formidable powers against any who threaten it.

Identity Politics
On a second front, there is a veritable civil war over race, ethnicity, gender, and identity. Massive immigration, the rise of opportunistic identity politics, and a new tribalism have replaced the old melting pot of assimilation, integration, and intermarriage with salad-bowl separatism. The only obstacle to the tribal state is that there may soon be too many victims with too many claims on too few oppressors.

There are too many incentives — from political spoils and university admissions, to government employment and popular cultural acceptance — to identify with one’s tribe rather than simply as an American.

The problems with such tribal fissuring are threefold. One, the rhetorical disdain for traditional majority culture and values operates in a landscape in which the critic adopts the tropes and lifestyles of all that he demonizes. From what traditions do the Claremont or Berkeley students believe their rights of protest derive? Where do they get their expectations of clean campus water or capital to drop out of the economy for four years of college? Was the technology behind the iPhone a result of a patriarchal, nativist, male culture — and does that therefore make the device tainted and unsuitable for use?

Second, if red-state, traditional America is constantly assaulted with various charges of –isms and —ologies, why would any foreigner wish to enter the United States, or upon entering live in such wretched places as red-state Arizona, Texas, Florida, or Utah? Is schizophrenia thus required: Concretely use and enjoy the legacies of a demonized culture while abstractly damning them?

Third, when tribalism supersedes the individual, then all criteria of merit, character, and ethics recede into identity: Race, gender, and ethnicity replace merit and we begin to have black NASA engineers, white nuclear-plant operators, or brown jet pilots rather than missiles, power, and flights that are overseen and operated by the most skilled among us. When a society operates on a tribal basis — we see it often in Africa and the Middle East — everything from tap water to IVs are a luxury.

In short, will America remain a multiracial nation united in one culture in which superficial physical appearance becomes largely irrelevant (and indeed one’s racial DNA pedigree soon becomes almost undefinable), or will it go the tribal route that ultimately leads to something like the Balkans, Rwanda, Iraq — or Evergreen State, Ferguson, and Middlebury?

Finally, there is a growing rejection of the founding principles of the United States, its traditional Christian-based values, and the old idea of American exceptionalism. Federalism and the idea of a republic, after all, do not necessarily lead to radical egalitarianism or a society of absolute equals. Yet the modern progressive mind is wedded to two principles: that 51 percent of the population at any given moment should have the final say in governance only if it reflects correct progressive principles; and if the population is “fooled” and votes incorrectly, then an elite in government, the courts, and the media will intervene to set in place what hoi polloi should have done to properly advance the correct agendas.

In practical terms, will universities still teach the inductive method and fact-based knowledge, or deductive social activism? Will our past be seen as noble and at times tragic, or melodramatically as exploitive? And will progressives abide by occasional political setbacks in elections, the courts, and popular referenda, or seek to subvert those institutions as unacceptable impediments to their radically egalitarian agendas?

So who is winning this fifth American conflict, and why?

It has an insidious appeal to human nature, offering contexts and arguments for dependency — which is defined as the consequence of some sort of prior unethical exploitation (rather than chance, bad luck, or personal pathology, perhaps in addition to exploitation) and therefore deserving of proper recompense. Progressivism promises a transcendence over nature’s limitations through superior education, proper training, and correct reasoning, as if poverty, illness, and inequality were not innate to human nature but results of selfishness and ignorance and so rather easily remedied. It confuses technological progress with a credo that human nature itself evolves in predictably progressive ways, thereby supposedly making obsolete institutions and protocols (from the Constitution itself to ancient ideas such as deterrence) that were once time-honored.

Virtue-signaling among elites who are critical of the very protocols that led to their own success serves as a psychological mechanism to alleviate guilt about privilege. And when an elite deprecates its own culture, the ripple effects widen upon reaching the masses. The combination of market capitalism and personal freedom can enervate a population, misleading people into thinking that their bounty is unending and natural, and giving them the latitude for cynicism, skepticism, and nihilism about the sources of their privilege. In the West, a narcissism follows that oddly manifests itself in thinking that human sins are almost exclusively Westerners’ own.

These age-old observations often led to depressions among Western philosophers who grasped the Western paradox that the success of market capitalism and constitutional government might undermine the ancient virtues essential to their continuance.

In this latest arena of civil dissent, Donald Trump, the renegade liberal and most unlikely traditionalist, squares off against the elite that despises his very being not only for reasons of class and culture, but mostly for attempting to restore a traditional regime of citizenship, individualism, assimilation, territorial sovereignty, recognized borders, strong defense, deterrence abroad, and free-market capitalism.

In sum, behind the daily hysterias over collusions, recusals, obstructions, and nullifications, there is an ongoing, often vicious war over the very nature and future of Western culture in general and America in particular.

[25 years behind the prophetic Thomas W. Chittum’ “Civil War II”. Frequently I recommend outside reading to Dr. Hanson’s columns.

1. Thomas W. Chittum; “Civil War II”;
2. Thomas Sowell; “The Vision of the Anointed”; &
3. William S. Klocek; “The Albany Plan Re-Visited”.

#3 offers a section for a complete reorganization of the Federal Government and a section, with underlying reasons as to why & how, on a new constitution. It also, for those recalcitrants opposed to a new constitution but willing to amend the current one, a section of amendments and even one of proposed legislation.]

July 6, 2017

Freedom and Tyranny: The Meaning of Independence Day, by Bruce Thornton [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 1:23 pm

Freedom and Tyranny: The Meaning of Independence Day
July 5, 2017 11:46 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
A reflection amidst the barbecues and fireworks and the paeans to patriotism.
By Bruce Thornton // Front Page Mag

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

The Fourth of July is not just another day off from work. Nor is it just the celebration of our country’s birth, the bold act of the Colonists in challenging the world’s greatest power and creating a government based on freedom and self-rule. On this day 241 years ago the delegates to the Second Continental Congress adopted a document that laid the foundations of the American political order. Sadly, the meaning of the Declaration of Independence has been lost, and the order it created eroded by progressivism.

One of the greatest statements of political philosophy occurs in the preamble to the Declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ––That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .

Government is a creation of the sovereign people who must consent to its forms and functions. It is thus accountable to the people, and exists primarily to protect their rights, especially freedom, that precede government. These rights are the “unalienable” foundations of our human nature, and come from a “Creator” and the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” They are not gifts of the powerful or any institutions that an elite of wealth or birth create to serve their interests. They cannot justly be taken away by any earthly power, but they can be limited and destroyed by tyranny.

Central to these rights is freedom, which implies self-rule as well as the scope to pursue “happiness,” the actions and behaviors, the way of living that achieves a good and virtuous life suitable for a human being possessing reason and free will. To secure the freedom of the individual requires political liberty expressed through a government of laws and institutions that reflect the collective consent of the people, and whose agents are chosen by the citizens or their representatives, and thus are accountable to the people.

A little more than a decade later the Constitution formalized the structures of governing that would protect this ideal. Recognizing that human nature is flawed and subject to “passions and interests,” and fearful of power’s “encroaching nature,” the framers separated, checked, and balanced power through federalism and mixed government. James Madison in Federalist 51 famously expressed the assumptions lying behind a form of government designed for the “preservation of liberty”:

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Given a fallen human nature, power must never be allowed to be concentrated into an elite of any sort, for neither birth, wealth, nor wisdom can guard against the destructive excesses of power. Defend the people’s ordered liberty, equality of opportunity, and equality under the law, and the freedom of all will be protected.

This is the American creed, the set of ideas assent to which makes one an American­­––not blood, or soil, or any mystic “identity” exclusive of others and claiming a natural superiority over them.

The bulk of the Declaration, however, is a catalogue of the despotic acts of George III, whose “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” justified the rebellion against Britain. The word “tyranny” here is not used casually: it is a technical term from political philosophy going back to its beginnings in ancient Athens. Tyranny is the opposite of liberty and equality, for it makes power the instrument of the self-aggrandizement of the few at the expense of the many. As Aristotle wrote, tyranny is “arbitrary power . . . which is responsible to no one, and governs all alike, whether equals or betters, with a view to its own advantage, not to that of its subjects, and therefore against their will. No freeman willingly endures such a government.” A tyranny is diametrically opposed to the ideas set out in preamble to the Declaration.

At the end of the 19th century, progressivism began to undermine and dismantle the American creed, and to create a government in many ways similar to “absolute tyranny.” The advances of science and technology deluded many into believing that human nature and behavior could be understood and manipulated and improved with the same success natural science enjoyed. The old American creed based on a permanently flawed human nature and the need to disperse and balance power had to be discarded. As Woodrow Wilson said, the Constitution had to be interpreted “according to the Darwinian principle,” with a centralized government of technocrats who could shape or “nudge,” as our progressives today put it, human nature into greater “fitness” for happiness in a new world of science and technology. Now power is to be concentrated into an elite of superior knowledge charged with shaping people’s lives in order to “improve” them, and empowered to confiscate and redistribute wealth in order to finance this social engineering.

Also contrary to the Declaration is the progressive view of rights. Now rights come not from “Nature and Nature’s God,” their origins and nature transcendent. Now rights are derived from the will of flawed men, defined according to their limited and contingent vision of happiness and the good. Just as they disparage the Constitution, progressive thinkers sneer at the notion of natural rights “beyond the reach, not only of the majority but of the state itself,” as progressive historian Charles Beard wrote in 1912, who reduced natural rights to an “obsolete and indefensible” notion. Putting rights into the hands of powerful men meant that they could be multiplied and expanded by political power, as Franklin Roosevelt did in his 1944 inaugural address, in which he called for a Second Bill of Rights including everything from a “useful and remunerative job” to “adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.” But this turns rights into the gifts of power wielded by flawed and limited human beings, and as such the foundations of our rights are temporal and always up for debate and redefinition, as we have seen in communist countries or in Islamic sharia law.

Finally, the progressives rejected the idea of the transcendent, divine authority that defined humans by their innate freedom and equality. Hence the relentless efforts to drive religion from the public square and reduce it to a lifestyle choice and expression of private identity, no different from one’s taste in food, clothes, or entertainment. In this way the moral order sanctioned by “Nature’s God” and the “Supreme Judge of the world,” as the Declaration describes the divine order, which enforced limits on license and self-indulgence, can be marginalized and bereft of its power to sanction destructive behavior. This leaves the state––a collection of flawed, corruptible human beings limited by their own “passions and interests” –– as the only authority for regulating people’s lives.

The result is to set all rights adrift, vulnerable to chance and change. The author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson was a deist, but even he recognized the necessity of religious belief for the American order, and the dangers of ignoring its transcendent foundations: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

Today we live in a political order that the progressives have altered and distanced from its philosophical roots in the Declaration of Independence. Political power is now concentrated in the federal government and its 2.6 million mostly anonymous, unelected unaccountable workers who staff over 430 agencies and departments, which extend their coercive and regulatory power into every aspect of our lives. Every day we witness their tyrannical “repeated injuries and usurpations” at the expense of our freedom and autonomy, and the Constitutional balance of powers. The government confiscates wealth and redistributes it to political clients, just like the tyrants of old, in order to make people “accustomed to feed at the expense of others” and to make “their prospects of winning a livelihood depend upon the property of their neighbors,” as Polybius described the modus operandi of the ancient tyrant. Political freedom is degraded into license, the power to do what we want rather than to live as people deserving of freedom. Today we are subjects of Tocqueville’s “soft despotism,” which seeks “to keep [the people] in perpetual childhood,” and is “well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing.”

Donald Trump has pruned back federal power to some degree, and praises patriotism and faith. But weaning the citizens from their dependence on entitlements––the engine of soft despotism–– is a monumental task that so far he has shown little interest in attempting. The difficulties the Republicans are currently facing just in reducing the growth in Medicaid spending that accelerated under Obamacare illustrate the scope of the problem. Given our $20 trillion in debt and trillions more in unfunded liabilities, our children and grandchildren are facing a fiscal Armageddon, and when it comes freedom and equality may be its first victims.

So today, amidst the barbecues and fireworks and the paeans to patriotism, we should take time to contemplate how far we have drifted from the ideals for which our ancestors fought and died.


July 4, 2017

Attributed to Andy Rooney, thanks to Jas for sending

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 4:16 pm

Written by Andy Rooney, a man who had the gift of saying so much with so few words.

Rooney has passed away but used to be on CBS’s 60 Minutes TV show.

I’ve learned….That the best classroom in the world is at the feet of an elderly person.

I’ve learned….That when you’re in love, it shows.

I’ve learned ….That just one person saying to me, ‘You’ve made my day!’ makes my day.

I’ve learned….That having a child fall asleep in your arms is one of the most peaceful feelings in the world.

I’ve learned….That being kind is more important than being right.

I’ve learned….That you should never say no to a gift from a child.

I’ve learned….That I can always pray for someone when I don’t have the strength to help him in any other way.

I’ve learned….That no matter how serious your life requires you to be, everyone needs a friend to act goofy with.

I’ve learned….That sometimes all a person needs is a hand to hold and a heart to understand.

I’ve learned….That simple walks with my father around the block on summer nights when I was a child did wonders for me as an adult.

I’ve learned….That life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes.

I’ve learned….That money doesn’t buy class.

I’ve learned….That it’s those small daily happenings that make life so spectacular.

I’ve learned…That under everyone’s hard shell is someone who wants to be appreciated and loved.

I’ve learned….That to ignore the facts does not change the facts.

I’ve learned….That when you plan to get even with someone, you are only letting that person continue to hurt you.

I’ve learned….That love, not time, heals all wounds.

I’ve learned….That the easiest way for me to grow as a person is to surround myself with people smarter than I am.

I’ve learned….That everyone you meet deserves to be greeted with a smile.

I’ve learned….That no one is perfect until you fall in love with them.

I’ve learned….That life is tough, but I’m tougher.

I’ve learned….That opportunities are never lost; someone will take the ones you miss.

I’ve learned….That when you harbor bitterness, happiness will dock elsewhere.

I’ve learned….That I wish I could have told my Mom that I love her one more time before she passed away.

I’ve learned….That one should keep his words both soft and tender, because tomorrow he may have to eat them.

I’ve learned….That a smile is an inexpensive way to improve your looks.

I’ve learned….That when your newly born grandchild holds your little finger in his/her little fist, you’re hooked for life.

I’ve learned….That everyone wants to live on top of the mountain, but all the happiness and growth occurs while you’re climbing it.

I’ve learned….That the less time I have to work with, the more things I get done.

June 21, 2017

The Swiss Report, by Gen. Walt USMC (Ret) & Gen. Patton USA (Ret) (1983)[nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 12:53 pm

A special study for Western Goals Foundation
by General Lewis W. Walt, U.S.M.C. (Ret.) and
General George S. Patton, U.S.A. (Ret.)
309-A Cameron Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 (703) 549-6688
Congressman Lawrence P. McDonald, Chairman
Western Goals
Advisory Board
Rep. Jean Ashbrook
Mrs. Walter Brennan
Taylor Caldwell
Roy M. Cohn, Esq.
Rep. Philip M. Crane
Gen. Raymond G. Davis
Henry Hazlitt
Dr. Mildred F. Jefferson
Dr. Anthony Kubek
Roger Milliken
Adm. Thomas Moorer
E.A. Morris
Vice Adm. Lloyd M. Mustin
Mrs. John C. Newington
Gen. George S. Patton
Dr. Hans Sennholz
Gen. John Singlaub
Dan Smoot
Robert Stoddard
Rep. Bob Stump
Mrs. Helen Marie Taylor
Dr. Edward Teller
Gen. Lewis Walt
Dr. Eugene Wigner
Western Goals
Executive Staff
Linda Guell, Director
John Rees, Editor
Julia Ferguson, Research
Design/Type: Ellis Graphics
March 1983
Dear Reader:
In the contemporary arena of political chicanery, reality
counts for little and illusion is frequently king, but in the
struggle for the survival of Western Civilization, it will be
the real world, not illusions or delusions, that will determine
which way the future will go. This basic truth is
especially the case in areas of national defense. Politicians
may play politics as usual right up to the time of actual
conflict; after that point, only the mislabeled fool or
dedicated traitor would continue the deception.
National defense matters present many real problems
at both the policymaking and electorate levels. One such
case may be found in the question of a draft as a means of
supplying the necessary military manpower. A military
service draft causes apprehension to eligible teenage
males, and this is especially the case when the inequitable
draft of the Vietnam War era is remembered.
The all-volunteer military force is an alternative to a
draft, but it is an expensive way to go as illustrated by the
fact that approximately 60 percent of the defense dollar
goes to personnel and personnel related costs (by way of
comparison, in the Soviet Union the comparable figure is
22 percent, thus leaving the lion’s share for weapons
development and production). Too, historically, there are
serious questions as to whether a paycheck is an adequate
substitute for patriotic fervor.
While Americans wrestle with the defense matters of
growing costs, manpower needs, volunteerism vs. the
draft, and even the matter of a national will, it is refreshing
to note that there is one country that has adopted a formula
that has resolved those same vexations. That country
is Switzerland, and amazingly, the Swiss have successfully
applied this national defense formula for centuries
without the problems of popular division. To the
(continued on inside back cover)
Published by WESTERN GOALS, 309-A Cameron Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. (703)
549-6688. Additional copies of this publication are available from the foundation at $4.00 per copy.
This study should not be interpreted as an effort to influence any legislative program of the U.S.
Congress. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and contributors and do
not necessarily represent the position of WESTERN GOALS.
WESTERN GOALS is a Virginia Corporation and is recognized by the Internal Revenue Service to
be an organization described in Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Copyright © 1983-Western Goals
A special study for Western Goals Foundation
by General Lewis W. Walt, U.S.M.C. (Ret.) and
General George S. Patton, U.S.A. (Ret.)
The Authors
General Lewis W. Walt,
USMC (Ret.)
General Lewis William Walt, who has seen more combat
on the battlefield than any other living Marine, led
combat troops in three wars, was a U.S. Marine Platoon
Leader in the defense of the International Settlement in
Shanghai, China in 1938-39, and retired from active service
in the Corps on February 1, 1971.
During his active military career of nearly 35 years,
General Walt was awarded 19 personal decorations for
combat, including two Navy Crosses, our Nation’s second
highest combat award. He was also awarded two
Distinguished Service Medals—one as Commander of
the Marines and other combat troops in Vietnam, and one as Assistant Commandant of
the Marine Corps.
Following his retirement, the 4-star General served as Director of the United States
Marines Youth Foundation and subsequently he headed up the U.S. Senate Investigation
on International Drug Traffic. From September 1974 to September 1975, General Walt
served as the senior military member of President Ford’s Clemency Board, followed by his
service as Consultant to the Department of Defense in the areas of weapons development
and combat training.
General Walt, one of 12 children who worked his way through college, was born on a
farm near Harveyville, Kansas on February 16, 1913. He graduated with honors from the
Military Department at Colorado State University with a degree in Chemistry. His
authored works include Strange War, Strange Strategy (1970); America Faces Defeat
(1971); and The Eleventh Hour (1979).
The General currently resides in Orlando, Florida with his wife, the former Mrs. June
Burkett Jacobsen.
Major General
George S. Patton, USA (Ret.)
Major General George Smith Patton was born
December 24, 1923, in Boston, Massachusetts, the
youngest of 3 children of Major George S. Patton, Jr. and
Beatrice Ayer Patton.
General Patton graduated from The Hill School, Pottstown,
Pennsylvania, and from the U.S. Military Academy
at West Point. He holds a Masters Degree in International
Affairs from George Washington University. The General
also attended the Armed Forces Staff College, the U.S.
Army Armor School, and the U.S. Army War College.
General Patton served in Korea as Company Commander and volunteered for service
in Vietnam, serving initially as Special Forces Operations Officer concurrently with an
assignment at the American Embassy, Saigon. One of his several other Vietnam
assignments included his service as Commanding Officer, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment.
Peacetime missions include General Patton’s service as follows: Headquarters and Student
Company Commander and Commanding Officer of the Tank Training Center and
63rd Heavy Tank Battalion, respectively, in Germany (General Patton’s career with the
U.S. Army includes approximately 11 years European service alone); Company Tactical
Officer with the Department of Tactics at West Point and similar duties at the Executive
Department at the U.S. Naval Academy; Assistant Commandant of the U.S.
Army Armor School in Fort Knox; Director, Security Assistance with Headquarters at the
U.S. European Command; and Director of Readiness, HQ DARCOM.
The General’s decorations include the Distinguished Service Cross with one oak leaf
cluster; Silver Star with one oak leaf cluster; Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters;
Distinguished Flying Cross; Meritorious Service Medal; several South Vietnam decorations,
and the Purple Heart.
General Patton is married to the former Joanne Holbrook and they reside on their farm
in South Hamilton, Massachusetts.
Western Goals wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the following individuals
for their invaluable assistance in the presentation of this study:
1. Divisionnaire (MG) Edmund Muller
Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics
Federal Military Department
Berne, Switzerland
2. Colonel Jean Rossier
Chief of the Territorial Service
Staff Logistics
Federal Military Department
Berne, Switzerland
3. Colonel Philippe Zeller
Chief of Operations, General Staff
Federal Military Department
Berne, Switzerland
4. Hans Mumenthaler, Director
Federal Office of Civil Defense
Berne, Switzerland
5. Honorable G. A. Chevallaz
Minister of Defense
The Federal Council
Berne, Switzerland
6. Brig. General Heinrich Koopman and staff
Office of the Swiss Military Attache
Washington, D.C.
7. Colonel George E. Thompson
The American Embassy
Berne, Switzerland
The Foundation wishes to say a special “thank you” to Charley Reese, Orlando,
Florida, for his editorial assistance and contributions.

