Rick Wilson – who learned nasty at the feet of Lee Atwater – was wrong. It’s not the alt-right supporters of Trump who are single men self-stimulating to anime porn. It’s the senior management at Uber. As lawsuits and insider stories emerge about an out-of-control culture at the oh-so disruptive ride-sharing company, should people be surprised?

When leading-edge tech companies have a contempt for anyone who is not obsessive and high-IQ and ready to do anything to make an idea work, is the fact that west-coast techie males view most of us as surplus flesh really a shock? And with liberal and even most conservative media dutifully recording their every word as if it was truth and wisdom, is it any surprise that this media is blatantly hostile to anyone who believes manufacturing jobs can be recovered in America’s heartland/rustbelt? At least a reasonable percentage of them.

Given this background then, Steve Bannon’s (who by Rick Wilson’s reckoning should have been handing out bags of Cheetos at CPAC) appearance was a refreshing glass of water in the face of those who harbor deep hostility towards the president and his administration.

In a sit-down (somehow called a speech by much of the media) Bannon explained the basic structure of the New Nationalism (to use Matthew Continetti’s and Rich Lowry’s terminology). He was articulate, affable, and soft-spoken. No horns on his head – as Charles Krauthammer pointed out. And this clear statement of policy and philosophy:

…that we’re a nation with an economy, not an economy just in some global marketplace with open borders, but we are a nation with a culture and a reason for being …

What strikes you as more reasonable: that statement by Bannon, or the invective from both the left and the alt-right? Now Bannon, through his association with Breitbart, has been associated with unsavory characters. Some of those associations may not be fair, but Bannon’s delight in provoking – as a tactic in his war on the establishment – is in part to blame.

No better way then to put daylight between the dark prince reputation – as portrayed by writers like the insufferable Richard Wolffe of the Guardian – than a clear concise presentation of the philosophy emerging behind Trump’s Nationalism.

Because, as Continetti points out, unlike Reagan who had decades of intellectual capital formation, if you will, before finally storming the walls of DC, Trump has stormed the walls with a far more incipient philosophy. Steve Bannon will be one of the men whose job it is to put meat on the bones. And he is being and will be pilloried for so doing. But now is the time for explaining the reasons behind the actions Trump’s team is taking. Not provoking needlessly. Because confrontation aplenty is already awaiting at every step this administration takes. No need to inflame it any further than absolutely necessary, to get the message across.

Bannon’s CPAC appearance was a good start.

Global Warming Is Irrelevant

© 2017 Steve Feinstein. All rights reserved.

 

There is probably no subject (outside of abortion) that has engendered more passion for a longer period of time—decades now—than Global Warming. Here are some of the issues and talking points:

  • Settled Science or Junk Science
  • Warmest Year on Record vs. hiding faulty or contradictory evidence
  • The threat of actually jailing Deniers (they even have a name, complete with a capital letter)
  • International conferences and accords
  • New regulations for businesses and equipment
  • Complicated Carbon Trading schemes
  • Dramatic declarations by politicians of Warming being a greater threat than ISIS
  • Photographic “evidence” of impending doom and impact on nature/wildlife
  • The routine, unquestioned conflation of daily weather events and long-term climate change

All of these are examples of the highly-charged, deeply-held views on the subject. I recognize and appreciate the intensity and vehemence with which the respective parties hold to their positions.

However, for the purposes of this article, let’s simply concede that anthropogenic Global Warming is real, not just a coincidental occurrence of cyclical climate patterns on earth and the relationship of those patterns to solar activity and the like. Let’s take the “Is man-caused Global Warming real?” question off the table and admit its existence.

However, even if there is certainty regarding the reality of man-caused Global Warming, it probably doesn’t matter.

Here’s why: The very same profit-driven capitalistic Western businesspeople who seem to stoke the ire of the Warmists so intensely are the ones who are well on their way to ending Warming—and long before it becomes any kind of permanent threat to mankind’s well-being.