The Swiss Report
Switzerland lies landlocked in Western Europe, a small densely populated nation
of nearly seven million people. To the west lies France, to the south Italy
and to the north and east, West Germany and Austria. By modern jet fighter, it
is ten minutes from the Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe. Since 1815
Switzerland has remained an inviolate island of peace in the midst of war. Even
Adolph Hitler’s Wehrmacht, which conquered all of Europe in the early months
of World War II, chose not to attack Switzerland despite the fact that the small
country was in the crossroads of Western Europe.
Switzerland is, of course, neutral, but it was not mere respect for its neutrality
which kept the Nazi armies and others before it out of the tiny country. It was
the determination of the Swiss people to defend their neutrality and the credibility
of their means to do so. That determination remains alive today in the face
of weapons of mass destruction. So, too, does the credibility of the means.
Within 48 hours, the Swiss can field an army of more than 600,000 men,
100,000 more than the present army of West Germany. Today, it can provide
shelter space for 85 percent of its civilian population and by the 1990s intends
to have shelter space for the entire population. War supplies, medical supplies
and food supplies are meticulously stored in more than 100 kilometers of tunnels.
About 4,000 permanent obstacles and barriers and more than 2,000 demolition
devices are in place, ready to hamper and block an aggressor’s progress.
In short, Switzerland is an armed bunker.
Yet, there is no standing Army, no bunker mentality, no enormous drain on
the Swiss economy, no militaristic threat to Europe’s oldest and most fiercely independent
How the Swiss have achieved this credible deterrent to invasion is the subject
of this report. The Swiss security system is unique as well as an example of what
a democratic nation can accomplish by applying reason and logic to problems
which have been realistically and carefully analyzed.
Niccolo Machiavelli, the 15th century Italian student of power, remarked of
the Swiss, “They are the most armed—and most free people in Europe.” Indeed,
Switzerland was born in the 13th century out of a desire to be free of domination
by the Habsburg family. In 1291 three Swiss cantons signed the Perpetual
Covenant which marked the beginning of the Swiss Confederation. In the
1300s, the Swiss fought several wars for independence with Austria and in 1499
Switzerland won its independence from the Holy Roman Empire.
The policy of neutrality originated in 1515 when the Swiss suffered a stunning
defeat by the French, but that early neutrality did not save it from an invasion
and occupation by the French under Napoleon in 1798. The Congress
of Vienna of 1815 restored Swiss independence and guaranteed its neutrality.
Switzerland adopted a new constitution in 1848, modeled somewhat after
the American constitution and this was amended in 1874 to increase the federal
government’s powers in military and court matters, although the cantons (equivalent
to American states) generally retain considerably more power than American
The Swiss economy today is built around precision manufacturing, chemicals,
banking, and tourism. It has one of the highest standards of living in the world
and the land is criss-crossed by a 3,150-mile railroad network and 30,000
miles of hard-surfaced roads. Three major rivers have their origin in Switzerland—
the Rhine, the Rhone, and the Po. Most of the population and most of
the agriculture are located in the plateau region between the Jura and the
Alps. Swiss agriculture can produce only three-fifths of the nation’s food supply,
a factor carefully weighed in the Swiss security system planning. The nation
is greatly dependent on imports for food and most raw materials for its industry,
including oil, natural gas, and coal.
Since 1815 the Swiss have not fought in a foreign war, yet they have maintained
the tradition of a citizen army and rifle and pistol shooting are among the
nation’s most popular sports with almost every village having a shooting range,
over 3,000 ranges in all.
Today Switzerland maintains its neutrality, but practices what it calls solidarity—
participating in international humanitarian projects, offering its good offices
for the resolution of disputes, and providing technical assistance to Third World
countries. The Swiss participate in those international activities and organizations
which do not require it to violate its policy of neutrality. Neutrality is central
to Swiss thinking and, in fact, is the determining factor in the Swiss security
Swiss Strategic Thinking
Divisionnaire Major General Edmund Muller, deputy chief of staff, logistics,
summarized Swiss strategic thinking this way:
“Historical experience shows that if a nation is not able to defend itself
and to protect its spiritual and material values, it will become, sooner or
later, the target of power politics and force. Efforts to defend ourselves
against force are therefore still necessary. These efforts must be integrated
within a comprehensive security policy expressed in the form of clear guidelines.
Our government is convinced that we can successfully undertake
peace-keeping efforts in the future only if we can ensure at the same time
our own security in a credible way. The security policy of a country is only
credible if a realistic evaluation of the threats and a sober estimation of its
own possibilities lead to the implementation of a concept capable of inspiring
confidence at home and respect abroad.”
The words, “credible”, “respect”, “realistic”, and “planning” occur over and
over in Swiss defense documents and briefings. To a remarkable degree, the
Swiss government has approached its problems in a supremely logical manner,
setting out basic premises and drawing the correct inferences.
The objectives of the security policy are set forth as follows: (1) preservation
of peace in independence; (2) preservation of freedom of action; (3) protection
of the population; and (4) defense of the territory.
Each of these objectives has been carefully analyzed and the choice of words
is not careless. What the Swiss mean by “Peace in independence” is made clear
in the following excerpt from a report of the Federal Council to the Federal
“The preservation of peace—no matter how much we are interested in it—
is not an end in itself. It can neither be separated from the preservation of
self-determination nor can one be played off against the other. Our goal is peace
in independence; both aspects are therefore of equal importance.”
In defining preservation of freedom of action, the Swiss make clear they mean
freedom from foreign pressures, which can be achieved only by having available
a powerful means of resisting them and freedom from internal pressure
generated by illegal means or the use of force.
Having defined their security policy objectives, the Swiss then proceed to examine
the threat. In doing so, they include “the state of relative peace” along
with indirect war, conventional war, war with weapons of mass destruction,
and blackmail.
The following quotations from the same Federal Council report reveal not
only the Swiss view of the present threats but provide an insight in their thinking
“Today, peace does not correspond to the ideal and conditions usually associated
with it. The general situation is characterized by continuous confrontations,
also in those cases where there is no open employment of force.”
“The danger of a breach of international agreement is always present. The
collective security system envisioned by the Charter of the United Nations has
not been allowed to become effective, particularly because of the lack of unanimity
among the permanent members of the security council….today’s state
of relative peace is to a great extent due to the fact that the two superpowers
neutralize each other. The balance of fear, maintained only by the mutual threat
of annihilation, is not stable. It can be jeopardized by the excessive armaments
efforts of one side, by technological breakthroughs as well as by irrational actions….
under the protection of this relative balance of forces, powers and
groups of powers attempt to enlarge their spheres of influence through political,
economical, propagandistic and psychological pressures.”
“Conflicts are increasingly being waged by indirect means, with the goal of
influencing, weakening and finally overcoming the opponent through political,
psychological and terrorist means….this type of warfare takes advantage of the
increasing vulnerability of the modern state with its numerous vital facilities
(such as power utilities, communication, transportation and information facilities)
. Those who resort to this kind of warfare, whether they act in the interest of
a foreign power, a foreign ideology or out of anarchistic motives, take advantage
of the frictions existing within a society, as well as of all forms of political
and social malaise of certain population groups. By attempting to break up the
existing liberal order through the paralysis of the public institutions, facilities
and the democratic processes by way of defamation, intimidation and the employment
of force, they hope to be able to achieve their goals.”
“The possibility of blackmail exists at each level of conflict, taking advantage
of the opponent’s fear of the threatened actions. Blackmail acquires a particular
dimension if it is exercised by nuclear powers. The authorities of the state
against which the blackmail is directed could be put under intense public pressure
and be forced to make decisions of such a magnitude as to be without historical
parallel….the four levels of conflict are characterized by those methods
and means which would, at each level, be predominantly employed. During
large confrontations, the parties to the conflict will try to combine these methods
and means acting simultaneously in a direct and indirect manner.”
Thus, the Swiss take a hard look at the world and indulge in no escapist thinking.
They recognize that they could become the victim of blackmail, of subversion,
of a conventional or a nuclear attack. Yet they also realize that because
of their small size, they are not likely to be a primary target and therefore cannot
justify a continued state of mobilization.
The Swiss see the military as only one component of a spectrum of strategic
means to achieve their security objectives. Their foreign policy initiatives are a
strategic means to defend their policy of armed neutrality, to provide access to
raw materials and markets to exports. Social policy is a strategic means to provide
the stability necessary to withstand threats. Economic policy is a strategic
means of insuring that in times of crisis or war, the Swiss people can continue
to exist. The Swiss Government has actually formed what it calls a war economy
organization with the specific goals of planning for self-sufficiency in time of war.
In this regard, Swiss citizens are required to maintain in their homes a twomonths’
supply of food; industrialists and importers are required to maintain war
stocks of raw materials and food. Civil Defense is seen as the strategic means
of insuring survival of the population. In short, the Swiss approach the problem
of security with a totally integrated methodology that involves the entire nation.
The Militia System
The purpose of the military forces of Switzerland are two-fold: (1) to deter
war by the principle of dissuasion; and (2) if deterrence fails, to defend the
territory and the population.
“Dissuasion is a strategic posture which should persuade a potential aggressor
to avoid an armed conflict, by convincing him of the disproportion existing between
the advantages gained from an attack on the country and the risks entailed.
The risks which a potential aggressor must be made to perceive consists
in the loss of prestige, military forces, war-potential and time, as well as in running
counter to his ideological, political and economic interests.”
The Swiss have no illusions about their ability to defeat a major military
power. They could not have defeated the Nazi army which for a time considered
invading Switzerland. They mobilized, however, and made it clear beyond
a shadow of a doubt that if the Nazi army invaded, it would be fiercely resisted
and that the tunnels and passes into Italy would be destroyed. In a classic
example of dissuasion at work, Hitler’s general staff recommended against an
invasion on the grounds that the costs would be disproportionate to the gains.
The Swiss military forces are composed almost entirely of the militia. Only
800 out of 50,000 officers are professionals. They, and the recruits which happen
to be training at any given time, are the only people in Switzerland on
“active duty”
The Swiss militia system is unique and is not comparable to the present Reserve
and Guard forces in the United States. The basis for conscription is the
constitution, which mandates military service for every Swiss male from age 20
to 50 (55 in the case of officers). There are no exceptions. Conscientious objectors
are given a choice between Army non-combat units and jail. Those physically
unfit for military duty but employable are required to pay a tax. Women
are not included in the compulsory military service system, but small numbers
of them are accepted on a volunteer basis for non-combatant positions.
The universality of the Swiss system provides several advantages. It is fair and
therefore enjoys popular support. In the 1970s a national referendum was held
on the question of providing alternative service to conscientious objectors. The
Swiss people defeated it by an overwhelming majority.
A second advantage is that the Swiss Army does not have to operate a vocational
school system, training unqualified people in special skills which they take,
as soon as their enlistment is completed, into the civilian market. The Swiss system
operates in reverse. The Swiss Army, because everyone is obligated, can
choose those people trained in their civilian roles for the military jobs which
match their specialty. In the Swiss system, the burden of specialized training is
on the civilian sector.
A third advantage is that every male, age 20 to 50, who is an elected official
or civil servant in the government at all levels is also a member of the Swiss
Army. This helps prevent the jealousy and hostility that armies sometimes confront
in competing with other government services for their share of the public
resources. The lack of separation between the army, the people, and the government
is one of the unique and valuable characteristics of the Swiss system.
A fourth advantage is that Switzerland does not have a high proportion of its
defense dollars going to personnel costs. There are no military retirement systems
(the 800 full-time officers are included in the civil service pension system),
no veterans benefits, no massive payroll of a large standing army. There is
a medical insurance program to take care of injuries or death while serving on
active duty. Consequently, 50 percent of all Swiss defense appropriations can
be directed toward the acquisition of weapons and equipment. A comparable
figure is 30 percent in the Republic of West Germany.
At the age of 19, young men are given physical and mental tests in preparation
for military service. By this age, most young men in Switzerland have already
chosen their career paths and so permitting the Army to channel them into
the proper slots. Some consideration is given to the recruit’s preference and to
his locale, but the Army makes the final decision according to its own needs.
At age 20, recruits report for 17 weeks of training. The Swiss do not operate
separate training facilities for recruits and then others for military specialties.
Each training camp handles both the recruit’s basic training and his military
specialty. In other words, a young man destined for the medics reports directly
to a medical training company; an infantryman to an infantry training camp.
At the end of the training cycle, the recruit, now a member of a militia unit
with which he will stay in most cases for the duration of his obligation, returns
home. He carries with him his rifle, an allotment of ammunition, uniforms, military
pack, and CBR mask. He is responsible for the maintenance of this equipment
and is inspected annually. Once a year he is also required to qualify with
his personal weapon on a rifle range or face an additional three days of training.
Once a year, he will report for three weeks of military training in a rugged field
exercise set up as a problem the type of which his particular unit would face.
The Swiss Army is organized into four Army Corps. Each Army Corps controls
three Divisions. The Field Army Corps are composed of two Infantry Divisions
and one Mechanized Division. The Mountain Corps has three Mountain
Divisions. In addition, each Field Army Corps has some separate Border Defense
Brigades and the Mountain Corps, separate Fortress Brigades.
These 12 Divisions plus the Air Defense Command constitute the elite. Young
men aged 20 to 32 serve in these Divisions. Men of the “Landwehr”, 33 to 42
years old, are found in the separate Brigades. Those in the “Landsturm”, 43 to
50 years old, serve in the Territorial Forces. Thus, the duties of the militiamen
are adjusted as his physical capabilities change with age.
These elite field forces with the eight youngest classes of soldiers plus all Commissioned
Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers are mobilized for three
weeks of training each year. “Landwehr” forces train for two weeks every two
years, and “Landsturm” units for one week every four years.
All officers are chosen from the ranks. A young man chosen to become an officer
while he was a private must attend a one-month non-commissioned officers
school. If he is successful, the soldier is promoted to corporal and, to pay
off his new rank, he must serve as a group leader for a period of 17 weeks
immediately following recruit school.
The requisite number of corporals to meet requirements are sent to officer
training schools for four months. After successful completion of this school, he
is promoted to lieutenant. This is followed by service as a platoon leader with another
recruit training unit. After five years in grade, he will be promoted to first
After two years as a first lieutenant, he is eligible for promotion to captain.
To be promoted to captain, a first lieutenant has to attend a three-week
weapons school, a four-week tactical school and serve as company commander
in a recruit training cycle. As a captain, he will command and administer a
After eight years, a captain can get promoted to major, and then, if he completes
successfully special training, he may become a battalion commander.
Subsequent promotions to lieutenant colonel after seven years as major and to
colonel two years later depends upon individual ability and vacancies. The highest
rank a militia officer may attain is that of brigade commander. Divisions and
Army Corps are commanded by professional officers.
A first lieutenant or captain who desires to become a career officer has to attend
a series of branch schools and then attend a one-year course at the Military
Division of the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. To be eligible for selection
as a member of the Corps of Instructors, an officer must have a civilian profession.
In peace time, the Swiss Army has no supreme commander. The Federal
Council leads the army. The general chief of staff is the “primus inter pares” of
the army staff. In case of war mobilization, the Parliament would select a fourstar
general as supreme commander.
Tours of Duty in Schools
1. RS
2. RS
3. RS
4. RS
5. RS
Shoot =
(Recruits and Superiors)
Private Corp Lt Cap
118 118 118 118
27 27 27
118 118 118
118 118
118 118
118 263 499 664
Noncommissioned officer-School
Tactical School
Shooting-School/ -Course
The Swiss Air Force is composed of one Air Force, one Airbase and one Anti-
Aircraft Brigade. All combat aircraft are ready for use and are stored in rock-covered
underground bases containing fuel, ammunition, spare parts and repair
Equipment (value $2,000.00). Every Swiss militia soldier has the above equipment
ready at his home. (See opposite page for itemized list)
No. Arming and Leathers
1 1 assault-gun with magazine and sling
2 1 cleaning-things for assault-gun
3 1 night-sight
4 1 bayonet with fitting
5 1 knife
6 1 belt
7 1 scabbard for bayonet
8 1 box with pocket-ammunition
9 1 helmet 71
10 1 pass-cup, ord 72
11 1 working-cup, ord 49
12 1 pass-uniform, ord 72
13 1 pass-trousers, ord 72
14 1 working-trousers, ord 49
15 1 coat
16 3 shirts with breast pockets
17 2 jerseys
18 2 black ties
19 1 pass-raincoat
20 1 pass-leather belt
21 1 trousers-belt (elastic)
22 2 pairs of march shoes
23 1 rucksack, mod 58/73
24 2 shoe-bags, grey
25 1 effects-bag, olive
26 1 supplies-bag, white
27 1 effects bag 58
28 1 haversack
29 1 canteen with cup
30 1 mess tin
31 1 spoon and 1 fork
32 1 cleaning things 67
Special Equipment
33 1 ABC (atomic/biological/chemical) protective mask with filter
34 1 bag for ABC-protective mask
35 2 pairs of plugs for hearing protection, in boxes
36 1 service book with identity card
37 1 identification tag
38 3 pairs of epaulettes
39 Miscellaneous
Cyclists — light infantry
Volunteer in Civil Defense telephone exchange
The infantry in action
Farmer on the way to his unit
Mechanized troops
Militia pilots for jet fighters
Dogs for protection and rescue
Repair shop
Sheltered surgery
shops. There is an automatic surveillance and guidance system to help engage
the air defense and ground attack armaments.
The number of main weapons in the Swiss Army is as follows:
350 aircraft
800 tanks
1,200 armored personnel carriers
900 artillery guns (self-propelled or mobile)
300 artillery tubes in fortresses
2,000 mobile anti-tank guns
300 antitank guns in bunkers
2,000 anti-aircraft guns
3,000 anti-tank guided missile systems
20,000 bazookas
Thousands of grenade launchers and millions of mines are also on hand as
well as 30,000 army-owned special vehicles and 50,000 civilian-owned vehicles
tagged for mobilization. Each owner knows precisely where to bring his vehicle
in case of mobilization.
These and other war supplies are stored in arsenals and underground facilities
all over the country. They are stored by unit. A military unit, for example, will
draw the same equipment from the same arsenal each year for its annual training
exercise so that it becomes familiar with it, with its location, and can assist the
civilian maintenance personnel in spotting problems.
The Swiss logistics system is a work of genius and is tailored to the requirements
of a militia army in a neutral country which, if it fights, cannot count on
allies for re-supply or assistance.
Of 17,000 civil servants in the Ministry of Defense, 10,500 are in logistics. In
1981 the budget was 800 million Swiss francs and it maintains 5,500 buildings
and installations, 600 war bases, 170 maintenance facilities, and more than 100
kilometers of underground facilities.
These underground facilities not only contain stores of ammunition and other
war supplies but also underground repair facilities for tanks, artillery pieces, electronics
equipment and vehicles. The value of the Swiss Army inventory is 12.8
billion Swiss francs.
The Swiss Army maintains 40 military hospitals, ten of them underground—
completely equipped, spotless and ready. They are used only for training purposes.
When the Swiss purchase a weapons system from abroad, they purchase
enough spare parts for both the life of the system and for war reserves. This is
to insure continuity of use in a war even though Switzerland is cut off from the
original source of supply.
They also practice the principle of commonality so that military, civil defense,
and civil police equipment are the same. An example of Swiss ingenuity applied
to logistics is the storage of perishable medical supplies for war-time use.
These supplies are obtained from pharmaceutical companies, stored, and then
at the appropriate time, returned to the Pharmaceuticals for sale in exchange for
fresh supplies for storage. By arrangement, the Swiss government would actually
pay for the supplies only in the event of their consumption during a war.
Military Doctrine
Once mobilized, the Swiss Army would fight as a conventional force. Swiss
military doctrine calls for meeting the aggressor at the borders and waging total
war. This is a departure from earlier doctrine which in World War II called for
abandoning the plateau area for the mountain fortresses.
In the event of mobilization, the 4,000 permanent obstacles and barriers
would be activated and the more than 2,000 demolition devices already built
into key bridges and tunnels would be set off. Industrial machines would be disabled;
water levels in the more than 900 dams lowered; fuel tanks burned.
The Swiss terrain—a hilly plateau region between two mountain ranges—
would necessarily channelize the aggressor’s attacks. These obvious avenues
of approach are heavily fortified and would be defended from built-in positions
and by mobile forces of the three Army Corps backed up by the Air Force. The
Swiss plan is to make every inch gained by the enemy a bloody and costly gain.
In the event main units of the Army are destroyed, Swiss doctrine calls for continued
passive and active resistance by means of guerrilla warfare.
This combination of powerful resistance by conventional forces, continued resistance
by guerrillas, and the self-destruction of Switzerland’s industrial, communications,
and transportation networks constitutes the strategy of dissuasion.
The message to the potential aggressor is clear: after a bloody, expensive, timeconsuming
war, he will have gained nothing of value. He will be faced with
occupation of a hostile area, denuded of economic or transportation value, and
continued resistance by a determined and armed population.
The armed population is no bluff. Swiss militiamen are not required to turn
in their weapons upon completion of their obligation. It is said that every Swiss
home contains at least three weapons, for not only is there the militia system,
but there is a long tradition of civilian ownership of firearms and, as pointed out
before, rifle and pistol shooting are virtually the national sports of Switzerland.
There are few restrictions on the Swiss purchase, ownership or carrying, of firearms.
An armed occupation force would indeed be literally faced with the prospect
of a Swiss rifleman behind every tree.
The Territorial Service
A unique component of the Swiss Army is the Territorial Service. It has no
equivalent in the United States and so deserves special attention in this report.
Within the army itself, the Territorial Service operates as logistical units, but it
does much more and is the main link between the army and the civilian sector.
It is composed of those men in the “Landsturm” who are 43 to 50 years of age
as well as some younger men assigned to it for Air Raid Rescue Battalions.
The duties of the Territorial Service can be summarized as follows: (1) It has
the mission of providing warning services to both the Army and the civilian population
in case of danger from air, atomic, biological and chemical weapons as
well as dam bursts; (2) it is responsible for coordinating the lowering of the water
level of hydroelectric reservoirs and for other measures concerning the electrical
supply system; (3) it has the mission of caring for internees, prisoners of war and
refugees; (4) it provides military police to assist civil authorities when necessary;
(5) it is responsible for the military economy service—to supply all the
goods needed by the army from the civilian sector and to handle the dismantling
or destruction of civilian economic assets that could be used by the enemy; and
(6) to protect important and vital installations.
This Territorial Service is primarily designed for war, but portions of it can be
mobilized in peacetime to assist civilian authorities with non-military catastrophies.
Structurally, the Territorial Service is designed to parallel the Swiss civil government
structure. The basic civilian unit of the Swiss Confederation is the canton.
Some of the larger cantons are divided into districts. Cantons are grouped
together to form Territorial Zones.
At the level of a district (a portion of a canton) there is a District Civil Staff and
a Territorial Regional Staff; the Territorial Service equivalent of the canton is
called a Territorial Circle. Here again, the military staff works with the civil staff.
At the Territorial Zone level (groups of cantons), there are also parallel civilian
and military staffs.
To make this relationship clearer, we might imagine a United States military
service which had a command structure at the level of the Federal Government,
at the level of the Federal Regions, at the state levels, and at the district
levels within the states with the missions of providing domestic intelligence, security
for key installations, control of the economy in time of war, and assistance
to civilian authorities in handling disasters and civil disturbances. There is,
of course, no such organization in the United States.
The Swiss have not only clearly defined the missions of the Territorial Service
but also the rules under which it operates. For example, the needs of the army
take precedence over the needs of the civil sector. The Territorial Service can
assist the civil sector only on the request of civilian authorities and, even then,
authority and responsibility for civilians remain with the civil authorities. In other
words, in the event of a catastrophe, the Territorial Service is not authorized to
step in and take over operations, but only to provide assistance to civil authorities
under their direction.
On the other hand, in the event of war, the Territorial Service’s first obligation
is to the army and under those circumstances it would override, if necessary,
the civil authorities in the event of a conflict of interests. It is also the Territorial
Service which provides the manpower earmarked for use by civil defense.
Civil Defense
Some critics of the Swiss system have expressed the belief that the possession
of nuclear weapons has made the strategy of dissuasion obsolete. These are, to
be sure, those critics who view nuclear war as an offense for which there is no
The Swiss do not agree. Recalling one of their strategic objectives as protection
of the civilian population, the Swiss government has realistically assessed
that objective in light of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare. Their answer
was to embark on an extensive civil defense program with the idea of accomplishing
two of their strategic objectives—protection of the population and maintaining
freedom of action. They reason that an extensive and useable civil defense
program will give the Swiss government the means to withstand nuclear
blackmail, thus preserving freedom of action.
Hans Mumenthaler, director of the Federal Office of Civil Defense, put it this
way: “Lack of protection (for the civilian population) means an impairment of
our freedom of decision and lacking freedom of decision is rightly felt as an unfree
The latest Swiss laws pertaining to civil defense were revised in 1978 and they
have made remarkable progress. To date, the Swiss have shelter space for 85
percent of the population and by 1990 plan to have 100 percent of the population
covered. In many cases, there will be two shelter spaces per person—one
at the place of work and one at home.
Swiss law requires compulsory participation in civil defense for all males aged
20 to 60 with exemption only for military service. Consequently, most of the
civil defense personnel are over 50. There is presently a mandatory five-day introductory
course and two days of annual training. Swiss officials believe this is
not sufficient and, even though supervisors train more extensively, they would
like to see the training schedule expanded for everyone.
The law requires that communities have full responsibility for enforcing federal
and cantonal civil defense regulations. Each family is required to provide a
shelter at home and all new construction, even of commercial buildings, must
provide shelters built to federal specifications. The confederation subsidizes the
construction of public shelters, but not private ones.
Private shelters are required to withstand one atmosphere of overpressure
while public shelters are built to withstand three atmospheres (one atmosphere
equals ten tons per square meter). In other words, the Swiss opted for blast
shelters that are rather simply shelters adequate for protection against fallout. A
shelter built to withstand three atmospheres of overpressure could theoretically
provide protection for people within nine-tenths of a mile from ground zero
with a one-megaton explosion.
Public shelters are equipped with independent water, air filtration, communications,
food and medical supplies and private citizens are required to stock
food for two week’s duration.
The Swiss have spent, since 1970, 5 billion Swiss francs on civil defense and
are currently spending at the rate of 210 million Swiss francs annually. Mumenthaler
says this is a ratio of about $1 for every $8 spent on defense. He estimates
that for the United States to have reached the same level of protection would
have required the expenditure of $85 billion.
Public support for civil defense is widespread. Mumenthaler explains, “We
are mountain people and we are used to living with danger—but we are also
used to preparing for it.”
Several key decisions were made in approaching the problem of civil defense.
One was to discard the idea of evacuation. Not only are warning times for Switzerland
practically nil, but Swiss authorities reasoned the country is too small for
evacuation to be feasible. Evacuees would hinder other military operations and
would likely be no safer. Therefore, the Swiss opted for “vertical as opposed to
horizontal protection.” This dictated the construction of blast-proof shelters.
Another was the adoption of the principle that every inhabitant must have an
equal chance of survival. The Swiss seem to be meticulous about the principle
of equal sharing of both responsibilities and privileges. The first obligation of
every Swiss citizen is to their country.
Because of the proximity to likely opponents, the Swiss have adopted the
strategy of ordering people into the shelters as soon as political or military tension
reaches a critical level. From that point on, only key workers would leave
the shelters until such time as there was an actual attack or the situation became
less tense.
Finally, the Swiss made a basic decision to separate civil defense from the military
operations. The office of civil defense operates under the Minister of Justice
and Federal police. While some 30,000 troops from the Territorial Service
would be made available to civil defense, primarily for fire-fighting and rescue
work, it is not a fighting organization nor does it replace normal civilian rescue
and emergency aid organizations during peacetime. It can be mobilized for
peacetime rescue work, but this is clearly a secondary mission.
Switzerland, a small country with limited res6urces, has conceptualized,
planned, and implemented a rational security policy which provides maximum
effect with minimum expenditures. The militia system, being both universal and
a part of the constitution, has wide public acceptance. It allows mobilization of
a large army without the draining costs of a large professional army. The personnel
savings have been invested in redoubts, barriers, equipment, storage facilities,
hospitals, and weapons.
To a remarkable degree, the Swiss require private sector participation in the
defense effort. These private contributions are estimated to equal the annual
government expenditures. By integrating their security policy to include foreign
policy, social policy, defense, civil defense and economic measures, the Swiss
have, in effect, oriented their entire public effort toward the end of security for
their nation and their people.
The Swiss General Defense system provides a high dissuasive value and credibility
to this small, neutral country in the heart of Europe. In case of war Switzerland
would not attract the more powerful nations who might consider Switzerland
to be a military vacuum. On the contrary, Switzerland can activate the
densest defense system—on the ground and in the air on short notice—in
Western Europe.
Thanks to Civil Defense as well as intricate economic preparedness, there is
a high degree of survivability even in a modern war of long duration. The most
important factor remains that the overwhelming majority of the Swiss has a
strong will to defend the country against any aggressor. They are prepared to
fight, and will fight whenever and whomever necessary.

On Peace…
“To be prepared for war is one of the most effective
means of preserving peace.”
— George Washington
in his first annual address to
Congress on January 8, 1790
On War…
“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest thing. The
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks nothing worth a war is worse. A man
who has nothing which he cares about more than his
personal safety is a miserable creature who has no
chance of being free unless made and kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself.”
— John Stuart Mill
Chairman’s letter, continued
contrary, the Swiss concept has promoted unity among the people of that small but
mature nation.
The people of Switzerland are to be envied for their many achievements, and the policy
achievement of a plan for armed neutrality could be a model either in whole or in part for
those seeking a rational approach to survival problems.
The concept of armed neutrality was a policy favored by our Founding Fathers but the
warnings and advice of Founding Father George Washington has been lost to Twentieth
Century Americans. Perhaps even at this late date, we could find many answers to our
current problems by observing the Swiss way of a total defense concept.
“…to rebuild and strengthen the political, economic, and
social structure of the United States and Western Civilization so as
to make any merger with totalitarians impossible.”
Lawrence P. McDonald
Chairman and President

June 9, 2017

Mr. Numes Went to Washington, by Victor Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 2:43 pm

Mr. Nunes Went to Washington
June 8, 2017 1:52 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
by Victor Davis Hanson//National Review

Devin Nunes is subpoenaing former Obama administration officials who may have played a role in inappropriate monitoring of the Trump transition team.

Representative Devin Nunes (R., Calif.), the now-controversial chair of the House Intelligence Committee, is a bit different from what Washington expects in its politicians.

He grew up in the agricultural cornucopia of the Central Valley of California — fruits, vegetables, beef, dairy products, and fibers — the concrete expression of a myriad of hard-working ethnic groups. Their diverse ancestors fled poverty and occasional horrors in Armenia, Basque Country, Greece, Japan, Mexico, Portugal, the Punjab, Southeast Asia, and the Oklahoma Dust Bowl.

Central to this mix of immigrants, farmers, and ranchers is a valley culture of pragmatism, bluntness, and tenacity.

Of all these groups, none are more unabashedly patriotic and outspoken than Portuguese-immigrant dairy farmers, most from the islands of the Azores.

I live in rural Fresno County at the juncture of three congressional districts. All three are currently represented by Portuguese-Americans from farming families and from both parties: Nunes (22nd district); my own representative, David Valadao (R., 21st district); and Representative Jim Costa (D., 16th district). All three keep getting re-elected for their accessibility, informality, and commitment to the traditional values of their districts.

Nunes became a controversial public figure nationally when he revealed that the surveillance of foreign governments by American intelligence agencies may have resulted in the inappropriate monitoring of members of the Trump transition team — and perhaps some private citizens, too — and the unmasking of their identities.

What followed this disclosure could have mirror-imaged the script of director Frank Capra’s classic film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

It all started when Nunes said he had received unsolicited information of wrongdoing from one or more whistleblowers. Unfortunately for Nunes, he approached complaints of improper surveillance in a Central Valley sort of way (but a most un-Washington manner).

Instead of the usual pattern of leaking the whistleblower’s information to friendly media (and, of course, denying that he was the source of the leaks), Nunes went ballistic — and, heaven forbid, public. Nunes first notified House speaker Paul Ryan of his intention to bring the information to both the president and the public.

Nunes then held a press conference to reveal the potentially inappropriate monitoring, then told the president himself that some of his associates may have been swept up in potentially improper surveillance and leaking conducted by bureaus that fall under the executive branch. Nunes also served subpoenas to the NSA, CIA, and FBI.

The result? Suddenly, Nunes himself became the object of Washington vituperation for not immediately informing House Democrats about the potentially inappropriate monitoring.

Nunes was targeted by progressive activists and investigated by the House Ethics Committee — which has thus far not released any findings of improper behavior — apparently because he went public and is now viewed as a partisan of Trump.

Nunes next announced that he was temporarily delegating his leadership of the House Intelligence Committee as it investigated charges of collusion between the Trump administration and Russia. In melodramatic fashion, Nunes was said to have “recused” himself from all committee leadership. But he really did not.

“Recusal” is a legal term that denotes disqualifying oneself due to conflict of interest. Instead, Nunes only took a temporary respite from leading a single investigatory thread of supposed Trump-Russian collusion. Was that a de facto dare for the committee to investigate what Nunes supposedly had blocked?

The House Intelligence Committee has not interviewed a single witness for more than two months. Is that laxity because the committee so far has been unable to find concrete evidence of Trump-Russia collusion? While some other members of the near-dormant House Intelligence Committee apparently have continued to leak information about the possible prospect of grand-jury investigations of Trump and of forthcoming information about collusion with Russia, none of these stories has been accompanied by supporting evidence.

Now, Nunes is back again, courting media outrage by pressing to subpoena three Obama administration officials — former national security adviser Susan Rice, U.N. ambassador Samantha Power, and former CIA director John Brennan — to explain whether they played a role in the improper monitoring of American citizens and the leaking of their names to the press.

But strangely, this time around, the media has been relatively subdued. Perhaps it’s because the Russian collusion story went nowhere when Nunes temporarily assigned his investigatory leadership to others.

Yet it seems that the explosive unmasking charges are at last being seriously investigated.

The mainstream media has caricatured Nunes’s bulldog bluntness in going public as naive and partisan, and they have predicted his demise as a committee chairman amid a climate of hysteria.

Instead, Nunes seems unconcerned and plows straight ahead — in the fashion of dairy farmers from the Central Valley of California.

June 7, 2017

Dearborn MI Iman linked to London attack, Capt John USN(r) [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 9:19 pm

Today at 8:53 AM
Dearborn, Michigan Muslim Preacher Linked to Massacre on the London Bridge

By Capt Joseph R. John, June 7, 2017: Op Ed # 353

Ahmed Musa Jubril, Esq., a convicted felon who served 7 years in prison, is 46 years old. Ahmed Musa Jubril is the Radical Islamic Terrorist Imam of a Dearborn, Michigan Mosque; he is called the “Preacher of Hate.” The hateful teachings on his Jihadist Web site includes U-tube videos.

The teachings of Ahmed Musa Jubril “inspired” one of the three Radical Islamic Terrorists—Khuram But (27 from Pakistani), Rashid Redouanne (30 from Morocco &Libya), and Youssef Zayhba (22 from Morocco), who killed 7 pedestrians and wounded over 50 others on the London Bridge on June 3, 2017; 18 of their victims remain in the hospital in critical condition.

The three Radical Islamic Terrorists ran pedestrians down with the white van they leased, then when the van crashed to a full stop, they stabbed pedestrians and cut their throats with long knives, while yelling “Allah Akbar.” The leader of the three terrorist, Khuram But, had ties with radical Imam Anjem Choudary who preached hate in a London Mosque.

Ahmed Musa Jubril , the “Preacher of Hate” should be charged with supporting terrorism, encouraging the oppression of non-believers, and promoting sedition with Muslims worshipping in his Mosque in Dearborn, and with followers on the Internet who watch his U-tube videos, and visit his Web site. Mosques where Imams like Ahmed Musa Jubril are preaching hate are creating a serious problem for the future security of the Republic.

In the last 8 years the number of Mosques built in the United States have doubled from about 1500 to about 3000, and foreign trained Imams immigrated to the United States to preach in those Mosques. A percentage of those foreign trained Imams are radicals who also preach hate, like Ahmed Musa Jubril and Anwar al-Awlaki (the Al Q’ieda Imam killed by a hellfire missile in Yemen). Radical Imams preaching hate should be charged and deported to their countries of origin

The FBI is evaluating over 2000 open cases of Radical Islamic Terrorist plots to attack American citizens in all 50 states; in just one year, the number of FBI terrorist cases has doubled from 1000 to 2000+.
To date, 100 ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorist plots against the United States have been broken up by the FBI, resulting in the arrest and conviction of over 180 Muslim refugees, descendants of Muslim refugees, radicalized Islamic Terrorists, and citizens from the 6 nations harboring Radical Islamic Terrorists.
Former Director of the FBI, James Comey, said fifteen percent (15%) of the 2000 terrorist plots under investigation by the FBI (roughly 300) intending to kill Americans, can be attributed to be coming from the 900,000+ Middle East and African Muslim Refugees Obama resettlement in 187 cities throughout the US over the last 8 years. Obama refused to allow the FBI to interrogate those 900,000+ Muslim Refugees to determine if they had terrorist ties.

Since 9/11 there has been 197 Radical Islamic Terrorists attacks on US soil perpetrated, by Radical Islamic Terrorists, many Muslim Refugees from the 6 countries the President is trying to put a temporary hold on, descendants of Muslim Refugees, radical Jihadists who traveled to Syria and Africa to train with ISIS & Al Q’ieda, members of CAIR who are in federal prison, members of the Muslim Brotherhood who are in federal prison, and members of Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups.

In the last 8 years, Radical Islamic Terrorist perpetrated 86 of the 197 terrorist attacks on US soil in Sacramento (CA), Houston (TX), Morganton (NC), Philadelphia (PA), San Bernardino (CA), Times Square (NYC), Chelsea Area of Manhattan, Moore (OK), Detroit (MI), Boise (ID), Orlando (FL), Mount Pleasant (NJ), West Orange (NJ), Fort Hood (TX), Portland (ME), Chattanooga (TN), Garland (TX), Boston (MA), Portland (OR), Minneapolis (MN), St Cloud (MN), Buffalo (NY), Jonesboro (GA), Ashtabula (OH), Bingham (NY), Glendale (AZ), Phoenix (AZ), Little Rock (AR), Merced (CA), Marquette Park (IL), Fresno (CA), Seattle (WA), Skyway (WA), Denver (CO), Aspen Hill (MD), Baltimore (MD), Oakland (CA), Fresno (Arlington (VA), Fredricksburg (VA), Montgomery County (MO), St Louis (MO), Bowling Green (KY), Scottsville,(NY), Richmond (CA), Washington (DC), Irving (TX), Port Bolivar (TX), Warren (MI), Waltham (MA), Manassas (VA), Buena Vista (NJ), Baton Rouge (LA), Montgomery (AL), Aberdeen, (SD), Chicago (IL), Los Angeles (CA), Hamden, (CT), Cincinnati (OH), Colorado Springs (CO), Denver (CO), Niskayuna (NY), Twin Falls (ID). and many other US cities too numerous to be listed here.

The countries of origins from which many of the Radical Islamic Terrorists have been entering the US thru the UN Refugee Resettlement Program, and have been killing and raping Americans for 8 years, are from Somalia, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Iran, and Libya. Except for Iran, those countries have no control over the identity of Radical Islamic Terrorists operating and training within their country’s borders. Seventy-six of the Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks that took place in US cities in the last 8 years, were covered up by the Obama administration, CAIR, The Muslim Brotherhood with the collusion of the left of center liberal media establishment—they are listed in the attachment .

The politically correct approach followed by the Obama administration over the last 8 years, turning a blind eye to Radical Islamic Imams who preach hate, must cease. Aggressive action must be taken to identify all the Imams who preach hate like Anwar Al-Awlaki, Anjem Choudary, and Ahmed Musa Jubril; they are disciples of hate, responsible for radicalizing Jihadists who then murder non-believers in planned Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks. Those Imams should be charged with supporting terrorism & sedition, and should be deported to the countries of origin.

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62
Capt USN(Ret)/Former FBI
Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108

Cell: (310) 989-8778
Fax: (619) 220-0109



Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8
Michigan ‘preacher of hate’ inspired 1 attacker
Published: 06/05/2017


People who knew the jihadists who struck Saturday with long knives against defenseless London diners saw something, and they said something. But the British government did nothing.

In fact, one of the three attackers was reported to authorities for following the teachings of a known radical sheik based in Dearborn, Michigan.

Dearborn is home to the largest Arab-American community in the U.S.

According to the London Telegraph, a former friend of one of the three dead London suspects claimed one of the attackers had been radicalized while watching Dearborn cleric Ahmad Musa Jibril’s YouTube videos, and he said he contacted authorities after becoming concerned about his friend’s Islamist views.

The Telegraph described the Dearborn sheik as “infamous American hate preacher Ahmad Musa Jibril.”

The former friend of the London jihadist said: “We spoke about a particular attack that happened and, like most radicals, he had a justification for anything and everything. And that day, I realized I needed to contact the authorities.”

He added: “He used to listen to a lot of Musa Jibril. I have heard some of this stuff, and it’s very radical. I am surprised this stuff is still on YouTube and is easily accessible. I phoned the anti-terror hotline. I spoke to the gentleman. I told him about our conversation and why I think he was radicalized.”

The suspected attacker was not arrested and was allowed to keep his passport.

“I did my bit, I know a lot of other people did their bit, but the authorities did not do their bit,” the friend said.

The former friend, who was not identified at the request of police, told the BBC he contacted police after comments the man made about previous attacks by other jihadists. But, according to the Telegraph, he said the authorities took no action “despite evidence of increasingly extremist views.”

On his website, Jubril, 46, has a smattering of teaching videos and invites non-Muslims to convert to Islam.

In one video, he teaches that Muslims will not achieve success unless the entire ummah (global Muslim community) is united in obeying Allah’s commands for Shariah law.

“Look at the submission to Allah on this earth, the Shariah of Allah in this earth, how it’s implemented and in accordance to that, the victory comes from the heavens. Simple, simple and clear. We never achieve victory through power in numbers, never. We will always achieve our victories and success through Allah.”

In the above video, the “enemy” is clearly presented as the non-Muslim world, which Jubril refers to as “the lowest people.”

A 2014 report by the London-based International Center of the Study for Radicalization and Political Violence described Jibril, a Palestinian-American cleric born in Dearborn and another Western-based cleric, Musa Cerantonio, as “important figures whose political, moral and spiritual messages are considered attractive to a number of foreign fighters.” The terrorists followed the two imams on social media.

“Their popularity is also reflected on Twitter, where they are followed by 60 and 23 percent of foreign fighters, respectively, and is particularly strong among groups like ISIS, whose members provide a majority of their likes and follows.”

Amazingly, the London-based center’s report concluded, “None of this should suggest that either individual is a member of ISIS or Jabhat al-Nusrah, nor should it be taken as indicating that they are involved in facilitating the recruitment of foreign fighters.”

The Detroit News reports that in 2005, Ahmad Jibril and his father, Musa Abdallah Jibril, 66, were convicted on 42 counts of an indictment charging them with bank fraud, conspiracy, money laundering and other counts. Ahmad Jibril was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison; his father was sentenced to four years and 10 months. Federal authorities accused the Jibrils of buying 13 homes and two apartment buildings in the Detroit area since 1988 and insuring them for far more than they were worth.

Criminal background

The father-and-son team were accused of defrauding six local banks of more than $250,000.

The government entered into the court record a “Supplemental Sentencing Memorandum” that stated that a family photo album seized during the investigation contained “photos of Ahmad as a teenager dressed as a mujahid … (and) photos of very young children holding apparently real firearms, ‘playing’ at holding each other hostage and aiming the weapons at each other’s heads,” according to the report by International Center of the Study for Radicalization and Political Violence.

The memorandum also revealed that Ahmad Musa Jibril was running a Salafi website (AlSalayfoon.com) at the time of his arrest that “contained a library of fanatically anti-American sermons by militant Islamic clerics, in English and in Arabic.”

In March 2015, a federal judge in Detroit ordered Jibril to testify about his finances, days before his supervised probation was set to expire.

During a hearing in U.S. District Court, Chief Judge Gerald Rosen ordered Jibril to testify under oath about the source of his income. Jibril cited his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and remained silent.

During the 2015 court proceedings, Jibril’s attorney, Rita Chastang, said, “There is no evidence he is hiding assets.”

The Saturday assault unfolded when a rented van veered off the road and barreled into pedestrians on busy London Bridge. Three men then got out of the vehicle with large knives and attacked people at bars and restaurants in nearby Borough Market until the attackers were shot dead by police.

‘This is for Allah’

“They went, ‘This is for Allah,’ and they had a woman on the floor. They were stabbing her,” witness Gerard Vowls said.

Florin Morariu, a Romanian chef who works in the Bread Ahead bakery, said he saw people running and some fainting. Then two people approached another person and “began to stick the knife in … and then I froze and I didn’t know what to do.”

He said he managed to get near one attacker and “hit him around the head” with a bread basket.

“There was a car with a loudspeaker saying ‘go, go’ and they (police) threw a grenade. … and then I ran,” he said.

London police said officers killed the three jihadists within eight minutes of arriving at the scene. Eight officers fired some 50 rounds, said Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley.

It’s the Hypocrisy, Stupid, by Victor Hanson [and, how many years have I said this? nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 1:42 pm

It’s the Hypocrisy, Stupid
June 6, 2017 11:52 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
by Victor Davis Hanson// National Review

Progressives go the full Jimmy Swaggart.

Some concerned Democrats are worried that their party may have lost the key blue-wall states because of its elitism, manifested as disdain for Americans between the coasts.

Perhaps emblematic of their worry is the strange metamorphosis of Hillary Clinton’s two presidential campaigns. In 2008, as Bill Clinton 2.0, she drank boilermakers, bragged about bowling and shooting, boasted about her resonance with the “white” working class, and clobbered Obama on his Pennsylvania clingers speech.

But after Obama’s win — and his assumed new formula of registering record numbers of minority voters and seeing them often vote in a bloc on the basis of racial solidarity — Clinton thought she too could follow this new pathway to Democratic victories. So she made the understandable political contortions

This time around, Clinton was bent on out-Obaming Obama’s “clingers” with her own “deplorables” and “irredeemables.” Her campaign was based on pandering to identity-politics groups — while she had cashed in on Wall Street in what can be fairly called a payola scheme with Bill to enrich the Clinton Foundation and thus indirectly themselves. The result was both a cultural and economic affront to what used to be the bedrock of the Democratic party.

Americans neither hate nor envy meritocratic elites. Here in one of the poorer areas of the nation in rural southwestern Fresno County, the poor admire the skilled surgeons who operate on their children. Most of the new agri-barons are up-by-their-bootstraps ethnics: Basques, Punjabis, and descendants of the Okie diaspora and the 1960s waves of immigrants from Mexico who may now farm more than 2,000 or 3,000 acres of orchards and vineyards and on paper be worth $10 or $15 million, though they dress in old clothes and drive run-down pickups. They are looked upon as success stories worthy of emulation because most talk and act like the people who work for and with them.

So perhaps what drives proverbially average Americans crazy is not the success and money of others, but the condescension and hypocrisy of what a particular elite says contrasted with how it lives: The disconnect recalls the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart, the televangelist who on Sunday mornings three decades ago used to break into tears as he loudly condemned the sins of the flesh, while he privately indulged his worldly appetites.

Elites, whose lifestyles lead them to burn lots of carbon, rail about the Paris accords to those who get by burning lots less. What is galling is to see how little the elites’ green rhetoric is backed up by their green behavior. Could Hollywood celebrities at least for a year swear off the use of their private jets that emit more carbon emissions in a year than entire small towns in Ohio?

Why do not college professors who are strident activists for climate change agree to limit their intercontinental jet trips to one a year? Could our pundits and politicians who warn Middle America to brace for radical changes in their lifestyles at least agree to live in houses smaller than 2,500 square feet?