Fossil-based fuels are simultaneously the most economically-efficient source of energy and the most politically-troublesome and ecologically-controversial source of energy. Historic relationships between nations, current foreign policy and military decisions, ecological impacts, everything is tied up in a convoluted, indecipherable cause-and-effect Gordian Knot because of fossil fuels.

Yet it is the popularly-maligned free-market capitalistic system, with its unsavory profits, rewards and unapologetic income inequality, that is the key driver to finding the eventual solution to our reliance on ecologically-detrimental carbon-based fuels. A veritable free-market fortune awaits the individual or company that delivers the first viable alternative energy system, one that is easily deployable on a mass scale across large geographic areas.

That promise of capitalistic reward has many companies feverishly pursuing different solutions. The potential of virtually unlimited free-market profits and a superior competitive market position are spurring private for-profit companies to find a viable alternative to carbon fuels. That’s undeniably true, and it’s happening primarily here in the U.S., primarily because of our freest-of-all-markets system.

An example is Lockheed Martin Corporation and their work in developing a new compact fusion reactor. L-M says a reactor small enough to fit on the back of a truck could produce 100 megawatts of electricity—enough to power a small city, without any carbon emissions. L-M estimates they’ll have a workable prototype within five years. Let’s double their likely-overly-optimistic estimate and say within ten years.

Electric cars, battery technology and solar panels are also improving all the time. They may not be totally economically-feasible in the free market at this time without Government tax subsidies and, yes, there is the undeniable irony that the electricity needed to recharge a Tesla or Chevy Volt usually comes from a greenhouse gas-producing fossil-fuel power source, but things in the battery/solar area are improving all the time. The percentage of U.S. energy provided by these “alternative” sources has increased from less than 5% before 1990 to over 13% in 2014 and will continue to increase in the future.

The Answer is out there and it’ll happen pretty soon, likely within 50-100 years, I’d confidently guess. Companies and individuals are working day and night to find The Answer—because of the rewards they’ll reap.

50-100 years is a nanosecond in terms of earth-geological-climactic time. A fraction of a nanosecond. When The Answer comes along 39 or 64 or 97 years hence, whatever minor “warming” has actually taken place, whatever small amount the seas have “risen” will all be halted and reversed.

The argument against that position is that we’ll soon reach some irreversible “tipping point,” after which no cure or remedy to the permanent destructive effects of Warming is possible. Yet there is no scientific proof of that, nor is any “proof” possible. That’s merely a totally unsubstantiated talking point, designed to rally the Believers and scare the Deniers. This, however, is scientific fact: 50-100 years is a nanosecond in terms of earth-geological-climactic time. And the practical, usable, non-carbon, non-warming Answer will certainly be discovered and deployed on a significant scale within that timespan.

Therefore, the entire anthropogenic Warming issue—whether real or imagined—is a non-issue. Profit-driven technology will solve it. As ironic as it seems, the Western capitalist economic system will be the savior of the earth.

Milo Yiannopoulos is a little less fabulous in these final days of February. And the storm that has – for now at least – sunk the British-Greek provocateur, is one that should be the kind that sink careers. Or even end up with jail time, if more than words are involved. Because it dealt with underage sex. Whether Yiannopoulos claims that a 13 year old boy having sex with a man in his mid-20’s is consensual – as he does – or not. It is pedophilia, as degrading and evil a crime as there is. And Yiannopoulos himself, as he seems to admit, seems to have been a victim of abuse as a young teenager. Even as he rails against pedophilia. Yes, that involves children, Milo. But drawing a clear line between pedophilia and underage sex involving young teenagers is the first step towards attempting to normalize the former and promote the latter.

So, Matt Schlapp’s invitation to Yiannopoulos to attend CPAC was a bad mistake. While the First Amendment gives Yiannopoulos the right to say what he says, it does not by any means give CPAC the obligation to extend yet another platform for Yiannopoulos to parade on.

And no, it’s not very productive to call out the left’s hypocrisy on this. They are right to denounce Yiannopoulos for his dangerous, careless speech.