How do our elites square the circle of identity politics and big money? The notion that reparatory admissions and hiring are based on race and gender presupposes that past endemic bias has led to oppression that in turn had hit hard the livelihoods of the Other. But what happens when after a half-century of affirmative action, many who receive preferences are richer than those whom they accuse of white privilege?

Or is it more ironic than that? Wealthy white college kids chant about the demon white privilege, going so far as to help demand racially segregated safe spaces, dorms, and, in one case currently in the news, temporary expulsion of white people from campus. They rage against a privilege that they enjoy and that their perceived targets — the unenlightened middle of America — do not. Yet one easy way of ending white privilege, to the extent that it exists, among elite enclaves would be to send one’s children to public high schools rich in diversity.

One wonders how many hecklers and disrupters at Middlebury College, to take one example, chose prep school when there were better opportunities to mingle with minorities at inner-city schools? And if they really wished to address culpable whites, shouldn’t the college sponsor field trips to rural Pennsylvania or southern Ohio where such chanting demonstrators might more directly address the targets of their ire?

If one believes that charter schools and vouchers weaken the public-school system, then an effective way to counter such challenges would be to put one’s own children in public classrooms rather than to deny the poor the ability to disconnect from the public schools for the same reasons that so many elites have. One of the most surreal paradoxes of Washington, D.C., is the number of progressives (including the former president of the United States) who put their children in Sidwell-Friends while passionately opposing charter schools and vouchers.

The list of progressive paradoxes is limitless: handgun possession by the law-abiding is a supposed catalyst for violence, but not for security details who surround Hollywood and political celebrities. Elites lecture Americans on their supposed – isms and -ologies (sexism, racism, nativism), but when such sins are endemic to Middle Eastern societies abroad or indeed among immigrant communities inside the West, they are paternalistically excused or ignored.

Common themes in rap music are misogyny, racism and calls for violence against police — the sort of career-ending lyrics for most other entertainers.

The media are overwhelmingly progressive and critical of America for its supposed backward and unprogressive values. Yet reactionary ideas are most evident on the coastal corridors and on supposedly tolerant and liberal campuses. Who thought the liberal civil rights of the 1960s would end in the neo-segregationist movements of the 2010s, most recently at Evergreen College, where all whites were asked to leave the campus for a day while minority students shut down the campus?

Yet visit liberal Silicon Valley or Hollywood boardrooms, and a self-described and purported meritocracy rules, which so far has resulted in few minorities in those corridors of influence and power.

All these hypocrisies raise the question among fly-over Americans about the entire politically correct progressive agenda of elites: Has it become reduced to a cynical sort of indemnity insurance that elites take out to lubricate their own privilege? (Will Bill Maher survive his use of the N-word, given his loud liberalism?) Al Gore got rich by creating a veritable global-warming-alarmist industry, only to offload his largely failed cable channel (in a fire sale timed to help him beat anticipated higher capital-gains taxes) to the gas- and oil-exporting autocracy of Qatar. He got away without criticism because he was Al Gore, liberal environmental-justice warrior.

John Kerry has spent a political career prompting higher taxes — only in 2010 to attempt to berth his $7 million yacht in Rhode Island rather than his home Massachusetts to avoid high sales and excise taxes. He thought he could square that circle because he was John Kerry, fierce supporter of higher redistributive taxes to expand social services.

California is the locus classicus of sanctimonious elite hypocrisies: Interior farmers must give up their contracted irrigation water to save the Delta smelt, while San Francisco environmentalists insist that their own water supplies flow from the distant Sierra uninterrupted over the San Joaquin River into the reservoirs of the Bay Area.

Stanford students lecture about erasing things named after Junipero Serra, who purportedly exploited and maltreated native Californians while founding the mission system. But Leland Stanford, the founder of the university, as governor of the state, often lectured on the inferiority of nonwhite populations, while Stanford’s first president, David Starr Jordan (co-founder of the racist “Human Betterment Foundation”), was an unapologetic eugenicist who feared the effects of miscegenation. It is quite easy to airbrush Father Serra from a few streets, but campus social-justice warriors apparently value their Stanford brand name on their diplomas too much to Trotskyize away their own investment. Left unstated is that liberal students cannot be parties to racism so, presto, Stanford is exempt from rebranding.

Obama, who lectured the country that wealthy people did not build their own businesses, that everyone should realize when they had made enough money, and that it was not the time for profiting, now earns $400,000 from Wall Street interests for short speeches on his past successes — on the heels of raking in a reported $60 million for a his-and-hers book deal. How does the tire saleswoman in Grand Rapids or the welder in Tennessee square that? Americans have no problem with Obama’s post-presidential lucrative entrepreneurialism, but they do mind that he is never subject to the ramifications of his own loud redistributionist ideology.

In sum, the progressive Left’s problem is not elitism per se, at least in the sense that it’s now the party of wealthy people, investors, professionals, academics, the media, and celebrities. Rather the rub is the Left’s grating habit of lecturing America on its shortcomings while exempting themselves.

Finally, why do progressive elites act so patently hypocritical when they must sense it is destroying the Democratic party?

Other than the Dirty Harry answer “because they like it,” the answers are complex.

In part, they virtue-signal their own distance from the shunned middle classes, who are assumed to lack both the romance of the distant poor and the tastes and culture of the proximate rich.

Lectures without personal consequences allow the enjoyment of privilege without personal guilt. Without Barack Obama’s boilerplate on diversity and social justice, the public would see that he now lives a far more privileged life than does a Mitt Romney.

In career terms, the more memos you write deploring the lack of diversity, the less likely you or your old-boy white staff will be scrutinized by diversity czars. Hold up a simulacrum of Donald Trump’s severed head, dream to a crowd of blowing up the White House, flip the finger to Trump’s picture while flashing the V-sign to Snoop Dogg, the ex-felon and pimp, and there is little careerist downside. Mutatis mutandis, do that in the context of Obama, and your career would be over.

Big-city coastal culture is also closer to a postmodern hip Europe than to the premodern uncool interior a few miles away. There is a sense of globalized entitlement of a particular class that has prospered as a domestic market of 300 million turned into a world market of 6 billion. Our new plutocrats believes that because they became capitalist demi-gods, they also deserved commensurate cultural and spiritual exceptionalism.

An elite’s lectures on melting ice caps, transgendered restrooms, or Black Lives Matter are progressive versions of an unapologetic sinner’s singing hymns in church on Sunday; the harangues bring them closer to their social-justice deities and apparently give personal meaning to their otherwise quite non-transcendent lives.

In all their own manifest hypocrisies, Americans take for granted that elites of the Left have become the Jimmy Swaggarts of our age.

June 5, 2017

A Response to Butch re Fed Court Abuse 5 Jun 17

Butch got upset with a recent segment of Tucker Carlson that showed a blatantly legislating federal judge. My immediate response didn’t completely satisfy him. Below are Article III and part of Article II plus the reasoning behind them which are in

The Heartland Plan

, which may be found as a section in The Albany Plan Re-Visited available at http://www.bn.com/ebooks for $10.

Article III
The Judiciary

§3.01 The Judicial Power of these United States, shall be in a Federal System of trial and appellate courts with District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and one Supreme Court of Appeals, with jurisdictions as follows:
§3.01.01 District Courts shall be trial courts
§3.01.01a District Courts shall be apportioned among the states regardless of state boundaries
§3.01.01b Their jurisdictional borders shall be identical to the geographic borders of the contiguous congressional districts assigned to them by The Congress
§3.01.01b(i) No District Court may have fewer than one congressional district nor more than seven (7) congressional districts within its purview
§3.01.01c In criminal cases, the jury shall consist of no fewer than eleven (11) voting members and no more than twenty-one (21) voting members
§3.01.01c(i) a guilty verdict may be brought in by eighty percent (80%) of the voting members rounded down
§3.01.01c(ii) a death penalty verdict may be brought in by ninety percent (90%) of the voting members rounded down
§3.01.01d In civil cases, the jury shall consist of no fewer than seven (7) voting members and no more than fifteen (15) voting members
§3.01.01d(i) a liability verdict may be brought in by sixty-five percent (65%) of the voting members rounded down
§3.01.01d(ii) a punitive damages award may be brought in by eighty percent (80%) of the voting members rounded down
§3.01.01e There shall be no more than three times (3X) the number of voting members of alternates, and no less than two (2) alternates on every jury
§3.01.01f In the event of a deadlocked or tied jury, or the minimum number of jurors be passed, the judge shall seal the record and the Circuit Court of Appeals for his district shall immediately certify the record for appeal and decision
§3.01.01f(i) In addition to reviewing the record for legal errors, this Circuit Court of Appeal shall also render the verdict including all damages, real, compensatory, and punitive or in a criminal case, set the penalty including death
§3.01.02 There shall be several Circuit Courts of Appeals placed over the District Courts by The Congress
§3.01.02a Upon appropriate appeal made, the Circuit Court shall review the record for all errors of law and fact
§3.01.02b There shall be a separate Federal Court of Distinctive Appeal, which shall be responsible for all appeals from administrative and military courts
§3.01.02b(i) The Federal Court of Distinctive Appeal shall be located at the capitol but may create and order special magistrates to any locale for fact finding, but never decision making
§3.01.03 There shall be one Supreme Court of Appeal over all the Circuit Courts of Appeal
§3.01.03a Upon appropriate appeal made, the Supreme Court shall review the records and decisions of the lower courts for errors of law and fact
§3.01.03b The Supreme Court shall be responsible for resolving disputes between the circuits
§3.01.03b(i) It shall resolve disputes between the circuits as soon as they occur and certify the records no later than sixty (60) days from the rendering of the contrary decision
§3.01.03b(ii) All circuit disputes shall be resolved during the term in which they are certified, the court staying in session until its work is completed
§3.02 The Judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls and civil servants when performing within the scope of their employment; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; and to appellate controversies between two or more states, and between a state, or citizens thereto, and foreign states, citizens or subjects
§3.02.01 All Supreme Court decisions interpreting statutes or this Constitution of these United States, shall be, on the day rendered, forwarded to the Congress for complete acceptance, partial acceptance and remand, rejection and remand, or rejection and direction pursuant to §1.08.01a
§3.03 Eligibility requirements for the Federal Bar
§3.03.01 All Judges, Justices and U.S. Attorneys must meet the same eligibility requirements as those for president
§3.03.02 All private counselors and advisors, appearing in that capacity in Federal Court, must meet the same eligibility requirements as those for members of congress
§3.04 Representation of parties
§3.04.01 Only U.S. Attorneys shall be members of the Federal Bar
§3.04.02 All causes, criminal, civil, administrative, or other, will be assigned to a U.S. Attorney for prosecution, and to a second U.S. Attorney for defense
§3.04.03 Any and all parties to a Federal Action may, at his own non-reimbursable expense, hire a licensed member of any bar as a counselor to assist the U.S. Attorney assigned to represent him
§3.04.03a The Court, at its discretion or upon motion of a party, may, but is not required to, and it shall be reviewable on appeal, order more than one U.S. Attorney to represent a party in a Federal Action
§3.05 Everyone protected by this constitution has access to this court provided this court has subject matter jurisdiction
§3.05.01 Every petitioner shall submit his claim to the district court in which he lives
§3.05.01a the petition shall be reviewed by two U.S. Attorneys and one judge for appropriateness
§3.05.01a(i) Appropriateness shall include a decision on jurisdiction, both subject matter and personal
§3.05.01a(ii) Appropriateness shall include a decision on frivolity
§3.05.01a(iii) If the suit be found inappropriate, it will be returned with instructions on where and how to properly file it
§3.05.01a(iv) If the suit be found inappropriate for frivolity, the petitioner shall be charged the full expense of filing and assessment
§3.05.02 If the claim be appropriate, the court will prepare the petition for filing in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and assign it to the appropriate District Court wherever that shall be
§3.05.02a The appropriate District Court shall take charge of the suit, file it, assign a court, a plaintiff’s attorney and a defense attorney from its available pool of U.S. Attorneys, and perform all other necessary functions for the just and expeditious resolution of the claim
§3.06 Juries
§3.06.01 Every Bona Fide Corporeal Federal Citizen is subject to jury duty without recourse, except:
§3.06.01a Those actually in hospital
§3.06.01b Those adjudged mentally or physically incompetent by both a doctor of competent jurisdiction and a sitting Federal Court or under the age of eighteen (18) years
§3.06.01c Military or Civil Servants serving overseas or whose duties are of such paramount necessity to the public defense or health that to require their attendance endangers the public welfare
§3.06.01c(i) In such cases jury duty is postponed, not exempted
§3.06.01d Those scheduled to have life saving surgery during the time estimated for trial
§3.06.01d(i) In such cases jury duty is postponed, not exempted
§3.06.01e The President of the United States; The Speaker of The House; and, The Counter-Speaker of The House
§3.06.02 Jurors shall be compensated for their service by bringing the prior year’s 1040-IRA form and an hourly compensation will then be ascertained; compensation will then be at the hourly rate for the first forty (40) hours per week with the next twenty (20) hours at one hundred and fifty percent (150%) for the next twenty hours in that week and at two hundred and twenty five percent (225%) for each weekly hour past sixty (60)
§3.06.02a The court shall provide the second meal for any day where the juror’s time exceeds eight (8) hours
§3.06.02b Jurors shall supply the court with a statement of benefits from their employer or other provider of same and the court shall directly reimburse the provider the cost of such benefits for the duration of jury duty
§3.06.03 There shall be no peremptory challenges
§3.06.04 No potential juror shall be dismissed for any reason other than cause shown and cause shown is reviewable by the appellate court
§3.06.05 Avoidance of jury duty, or the filing of false information to avoid jury duty, is a felony
§3.07 Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, or giving them aid and comfort, or in supporting them financially or materially
§3.07.01 No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court
§3.07.02 The penalty for treason is death without stay or pardon
§3.07.03 No attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted
§3.08 No Federal Court at any time nor in any manner may grant a criminal greater rights or privileges than has a bona fide corporeal citizen of these United States of America
§3.09 Federal Judges and Attorneys shall have, once appointed, tenure for life or voluntary retirement, excepting that:
§3.09.01 §1.03.05 applies
§3.09.02 The President or the House may remove any judge or attorney for medical or psychological reasons, proven in a court of competent jurisdiction, including but not limited to, a finding of drug or alcohol dependence or abuse
§3.09.03 A judge or attorney once dismissed, may never be reinstated

§3.01 & §3.02

What appear to be overwhelming changes from the 1787 Constitution are actually what was originally intended in the 1787 Constitution, by both the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians, were reiterated in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, and from time to time by various presidents and governmental watchdog groups, each having recommended one or all of these things. Each time that one or more of these have been suggested, the United States Supreme Court has made its next decision on whatever subject raised everyone’s ire, a slightly retrograde decision which never recovers a tenth of the ground lost but which placates all of the court watchers but has continually moved us into the realm of socialism and of judicial legislation. The quick proof is to look at almost any controversial opinion made by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and where the U.S. Supreme Court has ultimately ended up. Another quick proof is to look at how easily the avowed socialist Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and Sotomayer were confirmed and to how impossible it has been to get Moderate Republicans confirmed, never mind actually getting a Republican or a Conservative confirmed. The best quick proof has been the death penalty.
When the founders put in the clause regarding cruel and unusual punishment, they were specifically talking about stocks, branding, maiming, dunking, drawing & quartering, castration, forced bankruptcy then moving the debtor and his whole family into debtors prison where he and they became day-laborers-slaves and died still in debt, as it was structured to be impossible to work the debt off, the debt being then inherited by his heirs.
Jefferson knew about this personally as he was debt free until he married. When his father-in-law died and they inherited her proportional share of his estate, Jefferson found himself so in debt that he never recovered. He himself died selling family/slave members west and a bankrupt. The state of Virginia allowed a lottery for the purpose of relieving his debt around 1823 but still couldn’t raise enough money to satisfy his creditors. (Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, died on July 4th, 1826 coincidentally within hours of John Adams, 2nd President of the United States, who died debt free.)
So, here we have a structure that places justice back into the hands of the citizenry. Currently, you do not have the absolute right to a jury trial in a civil case. You now have to ask and the court may deny your request. Also, the structure of the courts is codified. The Federal Circuit Court is now the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It just so happened to evolve this way because when you sue the federal government, you must file in D.C., hence, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals just so happened to get the bulk of the administrative cases. This hasn’t affected how the individual circuits have interpreted the Code of Federal Regulations, the C.F.R.’s which are the regulations formulated by the various government agencies for the implementation of their powers. One need only check on what the 9th Circuit has allowed or what the EPA and NLRB have gotten away with.
A quick proof is the judicial extension of the Social Security Act by the 9th Circuit back in the 1970’s.
The SSA was for people who put into the funds. If you didn’t contribute to the funds or be the widow or minor child of someone who had contributed into the SSA trust funds, you weren’t eligible to receive any Social Security checks of any kind. With the influx of Vietnamese refugees, some claiming post-traumatic stress from watching their villages, farms, relatives or jungles being bombed into the stone age by the United States Air Force, all on their own testimony without corroboration, and Administrative Law Judges (ALJ’s) denying these claims, when appealed through the District Courts to the Circuit Court, the 9th Circuit decided to extend to these poor people one hundred percent (100%) vesting in the Social Security Plan. You should research this yourself to make certain that this is the correct order of things. It just may be that Congress violated the constitution and the original SSA and the 9th Circuit was merely following the will of the people as placed into law by the elected representatives of the people. Regardless … .
Another quick proof is the death penalty issue. In every poll and at every election, the citizenry are in favor of the death penalty with an affirmative vote of at least 70%. Yet the courts, both state and federal, keep saying that killing a murderer is cruel because it inflicts a certain amount of pain on him. Let us consider the absurdity of this position.
First, it’s not up to the courts to decide this issue, it’s strictly legislative. Second, even if you’re an atheist, what’s the real difference between death by lethal injection and death from old age? Personally, death by lethal injection is much more humane than requiring someone live in Leavenworth Prison for thirty, forty, fifty or more years.
Technically, the bulk of this section shouldn’t even be in a constitution. Most of this is statutory in nature. Because the courts have become havens for the personal agendas of the judges, it’s necessary to spell it out for them and remove so much of their discretionary powers.
§3.03 through §3.05

These are huge changes from the way that we currently operate, but, again, they’re actually what was intended by the founders, and the last 220 years have shown that they are necessary for justice.
The first purpose here is to screen potential legislators from gaining the bench. The second is to screen self-servers. The third is to actually remove pecuniary interest from the litigation process. Overall, the purpose is to fulfill the social contract of government.
With the development of civilization came property. With ownership came thieves. With thieves came the realization that you couldn’t stay awake 24/7 to protect your property so the law, and police, and the courts, were invented. Brief and superficial, but sufficient for our needs herein with the exception that until very recently, we have retained the rights of self-defense, defense of others, and defense of property, by the use of deadly force, to ourselves.
In order to keep the peace, we allowed for the expansion of courts and police and, for most of us, the un-intentional relinquishing of our rights of self-defense. Our hired police would both prevent crime and capture criminals for trial in our wonderful jury system, which, if they were proven guilty, they would be removed from our society and punished. Again, this is an oversimplification, but it states the obvious and places the foundation for the changes in the judiciary. In the XXth Century, with all of its psycho-babble, liberalism interpreted as self above all, and dumbing down while insisting upon unearned self-esteem as the standard for maturity, the criminal has been exalted above the citizen and been given rights and privileges far beyond those of the citizen.
Several quick-proofs are readily apparent. The 1787 Constitution provides for a jury trial. Now, a citizen does not have the right to a jury trial, but must instead ask for one and the court believes, erroneously, that it can deny this request.
A criminal has the right to a speedy trial, usually meaning within nine (9) months of the indictment. Civil trials, especially with the federal government as defendant, can go on for years without resolution. Further, in the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, the federal government has several privileges not permitted to others. An extended time to answer a complaint and special rules regarding judgments are just two such examples.
Health care is a third area where the criminal benefits more than the citizen. Thanks to the legislating 9th Circuit, if a serial killer, in jail for nine hundred and ninety-nine years (999), needs an organ transplant, he goes to the top of the waiting list and WILL be the next to receive a liver, or lung, or heart, whereas the taxpaying citizen must first be assessed to determine how helpful a transplant will be and then he’ll go on a waiting list behind everyone else who is already on the list. Criminals, thanks to the courts, have better health care, nutrition, leisure activities, educational opportunities, libraries and social services than families of four with a gross annual income of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). Facilities, services and punishments for criminals, solely the legislature’s responsibility, have been usurped and standards set, by people rarely if ever subjected to victimization by anyone.
Another area where the courts have imposed not only their own standards, but their arrogant ignorance, is the area of social justice. Here, quick-proofs abound to the point of absurdity, and the Obamacrats keep adding more.
First, some historical asides to set the stage. According to historians, slavery is an economic circumstance and one not particularly related to race. Prior to 1750, race wasn’t much considered as a factor of slavery in the United States, but one of circumstance. As late as 1860, substantiated by an analysis of the 1860 United States Census by the Kennedy Brothers, Ronald and Donald, 42% of slaves were Amerindian, Chinese and white; 32% of slave owners were black, among them were some who’d escaped their fates on the Amistad. According to the November 2006 issue of Reader’s Digest, slavery is common enough in New York City. As a matter of religion, twenty percent (20%) of this world’s population believe slavery is appropriate and it is not only their right, but their duty to enslave the infidel.
According to Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade [Simon & Schuster, © 1997, ISBN 0-684-81063-8] over eighty percent (80%) of the eleven million plus (11,000,000) Africans taken into slavery and shipped to the New World, were enslaved by fellow Africans who bartered them away to, in descending order, the Portuguese (Brazilians, who ended their slavery in the 1880’s while Yankee clippers from Boston still profited from the trade), the English (who in fact forced slavery onto Virginia – the early colonists allowed indenture but not slavery but since the king got a percentage of every slave’s sale, the Crown Colony was required to admit slaves), the Spaniards, the Dutch, and the North Americans.
Fewer than half of American slave owners owned more than five slaves, and those with fewer than five slaves generally, they all lived in the same house and attended the same church, all as one family. Less than sixty percent (60%) of the blacks living in the United States are descended from slaves and fewer than twenty-five percent (25%) of the non-black population are descended from people who were here in 1850. Of even more interest, less than five percent (5%) of today’s American population are descended from anybody who’s ever owned slaves and thirty-two percent (32%) of that five percent, are black The richest slave owner in Charleston SC in 1860 was a black man named Jackson who owned seven plantations and over 680 slaves. When Lincoln was elected, he sold all of his property for gold and moved north to Chicago. When Farragut and Butcher Butler took New Orleans in 1862, the second richest slave owner was a black widow who had all of her cotton stolen and sold to Butler’s British cotton factors for way below market.
Women, until the birth control pill, were subject to a lesser status than men for various reasons.
Species continuity requires that women conceive and bear healthy children. Until penicillin, in the 1940’s, infant and child mortality was high. Married women, who accounted for approximately two thirds of the female population, were frequently pregnant and forced to labor at home, not necessarily because her husband wanted it, but because of the circumstance of child rearing combined with child bearing. They simply were unable to be out in the work force overseeing or participating in manufacture. Property laws and tra-ditional behavioral standards kept them there.
Of the other third, most were spinsters living in somebody else’s house and surviving on, usually a relative’s, generosity. Read your Jane Austen for some insight.
Judicial legislation in the way of desegregation decisions based on “disparate impact,” or quotas for employment or school acceptance are based on both false historical “facts” and improper application of statistics.
When an area has 70% of its criminals being black, it might behoove the court to see what the community is made up of. If the community is 70% black, then the police force is not targeting the black community. If 70% of the criminals are Latino and 70% of the community is Latino, then the police force is not targeting Latinos. It’s an odd thing, disparate impact.
First, the disparate impact shall be looked at and then the others.
“Disparate Impact” means that if a plaintiff can show the judge that his group has a lesser standing or greater handicap than the white male, that is automatically discrimination. No other factors need be taken into account, nor how this disparity evolved. In Kansas City, we have recently gone through a twenty year forced desegregation program, costing the state of Missouri over two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) in tax revenue because a Federal Judge was shown that kids in the Kansas City Missouri School District performed much lower on the standardized tests than those “similarly situated.” No interest was shown in the children’s backgrounds, environment &c. The court was shown that over seventy percent (70%) of the student population was black and Hispanic, and, therefore, it was the segregated school district that had caused this failure rate. Therefore the school district must be desegregated, regardless of the cost. Never mind that the district was 70% black and Hispanic, and the results were, according to the sociologists, because of the broken homes and poverty &c in their environment, which means that spending more money on the schools will have zero impact on the root causes of these kids’ academic failures , the Federal Court ruled that the district must desegregate. It also ruled on how the state of Missouri must spend its tax dollars – something strictly forbidden it by the 1787 Constitution. One absurd result of this ruling was that a child in Odessa MO, over fifty miles away, was “bussed” in by private cab at a taxpayer cost of over $150/day. So the school that needed more whites could have more whites; and the real result as of today, March 23, 2012, is that the Kansas City School District has become dis-accredited and many of the schools closed, but administrative staff and costs about what they were or higher than, in 2000.
In New York City, for many years Hispanics failed the written driving test at a much higher rate than whites. The test was given in English, so those who were not fluent in English, failed at a higher rate, thus, “disparate impact” on a racial group. Automatically, this was decided to be discrimination, and the test then had to be given in whatever language the candidate was comfortable with. Never mind that driving is a privilege, and, therefore, not covered by the 1787 Constitution, and never mind that driving licenses are strictly a state’s right where the feds are forbidden to meddle, and, never mind the extra cost for these additional changes or the hiring of translators for languages not common enough to warrant printed exams, and never mind that the reason that some of these people couldn’t pass was because of the educational system from whence they came, but, more importantly, never mind that by requiring the candidate to learn some English, he was forced to become American! Forced to integrate himself into the American Culture, imagine that!
And, don’t let’s get started on Medicaid!
Colleges with higher standards than average for admittance have been forced to accept under-qualified minorities, but not white females, and provide them with remedial classes, at double taxpayer expense as these skills have already been paid for in high school. These minorities then had a higher than normal drop out rate, because they were unfit for the curricula of study, which feeds the Catch-22 of “disparate impact.” Now these schools are discriminating because there’s a higher percentage of minority dropouts than whites, so, some are passed through without actually earning a degree but getting one anyway or programs are dummy-downed.
Community Standards are another way in which the courts legislate their personal agendas. When it comes to zoning, community standards require all sorts of restrictions including building size, occupancy, and location based on use, &c. However, pornography, or where a halfway house, or drug rehabilitation/ testing office is located, is purely at the whim of the judge. Quick-proof is when a half-way house was going to be located in a judge’s neighborhood in Westchester County, NYS, it wasn’t allowed because it would overburden the utilities, but it wouldn’t overburden the utilities in The Bronx, which if you’ve ever driven on the Cross-Bronx-Expressway, you’ll know looks like Dresden Germany the day after the fire bombing in World War II. Judges apply different standards for themselves than they do the people who have no control over them.

Juries. Part of the problem with the lack of justice is the ability of the court to disallow citizens to participate on a jury on a whim, and that potential jurors can escape jury duty for any reason or no reason and without good cause shown. Actually, this, as certain other sections, shouldn’t be in a constitution. This should be a statute. However, the phrase, “why would you want a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty,” is all too true.
Judges and attorneys do not want anyone educated to sit on a jury, nor do they want anyone who may view the facts dispassionately. They all want an easy resolution by either overwhelming the jury with so much crap that they take the easy way out or they appeal to their emotions to get huge jury awards. Quick proof: there is no substantial evidence as to what causes cerebral palsy. The Plaintiff’s bar has made themselves billions of dollars by appealing to the emotions of jurors. The widow of a man who used Vioxx for less than nine months and then died of heart failure, is certainly not entitled to $50,000,000 for the loss of his life’s earnings and consortium, much less a punitive award of $250,000,000 when the evidence so clearly shows that the patient must take Vioxx for over 24 months to have any serious side effects. A jury made up of people from the community, college graduates as well as high school drop-outs, men and women, probably would not have come to that decision.
When one looks to Europe, we see that in these kinds of cases, an economic assessment is made for the bereaved family and that’s what they receive, and, if the manufacturer is found to have been negligent, the corporate leaders are charged with manslaughter and do time if convicted. Here, we try to keep things on the economic plane, keeping in mind fair play, equity and justice, which the courts disallow.
By having juries defined and the community protected by these rules, and the pecuniary interests of the judges and attorneys completely removed from the litigation process, justice will become the norm and injustice an aberration.

§3.07 through 3.09

These are self explanatory. The section on not allowing criminals more rights that citizens is fairly well covered above. The penalties’ section simply removes the undesirables from staying on the bench.
More Reasoning
Another quick proof of the malignant intentional negligence of the court system, and one which is about to cost the taxpayer trillions of dollars, is the allowance into the court system of a suit for reparations by people alleging to be descended from slaves, here in the United States. This gross injustice is so rife with illegal and non-judicial forms that it must be commented on.
A quick historical background on slavery in the western hemisphere has been pointed out above. In addition, it’s necessary to point out that the people who profited from slavery include all those northern states who provided the ships and ports, and agents in Africa who bought the slaves originally and those that took Federal Dollars to improve roads and canals, those Federal Dollars being tax revenue from primarily southern states. However, just to point out the legalistic nonsense involved and allowed in this suit, read on:
First, in order to file the suit, you must be the one injured. No one in this country can claim to have had his labor stolen by the government. The United States Government has never owned slaves and, in fact, when Lincoln tried to avert the War of 1861 by asking congress to buy the slaves, he was told that the federal government wasn’t allowed to own slaves, even for the limited purpose of manumission. When Lincoln proposed to buy the slaves from the slave states that had stayed loyal, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, & Delaware, his purpose to prove that the war was being fought to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves, which was an unconstitutional purpose, he was told that the necessary and proper clause wasn’t broad enough to allow congress to spend the money that way and that the spending clause also prohibited this purchase. His decision to free the slaves through The Emancipation Proclamation was allowed only because it didn’t apply to the United States but to a foreign nation with which the United States was at war and because it was not a government action, but an action by the military applying only to an enemy state! So, nowhere in the 220 year history of the United States has the United States owned slaves. Plaintiff’s lack standing for this reason alone.
Second, you must be the damaged one. Reparations suits have been allowed by the courts where the plaintiffs have been Japanese-Americans wrongfully incarcerated during WW II and for Jews and others against Germany and Swiss Banks for the theft of goods and labor. There is also a suit being considered against Japan by WW II veterans who were used as forced labor to build roads, bridges and work in factories, where, again, only those living have been allowed in as parties, none of their descendants. In this suit, no one originally a slave is a plaintiff.
Third is the all-necessary parties rule. In order to provide justice, you must make all those liable parties to the suit. Generally, this is considered a class action suit. Now, let’s look at those actually liable in the reparations issue: First, those who took the original peoples into slavery, according to the actual facts and records, were 80% African Tribesmen who took other tribesmen into slavery, a practice that still goes on today. Not one African tribe or country is included as a defendant. Secondly, there were those who transported the slaves, primarily Boston and Providence shippers, none who’ve been made defendants.
In such a suit, all the plaintiffs must be included or given the chance to be included. Everyone has seen the ads in Reader’s Digest and TV Guide, where you need to file as a plaintiff in one of the asbestos suits, or breast implants, or Vioxx. The same joining of parties is necessary in this suit. Since this is a suit for reparations for some ancestor having been a slave, then just about everyone should be a plaintiff because somewhere in your history, and mine someone was a slave to somebody. Being Polish, several generations of my ancestors were enslaved as serfs by the Russians; a serf being worse off than a slave because a slave has value and a serf is only part of the land, like a tree or a rock. If this reparations suit were reasonable, then we’d all be plaintiffs and every institution, business and government would be a defendant. Simply as a matter of law, it’s a necessity to include all necessary parties. Not done here.
Further, in order to be just, only those who originally owned slaves can be assessed damages. My grandparents came to this country to get away from the war. I’m second generation. To the best of my knowledge, no one in my family has ever owned slaves, but in fact, have been Russian Serfs. I should be a plaintiff. On the side of defendants, in order to be just, a study would have to be made as to who was here before 1866 when slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment, as well as who is actually descended from an actual American slave owner. And, someone had better include those blacks descended from that 32% of slave owners who were black.
Next is the issue of Statute of Limitations. If these people who were not damaged by slavery are entitled to bring suit over one hundred and fifty years after the last occurrence, then everyone can bring suit against anyone and everyone for any reason at any time regardless of law or reason. The Statute of Limitation for a suit of stolen labor is less than ten years in Missouri. This means that any suit filed after 1876 should be dismissed for un-timeliness.
Next is the issue of Cause of Action. Is this really a suit for damages for discrimination or for forced labor? Forced labor is really a States’ issue and should not be in Federal Court for that reason alone. If this is a discrimination issue, then where are the Amer-Indians, Chinese and Caucasian descendants necessary for adjudication?
Damages must be for a sum certain or there must be some method of determining damages. In this suit there is no reasonable formula for computation of damages. In fact, there is no formulation for who should receive those damages if it becomes possible to ascertain them. Less than 60% of the blacks living in the United States today are descended from American slaves. How is the court supposed to determine who collects what.
Along with the issue of damages is mitigation of damages. How is the court going to count the monies spent by congress on welfare, affirmative action, EEO &c., or the monies given to charities or The National Negro College Fund, &c, by whites and others, against any spurious damages? Impossible.
Best yet, whom can they collect against? All the slave owners and their property are long gone. Under the 1787 Constitution, the court does not have the authority to order the Government to pay damages caused by private individuals, only congress can do that and only for a legitimate reason. Any order by the court to pay from tax revenue is unconstitutional on its face. The suit should have been dismissed as not in the jurisdiction of the court, but in fact a legislative issue. And Congress is forbidden to pass Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws. Meaning, you can’t post date a law back one minute, much less 160 years or more, just because you want to. And, the court has no jurisdiction in this matter.
Instead the people of the United States, over 95% who have no involvement in the issue, are staring at a lawsuit, or not because the mainstream media hasn’t reported this suit, are going to be out trillions of dollars.
One thing not mentioned above, is that the lawyers involved will make a fortune on this bogus suit. The court will award attorney’s fees to the lawyers. Article II removes the litigating federal attorneys from all temptation of financial gain through misapplication of law or procedure. Even in a case where the court feels that the suit needs more lawyers, in Kansas City alone, there are over 200 lawyers available for temporary work at $23.00 per hour, no benefits other than overtime, so additional lawyers, not U.S. Attorneys, are readily available at reasonable rates, as temps.
These changes are necessary for justice and to stop the millionaire jury lottery that our courts have become. Make a group of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty sympathetic, and regardless of law and fact, become an instant multi-millionaire with the lawyers getting up to 60% as their fee. (State of Missouri allows 60% to attorneys in contingent fee cases.)
Nope, these changes are not only necessary, they are righteous.

[From Article II, The Legislature:]

§1.08.01 The House shall have the following Standing Committees with the responsibilities as delineated therein, plus those others to be delegated and revocable to them by The People, and in The Senate revocable by The States:
§1.08.01a Judiciary
§1.08.01a(i) Within thirty (30) days of a decision by The Supreme Court on any Constitutional Issue, or Interpretation of a law passed by congress, this committee will recommend either the acceptance of the court’s interpretation in its entirety, acceptance of a part of the interpretation remanding the remainder for the court to reconsider, for which it will have no more than ten (10) days to submit a re-interpretation for this committee to reconsider, or reject the court’s interpretation in its entirety in which case the court will have ten (10) days to resubmit its decision; this committee shall have the privilege, not right, of suggesting to The Court a more appropriate decision
§1.08.01a(ii) When the committee has decided to accept the court’s interpretation in its entirety, it will then submit to The Congress the Court’s decision for its approval
§1.08.01a(iii) The Congress will then, as a committee of the whole, decide to accept or reject the Judiciary Committee’s Report. In the event of a rejection, The Congress shall have thirty (30) days to write and pass by a 60% majority of the Quorum of the entire Congress, a decision that will then be the final decision as to the interpretation of this Constitution or of the Federal law in question
§1.08.01a(iv) The Judiciary Committees shall recommend the appointment of all Federal Judges and Attorneys from the appropriate lists provided to them by The President to The Congress
§1.08.01a(iv)A Appointments must be made within thirty (30) days of a position becoming vacant
§1.08.01a(iv)B Appointments must be made from and only from the pre-existing list of candidates provided by The President, said lists further defined in Article II, The Executive
§1.08.01a(v) The Judiciary Committees will be responsible for recommending to The Congress for its approval all Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rules of Evidence, keeping in mind the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and also that of The Executive as submitted by The Attorney General of the United States, but neither shall they be bound by such recommendations
§1.08.01a(vi) The Judiciary Committees shall be responsible for the recommendation of Impeachment of Federal Judges and U.S. Attorneys, when called for by a Writ of Impeachment from either the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or by The Executive or by themselves, or by the Legislature of the State in which the Judge or Attorney is assigned
§1.08.01a(vi)A Said Writ shall clearly state the breach of this Constitution alleged, the evidence supporting the Writ, or, present the Conviction of Felony requiring said judge’s or attorney’s dismissal as required in Article III of this Constitution
§1.08.01a(vi)B If said Writ is presented by a state’s legislature, the Writ must have been voted approved by 75% of both houses of that legislature, 75% of the full legislature, not 75% of the quorum
§1.08.01a(vii) At the direction of The Congress shall provide all other oversight necessary to prevent the court from legislating

1.08 Required Committees and their responsibilities

Specific Committees designed to do certain things. The Founding Fathers, as noted in the preceding comment, had limitations on the franchise. They believed that certain issues, even those that were unpopular or messy, would be properly handled because congress would be made up of responsible people. Two Hundred and Twenty years have shown us otherwise. Just look at the number who routinely bounce checks. Look at the pork. Look at the current spitefulness & partisanship wrangling, over 9/11 and the Iraq Vote. Look to Obamacare and all of the waivers; and, if that’s not enough, go read Throw Them All Out, for the insider trading, legal for congress, illegal for you and me.
Look at the National Debt, or don’t. Whether you do or don’t, YOU owe over $100,000, as does each man, woman, and child who’s a citizen in this country. We’ve got this debt because members of the congress created by the 1787 constitution, are irresponsible and represent only special interest groups and most particularly not the middle-class taxpayer. (The current National Debt is over 16.75 Trillion Dollars – $16,750,000,000,000.00 now divide by 300,000,000 and that’s how much each individual owes, and really, who’s going to pay that money off? )
In recent history various congressional responsibilities have been ignored and the executive and judicial branches have stepped into the vacuum. Roe v Wade is only one public example of such. The Dred Scott Decision, for those who are actually familiar with it, is another. Almost every decision of John Marshall’s, starting with Marbury v Madison, has been a lurid and successful attempt at taking power away from the people. Reading from The Federalist it seems that the Founding Fathers would have approved. Reading from the works represented in The Anti-Federalist, The Massachusetts Plan, and those speeches in Congress from about 1820 through 1860, as well as the constitutional debates themselves (1787), it’s shown that the 1787 constitution became terminally ill with Marbury.
In both sets of essays and such works as Calhoun’s A Disquisition on Government and Geo Washington Letters to Bushrod Washington and the various letters of such note-worthies as Senator/President Jefferson Davis, Senator Stephen Douglas, President Abraham Lincoln, President John Adams, President Thomas Jefferson, et al, congress is MEANT to supersede the Supreme Court and the Executive. Instead, for fear of offending some special interest group back home, much power has left the people by the ineptitude and cowardice of the national legislators.
By having specific duties and responsibilities spelt out, The Congress cannot but do its duty and fulfill its obligations to the nation. The questions of constitutionality of abortion would’ve been answered within six months; Spiro Agnew would’ve gone to jail a lot sooner; the National Debt would be a lot less; a $500,000,000 bridge to nowhere in Alaska wouldn’t exist; Cindy Sheehan and now Sandra Fluke, wouldn’t be in the news ad nauseum.
An historical aside is that before the Marshalistas got control of the Supreme Court, constitutional issues were put to the jury, not to a judge or appellate court with its own agenda.

June 2, 2017

The Old German Problem, by Victor Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 2:06 pm

The Old German Problem
June 1, 2017 3:25 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
By Victor Davis Hanson// National Review

Germany’s negative attitude toward the U.S. long predates the rise of Trump.

Berlin — Germans do not seem too friendly to Americans these days.

According to a recent Harvard Kennedy School study of global media, 98 percent of German public television news portrays President Donald Trump negatively, making it by far the most anti-Trump media in the world.

Yet the disdain predates the election of Trump, who is roundly despised here for his unapologetic anti–European Union views.

In a 2015 Pew Research Center survey of European countries, Germany had the least favorable impression of America. Only about 50 percent of Germans expressed positive feelings toward the U.S. Former president Barack Obama, who visited here last week to lecture the world on diversity and tolerance, never changed negative attitudes much from the unpopular George W. Bush years.

Germans apparently do not appreciate that fellow NATO member America still subsidizes their defense. Nor do they seem appreciative of their huge trade surplus ($65 billion) with the United States.

Germans seem to have forgotten that American troops for 45 years kept the Soviets from absorbing all of Germany. The Berlin Airlift is now premodern history.

Why, then, do confident Germans increasingly dislike the United States?

It is complicated.

Since 1989, Germany has worked hard on its post-unification image as a largely pacifistic country. It is eager to teach other nations how to conduct themselves peacefully and to pursue shared global goals such as reducing global warming or opening national borders to the world’s refugees.

Implicit in Germany’s utopian message is that postmodern Germans know best what not to do — given their terrible 20th-century past, with the aggressions of imperial Germany and later the savagery and Holocaust perpetuated by Hitler’s Third Reich.

Yet being guilt-ridden does not equate to being humble (never a German strong suit).

The same conceit of an ethnically, linguistically, and culturally uniform state that drew Germany into conflict with the U.S. (whose late entry into both World War I and World War II helped ensure German defeats) has never quite disappeared.

Instead, German condescension merely has been updated.

In international finance, Germany de facto runs the European Union on a mercantile system. It manipulates the euro as a weaker currency to swarm export markets in a way that would have been difficult with the older and higher-valued Deutsche mark.

When poorer southern European countries bought too many German goods on easy credit only to default on paying for them, the Germans gave them informed but self-important lectures on their need for Germanic thrift and industriousness.

A similar German hubris was true of recent immigration into Europe.

Berlin often virtue-signals the world how morally superior it now is, while also searching for ways to import cheap labor. One result is German chancellor Angela Merkel’s disastrous open-door policy of welcoming in millions of unvetted immigrants from the war-ravaged Middle East at a time of heightened worries over jihadist terrorism.

But Germany did not just flood its own country with impoverished, hard-to-assimilate newcomers. It also dictated that other European countries do the same — whether they wished to or not.

In matters of international relations and trade, Germany’s sense of superiority occasionally resulted in old-style cheating. To increase imports of Volkswagens into the U.S., the company tried to cheat emission tests to skirt expensive regulations. Germany’s Deutsche Bank was caught money-laundering the profits of Russians in Vladimir Putin’s crony cabal. And reports indicate that to convince soccer’s international governing body, FIFA, to award Germany the 2006 World Cup, German officials resorted to bribery.

Germans brag about their generous social-welfare state and often compare it to a supposedly cutthroat capitalist America. But it is quieter about shirking its NATO membership requirements for defense spending to free up cash for its own citizens — and making mega-profits from exporting pricey luxury cars to a hyper-capitalist American elite.

We should all feel gratitude to Germany for turning its undeniable talent and energies from war to peace. Its huge economy understandably makes Berlin influential in the European Union.

Yet if German haughtiness works on a dependent Europe, it certainly does not always impress a wary America.
The United States is still far larger, wealthier, and more powerful, just as it was in 1918, 1945, and 1989. It does not necessarily listen to German sanctimoniousness on climate change, immigration, trade, or the occasional need for the use of force.

Instead, America more or less does what it believes to be in the best interests of itself and its allies.

Germans find such American independence cowboyish and insubordinate — and believe they can teach Americans about the dangers of such misplaced chauvinism. Americans usually ignore these weary sermons.

Instead, many of them believe that whenever Germany sticks to worrying only about Germany, the world is a far safer place — both now and in the past.

May 31, 2017

The Fusion Party, by Victor Hanson [c]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 3:37 pm

The Fusion Party
May 30, 2017 10:35 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
By Victor Davis Hanson
National Review

The Democrats are following the lead of the progressive media — together, they now form the anti-Trump brigade.

Is there a Democratic-party alternative to President Trump’s tax plan?

Is there a Democratic congressional proposal to stop the hemorrhaging and impending implosion of Obamacare?

Do Democrats have some sort of comprehensive package to help the economy grow or to deal with the recent doubling of the national debt?

What is the Democratic alternative to Trump’s apparent foreign policy of pragmatic realism or his neglect of entitlement reform?

The answers are all no, because for all practical purposes there is no Democratic party as we have traditionally known it.

It is no longer a liberal (a word now replaced by progressive) political alternative to conservatism as much as a cultural movement fueled by coastal elites, academics, celebrities — and the media. Its interests are not so much political as cultural. True to its new media identity, the Democratic party is against anything Trump rather than being for something. It seeks to shock and entertain in the fashion of a red-carpet celebrity or MSNBC talking head rather than to legislate or formulate policy as a political party.

The result is that in traditional governing terms, the Democratic party has recalibrated itself into near political impotency. Barack Obama ended the centrism of Bill Clinton and with it the prior Democratic comeback (thanks to the third-party candidacies of Ross Perot) from the disastrous McGovern, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis years.

Indeed, Obama’s celebrity-media/identity-politics/community-organizing model brought him more new voters than the old voters he lost — but so far, his new political paradigm has not proven transferable to any other national candidates. No wonder that over the eight years of the Obama administration, Democrats lost the majority of the state legislatures, the governorships, local offices, the Senate, the House, the presidency, and, probably, the Supreme Court.

Most Democratic leaders are dynastic and geriatric: Bernie Sanders (75), Hillary Clinton (69), Elizabeth Warren (67), Diane Feinstein (83), Nancy Pelosi (77), Steny Hoyer (77), or Jerry Brown (79). They are hardly spry enough to dance to the party’s new “Pajama Boy” and “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” music.