But don’t stop there. Please.

Keep heading west, all of you denouncing Yiannopoulos, Especially left-wing critics who at least claim to be aghast. Keep heading west, until you hit Hollywood and Vine. Or more precisely, some fabulous sprawling home in Encino. For example.

But don’t stop at the scandals over male teenage actor/models being manipulated and abused by Hollywood power brokers, who happen to be gay.

Go right back in time to Hollywood’s earliest years. And look for it.

The first casting couch. Well before talkies. As the silent-film era unspooled it’s reels of film and created cinema’s first golden era, there it was. Repeated across Hollywood. The casting couch. Many, many, many of them.

For every tantalizing scene – from it’s earliest suggestive modes that draw easy smiles from today’s sophisticates right through to increasingly explicit scenes that now blur the lines between pornography and so-called love scenes – for every one of those there likely is a woman. She’s young, she may be in the scene. Or perhaps auditioned for it. Or perhaps is merely part of the crew, or someone who is looking to break out in La La Land. And she’s had to endure abuse, in the face of a culture that relativizes intimacy until it’s merely a matrix of perversities that one can pick and choose from. And how dare you judge an S&M inter-generational sex fan!

Pornography is indeed the wallpaper in our society, and our culture is now dangerously close to normalizing pedophilia. And entertainment media – whether in Hollywood, or in Manhattan advertising media, or in Europe and elsewhere – is leading the way.

Did the founders of America imagine such possibilities? We can only guess, but it is our duty to exercise our First Amendment rights and choose better ideas and thinkers in places like CPAC. It’s not enough that Yiannopoulos made the left really mad. Sometimes violently so. Rather, CPAC can go back to offering plenty of substance.

Like Governor Scott Walker talking about how to grow an economy in the face of organized resistance by the State of Wisconsin’s bureaucracy and unions.

Or like Texas’ Kevin Brady talking about getting tax reform done so that America can rise from it’s anemic growth rate.

And yes, like the president whose speech on Friday will be parsed over and over again in order to question how conservative he really is.

Any and all of the above are why CPAC matters. And Yiannopoulos doesn’t.

Have you heard of regulatory dark matter? Sub-rosa regulations? As in secret?

Are you the owner of a small business, for example, who has received a threatening letter from a federal agency or a branch thereof that you’ve never heard of, and been forced to settle under the implicit or explicit threat of penalties? Then you have had a close encounter with regulatory dark matter. They say it is not very pleasant.

Here’s another way to think of how widespread federal agencies are. No one in Washington D.C. – and that means members of agencies or government departments that register these agencies and release reports on this – can say with any exact certainty how many there are. And they are operating beyond the control of Congress, or sometimes even of the rule-making process at the agencies themselves. Here’s Robert Rogowski from a few years back:

An impressive underground regulatory structure thrives on investigations, inquiries, threatened legal actions, and negotiated settlements … Many of the most questionable regulatory actions are imposed in this way, most of which escape the scrutiny of the public, Congress, and even the regulatory watchdogs in the executive branch.

Congress has handed authority over much of the daily rules that govern everyone’s daily lives to an extortion racket run by unaccountable bureaucrats who most people even in D.C. don’t even know exist. Until they send you a threatening letter.

Congress, and the Executive, and the Courts, all need to take back power from what has become the 4th branch of government. The Regulatory State.

The Courts, unfortunately have made it very hard to fire federal agency heads or employees thanks, in part, to a 1935 Supreme Court decision involving FDR and a Federal Trade Commissioner, William Humphrey, who was insufficiently enamored of the New Deal. FDR wanted to fire Humphrey, who insisted on showing up to work regardless of the fact that FDR had told him in writing that he was fired. FDR lost the case. And by ruling the Federal Trade Commission was a quasi-legislative body, the Supreme Court made it all but impossible to fire heads of agencies who refuse to carry out the president’s policies.