Yet those not past their mid-sixties appear unstable, such as the potty-mouth DNC head Tom Perez and his assistant, the volatile congressman Keith Ellison. Or they still believe it is 2008 and they can rally yet again around “hope and change” and Vero possumus. That politicos are talking about an amateurish Chelsea Clinton as a serious future candidate reflects the impoverishment of Democratic political talent.

In such a void, a traditionally progressive media, including the entertainment industry, stepped in and fused with what is left of the Democratic party to form the new opposition to the Republican party and in particular to Donald Trump. The aim now is to alter culture through the courts and pressure groups rather than to make laws.

A disinterested observer would have seen that the Democratic antidote to Trumpism was a return to Bill Clinton’s focus on working-class, pocketbook issues — the issues that might win back swing voters in the proverbially blue-wall states. But that won’t happen. The Democratic party is now in the hands of Obama progressives, who in turn follow the lead of the hip, cool, and outraged media that have no responsibility other than to appear hip and cool and outraged. Trump apparently understands that and so focuses most of his invective not against a tired Nancy Pelosi or the shrill Chuck Schumer but at the major networks, mainstream newspapers, and Hollywood celebrities — the heart now of the progressive fusion party.

Trump’s strategy is understandable. A recent study released by the Harvard Kennedy School and Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy reported that in Trump’s first 100 days, 80 percent of major-media news coverage was negative (double the figure during President Obama’s first three months). More important, anti-Trump news constituted 41 percent of all media news coverage, a percentage three times greater than coverage accorded prior presidents. In clinical terms, we might call that an obsession.

If it were not for Fox News’s much caricatured “fair and balanced” coverage (52 percent of its Trump coverage was negative, Harvard reported) to average in with other major print and television media, the anti-Trump bias would have been far greater — given that CNN and NBC ran almost no media coverage that portrayed Trump in a positive light (their coverage was 93 percent negative).

The symptoms of the Media-Democratic party fusion range from the trivial to the profound. The merger is emblematized by the annual White House Correspondents Dinner, which has now fully morphed from a self-congratulatory night for Washington media insiders to a star-studded Petronian banquet of progressive celebrities.

Operationally, the celebrity world and the media have institutionalized political obscenity and street theater. On Inauguration Day, Madonna dreamed out loud of blowing up the White House; Ashley Judd went on a crude, incoherent rant about Trump. Since then, media fixtures such as Steven Colbert and Bill Maher have melted down, the one suggesting on the air that Trump had committed a sex act on Vladimir Putin, the other that he commits incest with his daughter. Yet both were simply amplifying the prior gross slur from Politico reporter Julia Joffe: “Either Trump is f***ing his daughter, or he’s shirking nepotism laws. Which is worse?”

Democrats in Congress and party functionaries have parroted the media’s obscenity and its pettiness. Sixty-seven representatives boycotted the inauguration. A new Democratic-party T-shirt reads “Democrats Give a S*** About People.” The head of the DNC, Tom Perez, routinely uses “s***” as if he were a stand-up on late-night TV. John Burton finished chairing the California Democratic convention with group chants of “f*** Trump,” with collective outstretched middle fingers.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) cried out that if the Democrats could not offer an antidote to Trump, then “we should go the f*** home.” California senator Kamala Harris, supposed icon of the future of the party, rushed in with her own four-letter obscenities.

Celebrity ex-felon Martha Stewart thinks it’s hip to flip the bird to a photo of Donald Trump while simultaneously flipping the V-sign to an image of rapper Snoop Dogg, the violent ex-felon and former pimp who was most recently in the news for shooting an effigy of Donald Trump. Obscenity has become the media tail wagging the Democratic-party dog, even though such vulgarity might shock television audiences rather than win voters.

Note also the media’s idea of the “Resistance” to Trump, as if multimillionaire celebrities attacking Trump while camped out in the scrub of the Hollywood hills were our version of the World War II maquisards who ambushed Waffen SS patrols in rural France. After the media hyped the “Resistance,” even sore-loser Hillary Clinton piled on that she too had enlisted. Role playing, rumor peddling, and virtue signaling, in lieu of winning elections and offices, are for now the new Democratic agendas.

Instead of formulating policy, the fusion party targets its opponents in Whac-A-Mole fashion. After moving on from the smear of First Lady Melania Trump as an illegal alien and call girl, we went to Steve Bannon, the Charles Lindbergh–style fascist; then Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the duplicitous Russian patsy; on to daughter Ivanka Trump, the incestuous peddler of trinkets; then to National Security Council member Sebastian Gorka, the Hungarian Nazi sympathizer; and now presidential adviser Jared Kushner, the Russian collaborator. Each “scandal” got its 15 minutes of cable-news outrage and unhinged tweets from celebrities, before the wolf cries howled on to the next target.

The media brag that they now more or less run the Democratic agenda. Univision’s Jorge Ramos (whose daughter worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign) recently thundered:

Our position, I think, has to be much more aggressive. And we should not expect the Democrats to do that job. It is our job. If we don’t question the president, if we don’t question his lies, if we don’t do it, who is going to do it? It’s an uncomfortable position.

In other words, Ramos confessed that the Democratic party apparently has neither new ideas nor a political agenda that would win over the public, and thus self-appointed journalistic grandees like him would have to step forward and lead the anti-Trump opposition as they shape the news.

Fellow panelist and CNN’s media correspondent Brian Stelter answered Ramos, “You’re almost saying we’re a stand-in for the Democrats.” Thereby, Stelter inadvertently confirmed Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon’s widely criticized but prescient assertion that the media are in fact “the opposition party” — and should be treated as such.

During the 2016 campaign, James Rutenberg of the New York Times reminded journalists that they should feel no need to treat the exceptional Trump candidacy by “normal standards,” a de facto admission that journalistic crusaders would take the political lead in opposing Trump. Christiane Amanpour said nearly the same thing in reference to Trump’s stance on global warming: Journalists are now to be advocates, not disinterested reporters of the news.

In the matter of the Podesta WikiLeaks trove, it was often difficult to determine whether reporters such as Glenn Thrush and Dana Milbank were colluding with the reelection efforts of Hillary Clinton, or whether an inept campaign without ideas had turned to such reporters and columnists to develop its campaign talking points and strategies.

When Thrush was caught massaging his stories with the Clinton campaign and confessed himself to be a hack, he received a career boost: The New York Times hired him. The message seemed to be that more reporters should do what the Democrats could not. The common theme of the Obama-era Journolist, Ben Rhodes’s “echo chamber,” the Washington Beltway power media/politics marriages and sibling connections, and the WikiLeaks revelations was that the media and the Democratic party were more or less indistinguishable.

Most of Hillary Clinton’s agendas and campaign themes were not policy-oriented; nor did they grow from a coherent and detailed political ideology shared by Democratic officials. Instead, Hillary Clinton modeled her talking points on media-driven agitprop such as Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and global-warming activism.

Yet outside Hollywood, New York, and Washington, the issues facing voters are not income redistribution, transgendered bathrooms, the division of Americans by race, or the radical alteration of the economy to supposedly address recent climate change induced by carbon emissions. In a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in late 2016, the media earned only a 19 percent favorable rating, which raises the question of whether the fusion between Democrats and the media is the old party’s salvation or suicide.

Donald Trump has been given a great gift in that his gaffes are seen by most Americans in the context of an obsessed and unhinged Democratic-media nexus. He is pitted against a new fusion party of media elites and aging political functionaries, who all believe that America should operate on their norms, the norms of Washington, New York, Hollywood, and Malibu — all places that symbolize, to most Americans, exactly how the country has gone wrong.

[What is as important and should be mentioned, is that the Left no longer believes in democracy. We voted, they voted, we got GOP/ Conservative officials, stop crying and respect the vote.

Further, reported today, is that thousands have voted in VA who are not U.S. citizens. A new commission is looking into voter fraud. Remember, after Hillary lost, there was an outcry to check the vote and in Detroit they found hundreds of illegals had voted.]

May 26, 2017

Something to think about – Vic Hanson on Memorial Day [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 2:31 pm

What We Remember on Memorial Day
May 25, 2017 12:59 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
The obligation to honor the war dead has often conflicted with the need to make distinctions among them and their causes
By Victor Davis Hanson// Wall Street Journal

A few years ago I was honored to serve briefly on the American Battle Monuments Commission, whose chief duty is the custodianship of American military cemeteries abroad. Over 125,000 American dead now rest in these serene parks, some 26 in 16 countries. Another 94,000 of the missing are commemorated by name only. The graves (mostly fatalities of World Wars I and II) are as perfectly maintained all over the world, from Tunisia to the Philippines, as those of the war dead who rest in the well-manicured acres of the U.S. military cemetery in Arlington, Va.

A world away from the white marble statuary, crosses, Stars of David, noble inscriptions and manicured greenery of these cemeteries is the stark 246-foot wall of polished igneous rock of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the mall in Washington. On its black surfaces are etched 58,307 names of American dead in Vietnam. They are listed in the chronological order of their deaths. The melancholy wall, birthed in bitter controversy at its inception in 1982, emphasizes tragedy more than American confidence in its transcendent values—as if to warn the nation that the agenda of Vietnam was not quite that of 1917 and 1941.

The Vietnam War may have reopened with special starkness the question of how to honor our fallen dead, but it is hardly a new problem in our history. As today’s disputes over the legacy of the Civil War and the Confederacy suggest, it has never been enough just to lament the sacrifice and carnage of our wars, whether successful or failed. We feel the need to honor the war dead but also to make distinctions among them, elevating those who served noble causes while passing judgment on their foes. This is not an exclusively American impulse. It has deep roots in the larger Western tradition of commemoration, and no era—certainly not our own—has managed to escape its complexities and paradoxes.

Our own idea of Memorial Day originated as “Decoration Day,” the post-Civil War tradition, in both the North and the South, of decorating the graves of the war dead. That rite grew out of the shock and trauma of the Civil War. In the conflict’s first major battle at Shiloh (April 6-7, 1862) there were likely more American casualties (about 24,000 dead, wounded and missing on both sides) than in all the nation’s prior wars combined since its founding.

The shared ordeal of the Civil War, with some 650,000 fatalities, would eventually demand a unified national day of remembrance. Memorial Day began as an effort to square the circle in honoring America’s dead—without privileging the victors or their cause. The approach of the summer holidays seemed the most appropriate moment to heal our civic wounds. The timing suggested renewal and continuity, whereas an autumn or winter date might add unduly to the grim lamentation of the day.

But could the distinctions so crucial to war itself really be suppressed? Consider the themes of the two greatest speeches in the history of Western oratory: Pericles’ long Funeral Oration for the Athenian dead of the first year of the Peloponnesian War, delivered in 431 B.C. and amounting to some 3,000 words in most translations; and nearly 2,300 years later, President Abraham Lincoln’s 272-word Gettysburg Address of 1863.
An illustration of Pericles’ Funeral Oration.
An illustration of Pericles’ Funeral Oration. Photo: Alamy

Both statesmen agree that the mere words of the present generation cannot do justice to the sacrifice of the fallen young. Lincoln sees the talking and the living as less authentic commemorators than the mute dead: “We can not consecrate—we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.”

Pericles argues that even a notable such as himself has almost no right to assess the sacrifices of the dead: “I could have wished that the reputations of many brave men were not to be imperiled in the mouth of a single individual, to stand or fall according as he spoke well or ill.”

By their ultimate sacrifice—what Lincoln calls “the last full measure of devotion”—the mute war dead argue that even heroic men are less important than the eternal values of freedom and democracy that “shall not perish from the earth.” Such chauvinism assumes that democracies are by nature superior to the alternatives. Thus to Pericles, Athens was the “school of Hellas” and for Lincoln America was “a new nation, conceived in Liberty.”

For both orators, the dead are the natural link between self-sacrificing forefathers and the present generation’s own progeny, who at some future date may be called upon to emulate those who have died to perpetuate the nation. In this view, we are not quite unique individuals but part of a larger generation whose values and accomplishments are to be judged collectively and in comparison to what came before and will follow.

‘Both Pericles and Lincoln see war and its evils as tragically innate to the human experience.’

Finally, both Pericles and Lincoln see war and its evils as tragically innate to the human experience. Conflict will demand sacrifices, in varying degrees, from each successive generation of free peoples. As the philosopher George Santayana more pessimistically put it, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” Both orators suggest that democracies and republics will always be the natural targets of aggressors who see their freedom as weakness to be exploited rather than as magnanimity to be appreciated.

The Western tradition of commemoration also includes a unique idea of individual moral exemption. As first articulated by Pericles, we overlook any defects of character of the war dead, attributing to one brief moment of ultimate sacrifice the power to wash away all prior moral faults.

A noble death serves, in the words of Pericles, as “a cloak to cover a man’s other imperfections; since the good action has blotted out the bad, and his merit as a citizen more than outweighed his demerits as an individual.” The great playwright Aeschylus wanted his epitaph to read only that he was a veteran of the Athenian victory at Marathon—a battle where his brother fell.

These themes still resonate in our own habits and rites. This Memorial Day the flags on graves in American cemeteries set the dead apart, in a special moral category that discourages any discussion of the bothersome details of their short lives.

‘We now tend to see the Confederate dead as faceless emblems of larger causes.’

Pericles and Lincoln assume that the sacrifice of the war dead is enhanced by the nobility of their cause and the victories they have won. In the age of the Parthenon and Sophocles, democratic Athenians considered themselves superior to oligarchic Spartans, seeing vindication in their early successes (Athens would go on to lose the war 26 years after the great speech of Pericles). Similarly, the Union believed itself the moral better of the slaveholding South and would march to triumph under that banner two years after Gettysburg.

For democratic peoples, it is difficult to separate victory and nobility from commemorations of the fallen. This is especially true when it comes to events that directly engage our own moral imperatives. In the case of the Civil War, we now tend to see the Confederate dead as faceless emblems of larger causes, not as unique individuals who wrestled with their own moral paradoxes. Yet we seem to think that future generations will not do the same to us, applying their own—possibly quite different—standards to the collective sacrifices of our generation.

Herodotus, the Greek historian of the Persian Wars, saw armed conflict as a tragedy for all warring parties precisely because it was central to the human experience and thus endless. In obscene fashion, war inverted the natural order of peacetime by compelling fathers to bury sons. Pericles bluntly reminded us that the tragedy is not when we the middle-aged and old die but when the youth do, “to whom a fall, if it came, would be most tremendous in its consequences.”

A portrait of Abraham Lincoln.
A portrait of Abraham Lincoln. Photo: Getty Images

Railing at the loss of the nation’s youth has thus long accompanied the tradition of praising noble sacrifice for a just cause. The historian Thucydides nearly wept over the young Athenians senselessly killed—in the wrong place, at the wrong time, on the wrong mission—by the tribes of wild Aetolia: “These were by far the best men in the city of Athens that fell during this war.” When Lincoln said of the dead that they “shall not have died in vain,” he implied that the sacrifices of the aggregate Union war dead by November 1863 would be for naught if the North lost the war.

The Roman lyric poet Horace in his Odes famously praised the ultimate contributions of Roman legionaries, declaring, “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori”: “It is a sweet and fitting thing to die on behalf of the fatherland.” Wilfred Owen, the English poet and veteran of the trenches of World War I (killed one week before the armistice), would have none of it. In the conclusion of his nightmarish signature poem, he bitterly channeled Horace:

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est

Pro patria mori.

After the Somme and Verdun, Owen no longer saw clear moral winners and losers, only endless carnage without hope of resolution: hence the “old Lie.” Similarly scornful was the poet and critic Randall Jarrell’s response to the contribution of Allied bombing to winning World War II. His poem “The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner” ends with the verse, “When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.”

‘We don’t mourn all war dead equally or find tragedy in every loss.’

Still, for all the carnage and senselessness in just and unjust wars alike, we don’t mourn all war dead equally or find tragedy in every loss. Certainly the SS officers who were buried at Bitburg, Germany—where President Ronald Reagan in 1985 caused a storm by visiting on the 40th anniversary of V-E Day—were connected to the horrors of Auschwitz. And while there is something understandable in solemn visits of Japanese officials to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo to honor the 2,466,532 names of the dead found in the Shinto shrine’s “Book of Souls,” many of those men left a trail of 20 million dead throughout Asia and the Pacific from 1931 to 1945.

I grew up in a Swedish-American family in which the name “Okinawa” went unmentioned, a campaign that was tactically unimaginative and strategically incoherent—and yet aimed at finally stopping a murderous imperial regime. My uncle and namesake, Victor Hanson, a corporal in the 6th Marine Division, was killed in the last hours of the last day of battle for Sugar Loaf Hill.

I inherited both Vic’s college athletic equipment and a Periclean admonition from my father (who himself flew on 39 missions over Japan in a B-29) to “live up to Vic”—without much elaboration other than the implicit advice that the only thing worse than fighting a dirty war on Okinawa would have been to lose it.

I visit Victor Hanson’s grave each Memorial Day in the nearby small California Central Valley farming town of Kingsburg, still in astonishment that such a mythical person, whom I never met, gave up his youth (and a long life ahead) for what we have now collectively become. Pericles hoped that such sacrifices would move the living of subsequent generations to a deeper appreciation of the greatness of Athens: “feed your eyes upon her from day to day, until love of her fills your hearts.”

On Memorial Day we should remember that all commemoration is underpinned by ambiguities about the causes, conduct and aims of particular wars. No one has captured the heartbreak of the war dead more effectively than the Marine memorialist E.B. Sledge, who wrote “With the Old Breed,” a horrific account of his nightmare on Peleliu and Okinawa.

Sledge is sometimes simplistically described as an antiwar voice (“So many dead. So many maimed. So many bright futures consigned to the ashes of the past.”), but he did not end his gruesome story of combat with a universal denunciation of war. He finished instead with a solemn reminder—somewhere between Horace and Wilfred Owen—that circumstances count.

His words are worth recalling as we cast our eyes over the endless fields of tiny flags we will again see this Memorial Day on the graves of Americans who gave their all for us:

Until the millennium arrives and countries cease trying to enslave others, it will be necessary to accept one’s responsibilities and be willing to make sacrifices for one’s country—as my comrades did. As the troops used to say, “If the country is good enough to live in, it’s good enough to fight for.” With privilege goes responsibility.

May 10, 2017

And Texas Makes Eleven

Filed under: Econonics, Elections, Historical context, Political Commentary, US Constitution — justplainbill @ 3:09 pm

And Texas Makes Eleven

United States Constitution Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress (no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One Thousan Eight Hundred and Eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article) (no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate).

Texas has become the 11th State requesting a Constitutional Convention.

Those who have followed my posts, know that the 1787 Constitution has been nullified for over 100 years. The nullification took place through improper Supreme Court rulings, the failure of both the Executive Branch and the Legislature to fulfil their Constitutional obligations and responsibilities. The use of the regulatory process to pass to the Civil Service the duties of both branches in order to avoid the politically inconvenient has led to our current set of crises. The open borders, illegal legalization of drugs, murdering of police, abuse of taxes, theft from taxpayers for unconstitutional purposes, and on and on, are as do to taxpayer ignorance as politicians’ apostacy.

In 1787, the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, took numerous templates for consideration. At the convention, Alexander Hamilton, to his enemies’ delight, even proposed a Monarchy so that the convention could cover all workable government forms in their debates.

There are numerous books available to us, which cover this period extensively. I recommend Edwin Meese, III’s “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution”, and that you visit Brion McClanahan’s website, http://www.brionmcclanahan.com and pick from his numerous works, I suggest starting with his “The Founding Fathers’ Guide to the Constitution”.

As much as I dislike Mark Levin, his American Trilogy in which he explains, quite accurately and comprehensively, the origins of the 1787 constitution, where it was felled, and what can be done about it, including his 27 recommended amendments, is another work I recommend.

Judge Andrew Napolitano has several works I recommend and for the same reasons.

“The Albany Plan Re-Visited”, has a template that includes variations and reasons for them including an Article on aggregation, and how weighted voting may be a much better form of direct representation than any proffered so far. ( http://www.bn.com/ebooks ).


With Texas now on board for an Article V Constitutional Convention, we are now 1/3 of the way there. YOU may soon be asked to vote for delegates from your state to attend and decide on what our next Federal government will have power to do and not do.

In the XVIIIth Century, politics was a major form of entertainment for the populace. Currently, VR, XBOX, & Playstation are the major forms of entertainment. In order for us to pick the correct delegates to such a convention, we must know of the various forms of governments and the templates for constitutions. Waiting until the last minute to educate ourselves on the possibilities, is a losing strategy.

Learn the templates, learn the variations, learn the possibilities available to us that will free all of us, and allow all of us to keep our wealth, and not have it taken at gun point and sent to foreign and domestic tyrants.

How to Blow an Election, by Victor Hanson, [c]

Filed under: Elections, Historical context, Political Commentary, US Constitution — Tags: , , , — justplainbill @ 2:43 pm

How to Blow an Election — in Five Easy Steps
May 9, 2017 12:27 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
By Victor Davis Hanson// National Review

Counting the ways, and Comey is not among them.

Hillary Clinton recently took “full responsibility” for her 2016 loss. Only she didn’t. Instead of explaining what the historian Thucydides once called the “truest causes” (aitiai), she went on to list at least three pretexts (prophases) for her defeat: sexism, FBI director James Comey, and the purported Russian hacking of her unsecured e-mail server and the John Podesta e-mail trove.

Clinton’s accusations also raise the larger question of why a presidential candidate wins or loses an election.

In general, there seem to be five hinges of fate: personality, positions on the issues, the general political atmosphere of the era, the quality of the campaign, and sudden and unforeseen outside events such as depression, scandal, or war. Even a biased media or lots of money pales in comparison.

The Pretexts
We can fairly dismiss Clinton’s pretexts.

Take sexism. Hillary Clinton found her sex an advantage in being elected to the U.S. Senate from New York. For a generation, among the most powerful and successful figures in U.S. politics were three progressive, multimillionaire, Bay Area women who, in a most non-diverse fashion, lived within 50 miles of one another: Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi.

From 1997 to 2013 women of both parties were in charge of U.S. foreign policy as secretary of state, for twelve out of 16 years. One could make the argument that “the first female president” was an advantageous campaigning point, not a drawback; it was certainly designed to bookend Barack Obama’s successful trumpeting of being the first African-American president.

Blaming a deer-in-the-headlights FBI director James Comey is equally problematic. His passive-aggressive pronouncements irrationally first exonerated her, then did not, then did again. Faulting the FBI for her own likely felonious behavior of sending and receiving classified communications on an unsecured server (or of Bill Clinton’s trying to leverage Attorney General Loretta Lynch on an airport tarmac) is sort of like blaming the defeat at Pearl Harbor on the Japanese — true, but hardly the whole story given America’s responsibility for its own unpreparedness.

In similar fashion, had Donald Trump lost, he might have faulted the Washington Post for airing the decade-old Access Hollywood tape that nearly destroyed his campaign, as if the clear ill will and partisanship of Jeff Bezos’s Post were not empowered by Trump’s own private, hot-mic — but nonetheless crude — statements. The Germans claimed that harsh snows and the last-minute campaign in the Balkans had delayed and thus doomed their 1941 Russian offensive, as if the Red Army did not have a say or as if Germans were a tropical people.

As far as the Russians, they are Russians — always seeking to throw wrenches into the gears of U.S. elections. The Republicans claimed that their firewalls kept the Russians out of RNC e-mail; John Podesta using “password” for his password invited them in. And, of course, no one forced Washington journalists to collude through e-mail with the Clinton campaign, and no one ordered Hillary to jerry-rig a home-brewed server. The Russian-collusion bogeyman was probably as effective a campaign prop for Clinton as the supposed Russian-inspired e-mail revelations were for Trump.

1. McMurphy Trumps Nurse Ratched
More likely, Clinton lost the key, Rust Belt states that swung the electoral vote to Trump for our five classic reasons.

Her personality, in far different ways, was as polarizing as Trump’s. But Trump was far better as a TV showman, given his long stint on reality TV. Hillary’s voice, facial expressions, and comportment were not winning. Even on the rare occasions that she told the truth, she seemed more insincere than Trump, even when he was spinning a yarn.

Trump’s image as a bad boy was less damaging than Hillary’s as a scold. Both are roughly the same age and, to the eye, not in the best of shape, but Trump displayed an almost animal energy while Clinton often appeared frail, worn, and on occasion ill on the stump. In Ken Kesey’s One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the reader sympathizes with the pseudo-patient and con Randle McMurphy, who does everything haywire, rather than “Big Nurse” Mildred Ratched, who does everything by the book; the former was at least undeniably alive, the latter only ostensibly so.

2. Against Something Is Not For Something
Second, Hillary Clinton had no real sincere position on any issue other than a desire to stay in public office for nearly a quarter-century, and her willingness to extend the eight years of the Obama agenda — an agenda that had never achieved 2 percent economic growth and that saw record labor non-participation, a doubling of the national debt to $20 trillion, and a world in chaos abroad.

Once Obama got wise in January 2016 that he was the most popular when he was not seen or heard, he dropped out of sight and kept silent. Meanwhile, 17 Republicans along with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton hogged the national spotlight and tore one another apart. Through it all, Obama’s eight-year-long stream of dismal popularity ratings gradually improved. But his newfound transient popularity did not mean that most Americans liked Obama’s policies or judged them as successful.

The result was that Hillary played a losing 1968 Hubert Humphrey to Obama’s lame-duck Lyndon Johnson — she risked an occasionally meek nip on the administration’s ankles but was otherwise silent about her own positions to the extent they even existed. In a year when people wanted a change from the prior eight years, Clinton offered none. “I am a woman” and “Trump is a monster” were not serious campaign issues, but they sum up the totality of why Clinton wished Americans to vote for her. Most still did, but not in the key states where Obamism had wrought disaster.

3. Populists Bite Back
Third, voters had, once again, tired of Washington politics. The aura of 2016 was “drain the swamp” change. A septuagenarian socialist, who was not a Democrat, nonetheless almost won the Democratic primary on the theme that a Washington insider Bernie Sanders was at least not a Clintonian apparatchik mired in quid-pro quo beltway payola.

In a normal year, a sober and judicious Jeb Bush, or a proven competent governor such as Scott Walker, or a charismatic ascendant such as Marco Rubio would have won the Republican nomination.

But not in 2016, when voters wearied of sermons about their ethical shortcomings delivered by liberal and conservative grandees who were not subject to the consequences of their own ideologies — whether on trade, globalization, illegal immigration, health care, the budget, or foreign policy. Many voters saw Hillary, accurately, as the epitome of self-interested professional politics, leading always to personal enrichment. Trump’s supposed vulgarity and crudity only enhanced his image as a reckless (but nonetheless defiant) Samson determined to pull down the supporting pillars of the rotten Washington temple — even if the wreckage fell on himself, he’d ensure rubble on everyone else as well. Hillary was the EU; Trump was Brexit.

4. Super Bowl III: The Colts Upset the Jets
Fourth, arrogance, ignorance, and sloth are a fatal trifecta—sort of like the conditions that led the Baltimore Colts to be disastrously upset by the New York Jets in Super Bowl III. The Colts’ tried and true and careful Johnny Unitas proved no match for erratic and flamboyant Joe Namath.

Haughtiness, insularity, and laziness characterized the conduct of the Clinton campaign. Even a novice outsider could see that Obama’s successful electoral matrix — record minority turnout and bloc voting, coupled with the drop-off in turnout by a disengaged white working middle class (tired both of left-wing identity politics and Republican bluestocking elitism) — was not going to be transferrable to an off-putting 69-year-old, white multimillionaire.

Not only did Hillary Clinton lack Obama’s youthful vigor and mellifluousness; she also seemed at times geriatric, snarky, and screechy. The result was that she did not win the minority vote at the levels she needed. Further, she galvanized the supposedly ossified and irrelevant white working classes to finally come out and vote, in their own bloc fashion, against her. Obama had guaranteed her his downside but never delivered his upside.

Clinton’s only chance to make up for missing identity-politics voters by appealing to the working classes of the Midwest was to replay her 2008 Annie Oakley Democratic-primary role — by drinking boilermakers in Milwaukee, or bowling in Scranton, or reminiscing about shooting guns as young gal. But eight years ago, the Democratic party was still aw-shucks Bill Clinton’s. In 2016, it was captive to the identity-politics polarization so effectively deployed, in community-organizer style, by Barack Obama.

So instead Clinton doubled down on the tired theme that Rust Belt losers needed to shape up and get with the globalized progressive project and a demography-is-destiny new America. Obama had deprecated Pennsylvanians as has-beens clinging to their Bibles and guns; Hillary updated them, adding “half of Trump’s supporters” as irredeemables and deplorables. Miners were toxic losers who needed to learn how to build solar panels rather than mine coal. In contrast, Trump called them “our miners.”

She made her disdain concrete by never campaigning in Wisconsin and only sporadically visiting the Blue Wall states eastward to the Carolinas. And she was convinced that demography had doomed the white working classes and empowered Latinos and blacks in red states such as Arizona and Georgia. Clinton’s inept campaign aimed, then, not just at a win (which was attainable by nonstop populist barnstorming and message massaging in the Rust Belt) but, greedily, at a “mandate” that was impossible, given minority-vote falloff and Democratic estrangement from the working classes. Apparently, no one told the campaign that open borders were not a popular national issue, and that Democrats could not win Texas even with Latino bloc voting, and that they could do so in deep-blue California but without any electoral significance.

Clinton surrounded herself with Pajama Boy whizz kids who looked and sounded as if they were on vacation from DuPont Circle in D.C., or Manhattan’s Upper West Side (and who appeared as Stanley and Livingston explorers to the natives of southern Michigan or eastern Pennsylvania). Meanwhile, Trump advisers, such as Kelly Ann Conway and Steven Bannon, acted and talked like they had been around the proverbial American block.

Hillary had the money edge, all the establishment endorsements, a united Democratic party, and a captive toadyish media. Yet she still lost to an outspent Trump, who had never run for a single public office and whose own party and media elite damned him as much as they did his enemies. His victory will remain one of the most amazing campaign outcome in U.S. election history — especially in a postmodern electronic age in which “analytics” and “data” are supposed to make human capriciousness a relic of the past.

5. From Clinton Cash to Non-secure E-mail
In 2016, there was nothing comparable to the unpopular Iraq War or the frightening 2008 financial meltdown that had propelled Obama to the White House. But there was a succession of scandals — almost all Clinton’s — that confirmed the image that she was not just unethical, but predictably so.

Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash is underappreciated for its effect on the campaign. Through painstaking research, it tied together all the strands of Clinton nefariousness: the Clinton Foundation as an excuse to hire political flunkies and provide free jet travel; the quid pro quo State Department nods to those who hired Bill Clinton to speak; and corruption under Hillary Clinton, from cellphone concessions in Haiti to North American uranium sales to Russian interests.

Add to the Clinton sleaze Hillary’s unsecured server and communications of classified material, the creepy New York and Washington careerists who turned up in the Podesta archives, and the political rigging that warped the conduct of the Democratic National Committee.

The result was that Hillary could no longer play the role of the “good” Clinton who “put up” with her husband’s “good ole boy” sleaze. Her new image was that of an equal partner in crime — or perhaps even a godmother who used the capo Bill as muscle. In comparison, Trump steaks, Trump University, Trump taxes, and Trump ties were old-fashioned American hucksterism, but with one important difference: Trump’s excesses were a private person’s; Clinton’s were those of a public servant.

The correct exegesis for losing in 2016 should explain the Democratic strategy for winning in 2020: Run a vigorous, mellifluent, and sympathetic candidate; put forth new solutions to old problems; empathize with noncoastal America and camp out there, too; run a campaign as if it were in danger of losing rather than already past the finish line; and prune away Washington, D.C., hangers-on, with their acceptance of corruption as the new normal.

Or instead maybe Democrats can nominate another 69-year-old, multimillionaire female political insider who will run an identity-politics campaign on her gender, on the fact that she is not the monstrous Donald Trump — and on the premise that all the world, from the FBI to the Russians, are out to get her.

[One of many reasons that I like Dr. Hanson’s posts, is his adherence to practical history. One may take out all personal content, and then be able to use this, as so many of his columns, as a guide to “how to” do something. If we take his posts analyzing the 2016 election, remove the personality components, we have a book that explains both how to win an election and how to lose an election.

The same may be said of his columns on social issues. His analytical approach allows us to see how to run a government properly, or not, through is writings on the conditions in California.]

May 3, 2017

Was the Civil War Necessary? by Brion McClanahan [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 4:20 pm

Was the Civil War Necessary?
By Brion McClanahan
May 3, 2017


Trump supposedly stepped in it. Again.
In an interview that aired Monday with Salena Zito, he wondered aloud that if better leadership could have prevented the Civil War [sic].
Trump thought that Andrew Jackson would have prevailed in a showdown between the North and the South. After all, he did it before in the 1830s. Trump then said this: “He [Jackson] was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, ‘There’s no reason for this.’”
Trump followed up by committing the most heinous of all heinous acts. He questioned if the Civil War [sic] was necessary!
The leftist media immediately pounced, with several openly mocking Trump for believing that Andrew Jackson was alive in 1861.
Time to buy old US gold coins
A USA Today headline read: “Note to Donald Trump: Andrew Jackson wasn’t alive for the Civil War.”
The LA Times: “Trump makes puzzling claim about Andrew Jackson, Civil War.” The Chicago Tribune ran the same headline (groupthink) as did a number of other “news” outlets.
Social media trolls ran post after post criticizing Trump’s “revisionist” history, lambasting him for not knowing when Jackson was alive, or that he dared to buck modern historical interpretation. The snarky liberal establishment dimwit historian Kevin Krause Tweeted “When the Civil War came, Andrew Jackson had been dead fifteen years.”
Zing! You nailed him Dr. Kevin. How bright! How engaging! Only a Princeton prof could have come up with that one.
The congratulatory remarks rolled in from his “esteemed” colleagues.
And then The Atlantic staff lowered the boom. At least that is what they thought.
In only a matter of hours, this “news” magazine published two pieces on Trump’s supposed gaffe.
Young leftist twit David Graham published a piece titled “Trump’s Peculiar Understanding of the Civil War” in which he made a number of “peculiar” claims himself.
Graham suggested that: 1) “nullification” is unconstitutional because the federal courts say so. 2) “The Civil War [sic] was fought over slavery, and the insistence of Southern states that they be allowed to keep it.” 3) The Civil War [sic] wasn’t tragic because the “great thinker” Ta-Nehisi Coates said so in 2011. 4) War was inevitable because of the “Confederate states’ commitment to slavery.” 5) If Trump had read great history like Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Lincoln biography Team of Rivals, he would have a different position on the War—this position is hysterical.
Graham also dusted off the “Dunning school” pejorative in order to show his supposed intellectual superiority to the sitting president. After all, Graham insisted that Trump can’t be blamed for being such a dunderhead because even though he attended great schools, “Many Americans are still taught, incorrectly, that the war was essentially a conflict over state’s rights, with abolition as a byproduct of the war. This revisionist view flourished after the war, and though gradually being displaced, is common across the country.”
This is the revisionist calling traditional history revisionism.
The Atlantic followed up just over an hour later with a piece by Yoni Applebaum titled “Why There Was a Civil War.” The revisionist hits just kept coming.
Applebaum didn’t berate Trump for suggesting that historians don’t ask if the Civil War [sic] could have been avoided—he proved that this has been done for years by going through about a century of American historiography on the issue—but for claiming that the War could have been avoided and by “the omission of a critical word: slavery.” To Applebaum, the question of the War begins and ends with slavery and nothing but slavery. He provided one quote from Lincoln to prove his point and as most shallow Lincoln apologists do today, several quotes from the Southern States’ declaration of causes that seem to prove unequivocally that slavery and only slavery led to the War.
He concluded his article with a strange application of moral causation to the War, a moral causation that the vast majority of Americans missed in both 1860 and 1861 when the question of war or peace was still on the table. “There are some conflicts,” he wrote, “that a leader cannot suppress, no matter how strong he may be; some deals that should not be struck, no matter how alluring they may seem. This was the great moral truth on which the Republican Party was founded.”
If only it were that simple. And if only Lincoln was the great leader that both Graham and Applebaum believe him to be.
It seems both Graham and Applebaum fell asleep in class or at the very least have swallowed the Lincoln myth so thoroughly that no evidence to the contrary could persuade them of their folly or their revisionism.
Certainly, Trump is no scholar and his reverence for Jackson is troubling, for it was Jackson who provided the blueprint for Lincoln’s heavy handed tactics toward the South in 1861. To suggest that he would have worked out a compromise is a stretch, though he did support the deal Henry Clay brokered with South Carolina in 1832, a deal that resulted in the people of South Carolina nullifying the Force Bill and then heading home.
That is often lost in the story. Nullification worked and contrary to what Graham suggested, the federal court system has never had the final say on the constitutionality of nullification. That was always the point. States don’t ask permission from the federal courts to nullify unconstitutional legislation, and as every proponent of the Constitution swore in 1787 and 1788, including Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, laws contrary to the Constitution would be void. Jefferson and Madison made it clear the States could void them.
The real problem with both pieces in The Atlantic, however, is the insistence that the War was inevitable and some moral conflict over slavery caused the shooting.
Applebaum understood that the entire fabric of early American history was built on compromise, but Graham seemed to miss that.
Based on the history of the United States, there was never an “irrepressible conflict” until the North decided to fabricate one.
The South, in fact, was willing to compromise in 1860 and 1861, as it had been for the eighty years prior. Jefferson Davis insisted that any compromise placed before the special Committee of 13 established to handle the crisis needed the support of both Republican and Democratic members. He could get the Democrats to support several. But the Republicans, at the insistence of president-elect Lincoln, said no to every single one. Is that the work of a leader?
That led six other Southern States out of the Union in early 1861. Lincoln could still have saved the Union through compromise at this juncture, but chose not to do so. As Senator James Bayard of Delaware stated in 1861, the Union still existed even with seven States missing. The government, banking houses, and infrastructure remained. It seems that the “Confederate States insistence on slavery” had nothing to do with War. War and secession are separate issues. Secession didn’t mean war was inevitable. Most Americans hoped otherwise, even in the South where President Davis insisted that the South simply wanted to be left alone. To think the opposite is to assume the posture of the British in 1776. That is un-American.
There were still six other slave States in the Union as late as April 1861, over a month after Lincoln took office, six slave States that had already rejected secession. Lincoln was not worried about slavery at this point. He supported a proposed thirteenth amendment which would have protected slavery indefinitely in the States where it already existed. He promised never to interfere with the institution in the South. Lincoln’s objective in March 1861 was to “preserve the Union” at all costs, and by “preserving the Union” Lincoln meant preserving the Republican Party and his fledgling administration. Letting the South go would have certainly made him a one term president. He received less than forty percent of the popular vote in 1860.
Applebaum is correct that letting the South go would have ensured the existence of slavery both within the Union and out for the near future (every other power abolished slavery by 1880), but this was not a moral question for most Americans. Lincoln received thunderous applause across the North in 1860 when he made promises to leave the institution alone. Racism was an American institution and Lincoln never challenged the prevailing attitudes on blacks. He embraced them. The Republican Party didn’t dabble in “moral truths.” Their objective was always political. Bottle the South up, ensure that the Whig economic agenda could be ascendant, and control the spoils.
This still doesn’t take away from the tragedy of the War. Contrary to what the “great scholar” Coates had to say—and he has as much claim to being a great scholar as David Barton, which isn’t much—the loss of one million men, the best blood in America, to a war for Union as Lincoln insisted was unnecessary at best and diabolical at worst. The elimination of slavery was for much of the war an afterthought. Lincoln considered it nothing more than a war measure to “best subdue the enemy.”
The simple fact is that Lincoln wanted war. He had the chance to save the Union without war before he took office. He had the chance to save the Union without war in March 1861. He rejected attempts to peacefully purchase federal property and began polling his cabinet about provisioning Sumter less than a week after taking office knowing full well it would cause war. As he later told a political ally, his decision to provision Fort Sumter had the desired outcome, meaning armed conflict. Nothing can sugarcoat Lincoln’s headlong rush into the bloodiest war in American history.
Trump may have been on to something here. Better leadership could have avoided the carnage. But saying that is now considered sacrilege. How closed minded of the “liberal” historical profession and establishment gatekeepers of acceptable truth.
But who cares. No one really reads The Atlantic anymore, anyway.
The Best of Brion McClanahan


Brion McClanahan [send him mail] holds a Ph.D. in American history from the University of South Carolina and is a faculty member at Tom Woods’s Liberty Classroom. He is the author or co-author of six books, most recently 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America and Four Who Tried to Save Her (Regnery History, 2016). Find him at http://www.brionmcclanahan.com.

Previous article by Brion McClanahan: The Latest 18th Century Fake News

May 2, 2017

Angry Reader 1 May 17, Victor Hanson [c]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 2:22 pm

Angry Reader
May 1, 2017 5:14 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
From an Angry Reader:

Mr. Hanson,

Did you volunteer or were you drafted (like so many of us) to fight in Vietnam? Did you know “we” lost that war to those so called “commies” and now those “commies” make Trump brand shirts and ties?

Also, are you willing to pay for increased US military involvement throughout the world with more tax cuts as the US did in the never ending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Cutting spending for meals on wheels, planned parenthood, health insurance benefits for Americans, clean air and water, might not be enough to pay for all your munitions or even meet payroll for a lowly paid non drafted military. At least US tax dollars paid for our napalm in Vietnam. What are you willing to sacrifice in Syria, Iran, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. etc. etc. to “make America great again?” Perhaps your own life or limbs again?

Perhaps reading a little more George Santayana might help balance your thirst for blood. And perhaps a “proportionate” bombing of an air base before warning Russia and Assad before time might actually be actually a bit more equal in “proportions” to scare your enemies. And as a veteran and historian try to remember how many bombs, and napalm, and bullets, and killings of the enemy and our own troops it took in that classic military loss. Revenge may be sweet but it doesn’t always go as planned, even for those willing to pay for the effort with massive tax cuts. As a historian, that is one thing you should know by now.

Happy Easter.


Jimmy Gorman

Chicago Tribune Subscriber

Victor Davis Hanson’s Reply:

Dear Angry Reader Jimmy Gorman,

I registered for the draft the day that I was eligible, and received a lottery number in 1972 at a time when the draft then shortly ended and less than 25,000 Americans were left in Vietnam at year’s end—and when U.S. combat operations on the ground were largely over in Vietnam.

Do you eat food? If so, would you be competent and morally qualified to comment on food policy, given the likelihood that you have never farmed or shared the life of a farmer, and have no first-hand experience with tractor work, peach pruning, or fertilization—or the work of others that brings your food to your table? I also did not live in ancient Greece and therefore should not write about the Peloponnesian War? I cannot adjudicate the success or failure of a past ruptured appendix operation because I am not a surgeon?

We did not lose to North Vietnam, but achieved a settlement that was set up by a peace agreement between the two countries in 1973. The aftermath of Watergate and the serial cut-offs of all U.S. military aid to the South Vietnamese government encouraged North Vietnam to resume the war, and it did so successfully—sort of as if Eisenhower had cut all U.S. aid to South Korea in the election year 1956 and withdrawn U.S. peacekeepers. Do you think South Korea would exist today?

Vietnam is opening its economy, but otherwise it is a Stalinist country; the millions who were jailed, executed, or fled as boat people might not share your rosy scenarios or jest. I opposed the bombing in Libya. I suggested that Obama was foolish to have set a redline in Syria that he never intended to honor and would empower the Assad government to kill even more innocents. I criticized judge/jury/executioner drone assassination missions (which Obama joked about at a White House Correspondence Dinner). Do you read or just rant?

You must know, of course, that current defense spending is near historic postwar lows as a percentage of the budget, and that entitlements and social spending are at record highs. Go back and check the ratios between social expenditures as a percentage of the federal budget versus defense spending in 1950 and then compare those ratios to today’s figures. And you must know that Obama doubled the debt in the largest spending spree in U.S. history, despite raising taxes and earning record revenues. Yet he never achieved 3% economic growth unlike both Bush and Clinton. Do you think those massive outlays since 2009 made the U.S. safer, the inner-city more tranquil, or the “blue wall” rust-belt states more prosperous?

Have you really read George Santayana other than to pull out his tired, one-trick pony quote on learning from history? I suggest you try reading his collected lectures on aesthetics published as The Sense of Beauty and then once you get through them, write how inspired you were about its argument and aims. (Incidentally, the widely quoted “only the dead have seen the end of war,” which is usually and wrongly attributed to Thucydides, was Santayana’s Soliloquies in England).

I was waiting for the leftist ad hominem attack and of course it appeared with the slur “thirst for blood.”

Deterrence keeps the peace; appeasement starts wars and gets people killed. I have written repeatedly that war never goes as anticipated, that it is often more costly than expected, and that those who urge it often bail when it becomes controversial. Had “war monger” Winston Churchill been prime minister in 1936 instead of the appeaser Stanley Baldwin there was a far greater chance that millions would not have subsequently perished as victims of the Third Reich.

The usefulness of military history is in trying to keep the current peace (unless you think oncologists like tumors or seismologists enjoy earthquakes), and in remembering that the tragic lessons from the past are predictable: military readiness in a consensual society deters aggressors and keeps the calm; disarmament or appeasement encourages belligerents to try something stupid.

As a self-described historian of some sort, that is one thing you should know by now.

Happy Post-Easter.


Vic Hanson

Chicago Tribune syndicated columnist

[As a Viet Nam vet & former Marine, it is interesting to note that N. Vietnamese Gen. Giap, the man who ran the war for Hanoi, wrote a book explaining how and why they won. In it, he explains how everything was lost for the North, until the Democrat Congress bailed them out. The US Military and RVN Military had won the war, and US politicians lost it. That is what Gen. Giap says!]

April 27, 2017

The Deification of Lincoln, by Lew Rockwell, [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 8:43 pm


Books & Resources
Political Theatre

The Deification of Lincoln
(and of the American State)

By Thomas DiLorenzo

April 27, 2017
Email Print

“The violence of the criticism aimed at Lincoln by the great men of his time on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line is startling. The breadth and depth of the spectacular prejudice against him is often shocking for its cruelty, intensity, and unrelenting vigor. The plain truth is that Mr. Lincoln was deeply reviled by many who knew him personally, and by hundreds of thousands who only knew of him.”

–Larry Tagg, The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: America’s Most Reviled President

In his book, The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln, historian Larry Tagg, a native of Lincoln, Illinois, constructs a powerful case that Abraham Lincoln was by far the most hated and reviled of all American presidents, North and South, during his lifetime. For example, in May of 1864 the New York Times labeled Lincoln “a perjurer, a usurper, a tyrant, a subverter of the Constitution, a destroyer of the liberties of this country, a reckless desperado, a heartless trifler . . . there is no circle in Dante’s Inferno full enough of torment to expiate his iniquities.”