To combat regulatory dark matter, and plainly visible regulations as well, changing civil service laws is another route. But that means getting Congress to pass a series of laws or one big bill, that will provoke the army of bureaucrats and their allies in the mainstream media. And these enraged and privileged elite won’t have far to go to assemble on The Mall, for example.

But maybe that’s what is needed. A Million Well-Paid-Wonk(ette) March on Washington. Let them emerge from the shadows of regulatory dark matter. Let them walk in the sunlight and demand to America’s taxpayers – especially those who face economic uncertainty and anxiety on a daily basis for much of their lives – that they deserve their privileges. That they are a breed apart. A nobility who merit favors paid for by the rest of us.

And then let Congress see if they have the mettle – or cojones – to do the right thing and reform civil service laws.

Big Deception on Both Sides of Roe v. Wade

 

© 2017 Steve Feinstein. All Rights Reserved.

 

There are lots of practical and philosophical differences between the two major political parties in America. Some are real differences, some are more perceived than real and some are just clichés that one side likes to perpetuate to the detriment of the other:

 

  • Taxes
  • Free-market capitalism vs. Gov’t-controlled safety net
  • Affirmative Action
  • Immigration Policy
  • Health Care
  • Foreign policy/use of military force
  • Education
  • Woman’s/minorities/sexual orientation rights/pay inequality
  • Law enforcement/legal issues
  • Energy policy/Environmental/Climate Change issues
  • Media coverage

 

Those are the broad categories on which most elections are based, and at least within some limited range, negotiation/compromise between the two parties is theoretically possible, and actually happens from time to time.

However, there is one topic that is not on the list above, because compromise hasn’t been possible to this point: Abortion.

Abortion is the Democratic Party’s Line in the Sand.

The abortion constituency is a—no, the—major voting bloc for the Democrats. It cuts across all ethnic, racial, age, gender/orientation and economic lines in a way that no other important Democratic issue does. Liberals of every stripe are in favor of it, although perhaps for wildly different reasons. Nonetheless, they all arrive at this same destination, even though it’s often by dramatically different routes. The unquestioned availability of abortion is the common denominator of all Liberal voters. Some Democrats may be more business-oriented and like low taxes and limited restrictive regulations; some may be low-income/minority but have high-achievement children, so Affirmative Action is their thing. Some may perceive a wage gap or gender/orientation discrimination or feel strongly that we shouldn’t drill into the earth and strip Her bounty just to turn on the lights. And so on.

The common thread among them all: The continued legal availability of abortion. Many voters—too many—base their Presidential vote on this issue of so-called “choice,” mistakenly believing that the party of the President determines the availability and legality of abortion.

For the Democrats, a Presidential Supreme Court appointment means only one thing: the preservation of Roe v Wade, which Democrats feel preserves unfettered access to abortion. This issue, more than welfare, affirmative action, higher taxes on the rich, stiffer environmental regulations, relaxed immigration rules or gay rights, is the cornerstone of the Democratic platform. Strip away everything else, and the Democrats know that their core constituency will always vote for them as long as they can deliver the abortion issue. They may euphemistically shroud the issue with phrases like “women’s health,” or “choice,” etc., but it all means the same thing: the Democrats are the Party of Abortion. To justify it, they use the scare tactic of saying they will fight to “keep abortion safe and legal,” implying if the Republicans win the Presidency and appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court, abortion will suddenly become unsafe and illegal.

This is a perfect example of politicians using the ignorance of the majority of the voting populace to further the party’s goals. What a majority of voters don’t seem to realize is that if Roe v Wade were overturned by the Supreme Court (as incredibly unlikely as that is), the abortion issue would then simply become one of states’ rights, with the voters of each state deciding the particulars by referenda. Constitutional scholars point to the 10th Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Would the specific details that govern the procedure vary from state to state? Quite possibly—that would be up to the voters in that particular state. But some evil, unnamed Government power wouldn’t force the decision upon the voters. The states would decide it for themselves.