Current Prices on popular forms of Gold Bullion

The Lacrosse, Wisconsin Democrat newspaper warned in November of 1864 that should Lincoln be reelected, “we hope that a bold hand will be found to plunge the dagger into the tyrant’s heart . . .” Such views were commonplace in the North.

This all changed after Lincoln’s death, as the Republican Party recruited (and probably paid quite handsomely) the New England clergy to capitalize on the assassination for political propaganda purposes. Professor Tagg explains this in a chapter entitled “The Sudden Saint.” After viciously vilifying him for four years as an infidel, and worse, “pastors across America rewrote their Easter sermons” after Lincoln’s death on Good Friday, “to include a new, exalted view of Lincoln as an American Moses, a leader out of slavery, a national savior who was not allowed to cross over into the Promised Land.” The Republican Party, with the help of a highly-politicized clergy, saw that “all their political enemies would fall before the sword that Lincoln’s death had put into their hands” in the post-war world. THE UNPOPULAR MR. LINC… Larry Tagg Best Price: $50.24

Such were the origins of the Lincoln Myth, a much bigger rewriting of history than anything the Soviets or any other totalitarian regime ever attempted, for it has been going on now for more than 150 years. An important part of this story is told in a 1943 book that I recently discovered entitled The Deification of Lincoln by Ira D. Cardiff. It is for sale on Amazon.com, and is also online. It was recently reprinted by the Christopher Publishing House of Boston and is dedicated to “those lovers of truth who are unafraid of special interests, public opinion or popular superstitions.”

The book starts out stating that, by 1943 most Americans were already “not at all interested in the truth about Lincoln” thanks to nearly eighty years of lies, myths, and superstitions about him in thousands of books. “They are not interested, in other words, in the real Lincoln,” wrote Cardiff. “They desire a supernatural Lincoln, a Lincoln with none of the faults or frailties of the common man, a Lincoln who is a savior, leading us to democracy and liberty – though most of said readers are not interested in democracy or liberty . . .” Moreover, “a biography of Lincoln which told the truth about him would probably have great difficulty in finding a publisher.” That was nearly seventy-five years ago.

Nearly three quarters of a century before Larry Tagg’s book was published, Ira Cardiff wrote of the widespread hatred and revulsion of Lincoln by Northerners, especially the Northern clergy, and how that all changed after his death for purely political reasons, based on an ever-growing mountain of lies. Cardiff focuses on perhaps the biggest lie told by the hyper-political New England clergy, the zealots who instigated the war in the name of eradicating America – and then the world – of sin in order to create a Kingdom of God on Earth that would pave the way for the Second Coming of Christ. That is what motivated the “abolitionist” movement much more than concern for the slaves. (See Murray Rothbard’s essay, “Just War”). The Deification of Lin… Ira D. Cardiff Best Price: $15.57 Buy New $9.57

All of a sudden, the atheist Abraham Lincoln was portrayed by the lying New England clergy, in cahoots with the Republican Party, as the holiest and most saintly man in America, if not on the entire planet. His father, who he hated so much that he did not attend his funeral, suddenly was said to have possessed “sterling mental and moral qualities.” Lincoln the atheist was said to have spent most of his time on his knees in prayer in the White House. “His mother became second only to the Virgin Mary in her chastity.”

“Thousands of sermons were preached to prove him devoutly religious . . “ There was of course never any evidence or proof of any of this. In fact, there is voluminous evidence that exactly the opposite was true, as Cardiff explains in great detail. The first biographies of Lincoln, of which there are now over ten thousand, were filled with statements like “He [Lincoln] believed in his inmost soul that he was an instrument in the hands of God for the accomplishment of a great purpose.” It is of course absurd to assert that you know what is in a man’s “innermost soul.” Yours truly has found that contemporary Lincoln biographies are polluted with similarly silly statements about what was supposedly in Lincoln’s heart, his soul, his mind, etc. Bill O’Reilly’s Killing Lincoln is especially ridiculous in this regard. There are statements on nearly every page about what was “in his mind” or “in his heart.”

Another hallmark of contemporary Lincoln “scholarship” is the repetition of statements just like this one from one of the very first Lincoln biographies: “He was in the White House as God’s instrument.” The assumption here is that the biographer knows what is in the mind of God. Such nonsense set the template for almost all future Lincoln biographies, with very few exceptions.

Cardiff devoted much of his book citing primary sources describing how atheistic and anti-religious the “saintly” Lincoln really was. For example, “previous to his nomination for the presidency, he was roundly condemned by the clergy as an infidel, while after his martyrdom, the same clerics were loud in the claim of his piety (emphasis added).” Larry Tagg says the exact same thing. Killing Lincoln: The S… Bill O’Reilly, Martin … Best Price: $0.82 Buy New $6.97

When Lincoln was a candidate for president, Cardiff points out, only three of the twenty-three ministers in Springfield, Illinois supported him. Moreover, early biographers who actually knew Lincoln had a very different take on his views on religion than writers who never had any personal contact with him, or anyone else who did. Colonel Ward Lamon, a close friend and confidant of Lincoln’s, wrote a biography in which he called Lincoln “an infidel.” His personal White House secretary, John G. Nicolay, wrote that “Mr. Lincoln did not, to my knowledge, in any way, change his religious ideas, opinions of beliefs from the time he left Springfield till the day of his death.” Those “religious ideas” were the ideas of a non-believer. Nicolay made this comment to counter the absurd lie pedaled by the Republican Party, the New England clergy, and court historians after the war that Lincoln experienced some kind of religious conversion late in life. This lie is still repeated to this day in myriad Lincoln biographies.

Judge David Davis, who managed Lincoln’s presidential campaign and who was subsequently appointed to the Supreme Court, wrote that Lincoln “had no faith, in the Christian sense of the term . . .” Lincoln’s wife, Mary Todd, said that “Mr. Lincoln had no hope, and no faith, in the usual acceptation of those words.”

All of this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to The Lincoln Myth, as I discuss in The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked. Mountains of lies, myths and superstitions envelope almost every fact of Lincoln’s life, thanks to generations of “Lincoln scholars.” To be a card-carrying “Lincoln scholar” one must demonstrate the ability to come up with at least a half dozen excuses or rationales for every tyrannical or immoral act or words of Lincoln’s. His lifelong racist, white-supremacist speeches were not his sincere beliefs but a ploy to win over white racist voters, we are told. He objected “to making voters or jurors of Negroes,” he said in a Lincoln-Douglas debate, so that Negroes could eventually become voters and jurors, Harry Jaffa informed us in his last book on “Father Abraham.” He proposed the The Real Lincoln: A Ne… Thomas DiLorenzo Best Price: $2.91 Buy New $7.62 enshrinement of slavery explicitly into the Constitution with the Corwin Amendment, Doris Kearns-Goodwin informs us, to “save the Republican Party” so that it could, someday, maybe in fifty years, end slavery. When he advocated the deportation or “colonization” of black people, “this is how honest people lie,” Gabor Boritt tells us. And on and on. As Cardiff wrote: “The unfortunate and defenseless public . . . is almost powerless to protect itself from Lincoln hysteria. If it attempts to get the truth about Lincoln, it is confronted with a mountain of fable and froth, foolishness and fancy . . . . Of the thousands of books published on Lincoln [as of 1943], one can almost count on his fingers those of any value as critical, scientific productions.”

Cardiff believed that the U.S. could have ended slavery peacefully, as all the rest of the world did in the nineteenth century (including the British, French, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, Spaniards, the northern states in the U.S.). That would have taken a real statesman, however, and not a small-time Illinois railroad lobbyist who once stated his life’s aspiration as being the political party boss of Illinois. Without the war, wrote Cardiff:

“[T]here would have been saved several million valuable lives and several billions of money . . . . But the secondary effects [of the war] were even more disastrous . . . . the enmity and sectional hatred which arose, the political oligarchy of ex soldiers with their disgusting pension raids upon the public treasury and a monopoly by them of political offices, a false and distorted idea of patriotism, the retardation to the material development of the South, the racial hatred between southern whites and blacks greatly exaggerated . . .”

To all of this “is now added the debasing moral effect of presenting to the innocent youth of the land the account of a prominent national character of this period in an utterly false light.” Even worse, as Clyde Wilson once remarked, is the fact that the deification of Lincoln led to the deification of the presidency in general, and then eventually to the entire government.

Robert Penn Warren wrote about this phenomenon in his book, The Legacy of the Civil War, in which he explains how the Lincoln myth – The Legacy of the Civi… Robert Penn Warren Best Price: $3.48 Buy New $9.64 and myriad other myths about the war in general – were used by the Republican Party to create The Mother of All Political Myths – that thanks to Lincoln, the U.S. government had acquired a “treasury of virtue.” This meant that anything the government did from then on – genocide against the Plains Indians, murdering hundreds of thousands of Filipinos, the imperialistic Spanish-American War, entering World War I, dropping atomic bombs on Japan, etc., was virtuous, by definition, because it was the U.S. government that was doing it.

The founding fathers never argued that Americans were so morally exceptional that they therefore had a right to become the bullies of the world and attempt to remake the entire planet in their image. That is the Lincoln legacy. Actually, the idea emanates from the New England “yankees” and their Mid-Western compatriots like Lincoln. See Clyde Wilson’s “The Yankee Problem in America.” Lincoln’s own political rhetoric, which has been faithfully repeated by generations of court historians, is what the late Professor Mel Bradford called “the rhetoric of continuing revolution.” Others call it the rhetoric of “American exceptionalism.”

April 7, 2017

The Latest Skullduggery: Too Much Even for the Gods, Victor Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 2:27 pm

The Latest Skullduggery: Too Much Even for the Gods
April 7, 2017 6:26 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson

The Corner: The one and only.

By Victor Davis Hanson// National Review

The latest disclosures that former Obama national-security adviser Susan Rice may have requested that intelligence agencies reveal or “unmask” those from the Trump team who were surveilled in purportedly normal intelligence gathering — and that such requests may have extended over an apparently considerable period of time — remind us that at some point there is always an accounting.

Rice’s past serial and shameless untruths about the tragic deaths at Benghazi (a 2012 Obama re-election “al-Qaeda on the run” narrative, with a supposedly spontaneous riot over a YouTube video as the cause of the attack) were contextualized by the media and eventually vaporized. Her sad “honor and distinction” narrative about the Bowe Bergdahl betrayal of his comrades — the infamous purported “prisoner of war” “captured on the battlefield” fabrication — was intended to mask what was otherwise a dishonest and terrible hostage swap for someone who had endangered the lives of his fellow soldiers. Recently, she has denied all knowledge of what House Intelligence chairman Devin Nunes had been fighting to uncover, and has even tweeted periodically to criticize the purported ethical lapses and unprofessionalism of the Trump administration.

All that is a lot for even the gods to grind. If, as likely, she had access to, or requested, such raw data, and sent it, with names illegally unmasked, to primary players of the Obama administration (e.g., Clapper, Brennan, Rhodes, etc.), that fact would blow up some heretofore denials of any knowledge of such skullduggery and perhaps become the greatest presidential scandal of the last half century.

The Rice revelation might also put into the proper landscape the following: a) the astounding self-confessionals of Hillary adviser Evelyn Farkas about her frantic efforts to convince Obama operatives to increase intelligence gathering and to leak the information to the press (what gave a former mid-level Department of Defense employee the presumption that she could influence the intelligence operations of the U.S. government?), b) the unprecedented eleventh-hour Obama effort to broaden access to classified data to spread and leak such unmasked individuals, c) the political and media landmines that Representative Nunes (facing “kill the messenger” efforts to kill the message) had to navigate around and the character assassination to which he has been subjected, d) why the Russian-collusion narrative, denied by intelligence chiefs, has become the necessary distraction — first, to steer attention away from the improper leaking and surveillance, and, second, to be used to offer pseudo-moral equivalence to stop further investigation: as if Russian collusion is the bookend to unmasking Trump; as if Nunes is the mirror-image of Representative Adam Schiff, to achieve an impasse of “so let’s just call it even and quit the entire mess and ‘move on.’” e) the relative silence of former president and “constitutional law professor” Barack Obama.

What will be most interesting will be two corollary inquiries: 1) We need to know when, why, and how the White House put such unmasked data illegally into the hands of the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, etc. perhaps initially to smear the Trump campaign (will the same reporters who ran with the “Trump frolicking in Moscow” collusion narratives now reboot and run with the true story?), and later the Trump transition and presidency; and 2) were these unmasked individuals really incidentally picked up data from surveilled foreigners — or, in fact, were they the primary targets of monitoring all along, with supposedly preplanned surveillance of foreign operators acting as cover?


April 6, 2017

Journey to the Center of the Country, Victor Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 1:24 pm

Journey to the Center of the Country
April 5, 2017 3:00 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
By Victor Davis Hanson// National Review

Trump seems radical only to the radicals who aim to take America far, far left.

There have been roughly two sorts of Democratic presidents over the last century. A few were revolutionaries who sought to take the country leftward with them. They were masters of “never letting a serious crisis go to waste” transformations and came to power after the chaos of national crises and near collapse.

Franklin Roosevelt created the modern notion of intrusive, redistributive government during the panic of the Depression. Lyndon Johnson, following the trauma of the John F. Kennedy assassination, pushed through the Great Society, which institutionalized the idea that it was the duty of government to use its power and money to seek an equality of result among the citizenry.

Barack Obama, following the economic crisis of 2008, sought to implant “lead from behind” foreign policy and an update of the Great Society, and to “fundamentally transform” the country, usually by focusing on identity politics as the core of the culture (in which the color of our skin rather than the content of our character would brand us for who we are).

In contrast, Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton acted more as caretakers. They more or less administered what they had inherited but lacked the ideological fervor (or perhaps the political savvy or desire) to take the state further leftward.

The immediate Republican antidotes to Democratic revolutionaries were rarely themselves counter-revolutionaries. Dwight Eisenhower modestly tried to pull the country back to the center after 20 years of the New Deal — but nonetheless was hounded unmercifully for trying to do so. The supposedly dark and evil Richard Nixon instituted wage and price controls, created the EPA, and went to China. He did not dismantle the Great Society.

A true conservative revolutionary has been rare — Goldwater failed to get elected, and Reagan, without both houses of Congress, ended up more moderate than he expected and was followed in office by a Republican centrist.

Nonetheless, the media and the Left, in their respective arenas, howled that these modest corrections back to the center by Eisenhower, Nixon, and now Trump were nihilistic and extreme.

True to form, we are now hearing those same end-of-days accusations — even as Trump seeks to bring the U.S. back to about where it was between 1980 and 1992. Note that this endless cycle of change and counter-change is not a static phenomenon but incrementally (and over time radically) takes government and the culture ever more leftward.

So far, Trump has adopted the old Bill Clinton approach to illegal immigration, a formerly centrist but now strangely unorthodox position: He favors law enforcement rather than politically inspired amnesties calibrated to give him electoral and demographic political advantage.

His appeals to the white working classes are right out of the Clinton-Gore appeals in 1992, and they’re a rehash of Reagan’s courting of Democrats.

Hillary Clinton pandered more to working-class whites in 2008 than Trump did in 2016. The latter never said something akin to Hillary’s overt boasts about her white support in the 2008 primaries. “I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she told USA Today, adding that an AP story “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in [Indiana and North Carolina] who had not completed college were supporting me.”

Trump seeks to finish the border wall that was authorized and started by others. And he is called nativist, racist, and worse, largely because between 2009 and 2016 what was extreme was presented not just as the new normal but as the new foundation of something even more radical to come. Trump’s proposed modest cuts in discretionary spending — less than 2 percent of a quarter of the budget — will hardly affect the deficit or the $20 trillion national debt. Nonetheless, Democrats will condemn him as a modern-day Scrooge.

On energy, Trump again is simply trying to finish the Keystone and Dakota pipelines that were authorized by others. His approach to coal is standard 1990s boilerplate Democratic politics. Sarah Palin’s 2008 mantra of “drill, baby, drill” was smugly written off by then-candidate Obama as Neanderthalism. In fact, she not only proved prescient; she also outlined the eventual energy protocols that saved the Obama presidency. When all of Obama’s efforts failed to achieve 3 percent economic growth, what he opposed — fracking and horizontal drilling — prevented a weak economy from completely tanking.

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is mild-mannered and superbly qualified, and by design he avoids polarization. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor had far greater records of unapologetic political activism.

Trump’s vision of the EPA, of regulations in general, and of taxes take us back to what was also normal in the George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton eras. They seem revolutionary — again only because Obama used executive-branch regulations along with the courts as a means to implement radical agendas that otherwise lacked both public and congressional support.

If Trump’s tax reform is successful, the top brackets won’t be that much different from what they were under George W. Bush.

The furor over Trump’s efforts to reform Obamacare (rather than repeal it and start over) largely grew out of the assumption formed over the last eight years that it was the duty of the federal government to demand that everyone have one standard brand of health insurance, regardless of individual circumstance and preferences. If Trump ever reforms health care, it will probably be a return to the old system prior to Obama, with some state subsidies for the indigent to buy their own private health-care plans and with a few protections about preexisting conditions and young adults being able to stay on their parents’ plans until age 26. These are radical ideas only to radicals who had envisioned Obamacare as the final step to a one-payer system like Britain’s National Health Service.

So far, the Left has not said much about Trump’s foreign policy, to the extent its shape can be discerned in the administration’s first 100 days. But again, what is emerging is something that is neither neoconservative nation-building nor “lead from behind” Obama-era recessionals.

Practically, it looks to be an unleashing of the restrictions on American power against ISIS, but no intention of occupying and rebuilding Syria; a Jacksonian determination to deter Iran and North Korea, but no desire to implement regime change by force in either country; and a return to the status quo of old friends and enemies after the Obama-era recalibration of American interests (Israel and the Gulf States are once again friends, Iran most certainly is not). Putin is Putin — to be quietly deterred rather than loudly, gratuitously romanced or alienated. He is neither worthy of attempting another reset along the lines of Obama’s open-mic promises of “flexibility,” nor is he the existential demon who robbed them of a third term of the Obama presidency, as the Democrats have suddenly decided.

Trump’s foreign-policy team has few hard-core politicos like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, or Ben Rhodes.

James Mattis, Rex Tillerson, and H. R. McMaster may or may not have voted for Trump; they are Jacksonians, certainly not international utopians, ideologues, and globalists. They have never been elected to anything. Mostly, the trio wishes to protect American interests abroad, and they agree that U.S. interests come first. In other words, in them, we have something in between George Marshall and John Foster Dulles at the helm, rather than Cyrus Vance and John Kerry.

If Trump so far has tried to push the country back to the center after the last eight years of Obama’s efforts to “fundamentally transform” the country, why the hysteria?

Three obvious reasons come to mind.

1) Some in the media and the liberal community are mimicking Trump’s own “Art of the Deal” methodology. They know that Trump’s agenda so far is pretty much centrist by their own standards, but they believe that by exaggerating and demonizing it as nearly a John Bircher project, Trump will back off — and therefore end up to the left-center rather than in the center or right of center. If Trump is smeared now as 90 percent demonic, they can later negotiate downward for a 55 percent demonic president and consider it a smashing victory.

2) Other hysterical leftists are still furious, as much at themselves as at Trump. In the 2016 election, they had everything imaginable going for them: the Clinton brand name, the country’s Big Money from Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood, Republican civil war and Never Trump insurrections, a captive and toady media, an abandonment of Trump by conservative megaphones, veritable collusion between the press and the Obama campaign, popular culture, the foreign press, and the European bureaucracy — and they blew it.

To admit that they imploded because Hillary Clinton was a shrill and unimaginative candidate, that the campaign was both horribly and arrogantly run, and that the proverbial “people’s party” was not seen as populist by millions of Americans in the key swing states is still impossible. In contrast, Trump as the beneficiary of Russian collusion and as a veritable Hitlerian Gruppenführer offers leftists the psychological atonement they require to recover from their self-inflicted disasters.

3) Finally, Trump the person, not the particulars of his agenda, drives the Left crazy. It is not just that he can be crude, blunt, and uncouth, but that by doing so he delights the half of the country that is sickened by supposedly elegant political correctness.

If Trump’s political agendas so far are correctives of Obama radicalism, his cultural and rhetorical agendas — Americans first, nationalism in lieu of globalization, economic and military rather than soft power, confident American ascendance rather than slow and comfortable adjustment to decline, the melting pot over the salad bowl — represent to the Democrats heretical apostasies from the entire politically correct national faith.

We know from the history of American politics that zealots more often are provoked by words than deeds, and react more to symbols than to statistics.

What to expect in this new civil war?

Trumpism, to the extent it can be defined, will be deemed successful and even iconic if it achieves a GDP growth of 3 percent or above.

If not, then expect the present hysteria over the journey back to the center to grow.

March 30, 2017

Angry Reader 29 Mar 17, Victor Hanson [great response/ nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 2:48 pm

From an Angry Reader:

Do you mean educated people who worked hard to better themselves? Let’s all just stay in the old steel mill towns and coal mining towns gripping about how unfair the world is to us. You know, the good old days when blacks knew their place and we didn’t have no Mexicans around. You are right I guess they were ready for a Trump and the left was unprepared but it does not make them correct. Carol Hoyt, Big Lake Ak. And Las Vegas Nv.
Victor Davis Hanson’s Reply:

Dear Angry Reader Carol Hoyt,

How you managed to cram such a stream of confusion into just four sentences is in a way impressive.

Sentence one: I did not conflate elites with educated people, but rather with a subset of urban, powerful people in politics, academia, the media, and entertainment who exercise influence and power without any discernible display of competence. These are not neurosurgeons or engineers but the architects of $20 trillion in debt, stereotyped and dull Hollywood movies, and inaccurate and undependable news accounts of the Dan Rather/Brian Williams sort.

Sentence two: Those who voted for Trump were not just people “in the old steel mill towns and coal mining towns” but half the country that felt the progressive project under Obama had bankrupted the treasury, left the world in a terrible state abroad, divided the nation along racial lines, and stalled the economy (first in over 80 years not to achieve 3% economic growth) in a way not seen since the Hoover administration. Incidentally, I’ve been to Appalachia and steel mill towns and discovered that those who have been the losers of globalization complain a lot less about their tragedies than do the winners of globalization their psychodramas and neuroses.

Sentence three: On no evidence you equate the working classes with racism. Is the sarcastic “we didn’t have no Mexicans around” an attempt to mimic what you think is the patois of the poor white working classes? You are no more effective in envisioning how the supposed poor speak than was an equally condescending Hillary Clinton in all her myriad fake accents and mannerisms.

Sentence four: My column was a political observation of why Trump, against all odds and predictions, won, and why such a victory might have been anticipated had anyone turned off pundits and ignored conventional wisdom.

Whether “they” are correct (I take it you mean the white working classes who abandoned the Democratic Party for Trump), depends entirely on Trump, not what I or you say. If he achieves 3% economic growth, reforms the tax code and regulations, address the ACA, ups the labor non-participation rate, then, yes, his supporters were “correct”; if he doesn’t do any of that, then they were either misled or asked the impossible. We shall soon find out.

Victor Hanson, Huntington Lake, Ca. And Stanford, Ca.

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.