Abortion would not become “illegal” if Roe was overturned. Instead, the fifty states would simply decide for themselves how to handle it. The overwhelming likelihood is that in virtually all states, abortion would continue to be available and performed much as it is today, especially in strong Democratic states. It’s hard to imagine any states actually voting to deny access to the procedure, since it is accepted law and had been for many decades. Certainly, it would never be outlawed or restricted in New York, Massachusetts, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Washington, Oregon or any other strongly blue state.

No judgment is being made here on the relative appropriateness of abortion, so we need to resist the temptation to veer off topic. This is not a discussion “in favor” or “opposed” to the availability of abortion. Rather, this is simply the observation that a change in the Supreme Court’s position on Roe won’t have the legal/illegal effect on abortion that both sides imply it would.

However, the Democrats politicians who know this (and, unfortunately, not all do) are worried that this information might actually become common knowledge, because if it did, their vice-grip on their constituents because of the abortion issue would be broken. Overturning R v W will not push abortion into the threatened “back alley,” and—giving Democratic politicians the benefit of the doubt with regard to their legal grasp and understanding of the issue—most of them know this. They’re simply using the issue as a reprehensibly disingenuous way to prey upon a mostly-ignorant public’s fears.

Interestingly, the Republican Party is just as reluctant to level with its core supporters regarding abortion as the Democrats are to level with theirs. If the Democrats don’t want their voters to realize that a change in the Supreme Court’s position on Roe wouldn’t really affect the availability or safety of abortion, then the Republicans feel exactly the same, but for exactly opposite reasons: Republicans appeal to much of their base by implying that a change in the courts will result in abortion “finally being outlawed,” but that isn’t true—if Roe were overturned, abortion would still be available. It may well vary a bit from state to state and the availability of funding from third parties might be somewhat affected in the details, but abortion’s actual availability would not be impinged. Like the Democrats, the Republicans don’t want that to be widely known.

Obviously, this is a tremendously complex issue. New technology that makes fetal survival after 20 weeks a real possibility (unimaginable in 1973), partial birth abortion, parental notification, and concerns for the mother’s health (emotional as well as physical) are among the components that imbue this subject with its infinitely varied shades of gray. Stripping away the deceptive veneer of abortion politics that both sides currently employ exposes the reality that neither national Party has the power to change the general availability of abortion. Peoples’ votes should be based on national security, immigration, energy policy, taxation/Government spending, etc. Those are the things that the office of President can influence in a major way, not the availability and access to abortion. A Presidential vote—either way— based on “abortion” is an ill-informed, wasted vote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While Kelly Ayotte is helping Neil Gorsuch to walk the halls of Congress and meet and greet senators, Susan Collins is suddenly becoming a royal pain in the backside for this administration. The moderate Maine GOP senator has been on the no side for 2 Cabinet choices. Her no vote did not manage to prevent Betsy DeVos from being successfully nominated to Secretary of Education.

But she was also part of the GOP four (along with Alaska’s Murkowski who also opposed DeVos, South Carolina’s Tim Scott, and Georgia’s Johnny Isakson) that have effectively forced Andy Puzder to withdraw his nomination for Secretary of Labor. The optics on Puzder weren’t worth going to battle over for the administration, even though it adds up to a rough couple of days for the administration.

Now Senator Collins is indicating that she will also give a thumbs down on EPA nominee Scott Pruitt. Do the current storms battering the White House mean she is suddenly emboldened? Or would she have voted this way, regardless? And is she as bound to labor unions in general as she clearly is to the teacher’s unions?

She may be, but her opposition on Puzder is perhaps a little more understandable than her no vote on DeVos. Especially from the perspective of the White House. That’s because under-employed and unemployed, and not-even-looking-anymore, white males with high school or less were and are a key part of Trump’s supporters. And in a world that fetishizes disruption and ignores marginalized workers, any doubts about a potential Secretary of Labor resonate a lot more strongly than they might have in the mid-90’s, for example.

In a world where Elon Musk – at a World Government Summit in Dubai no less – pronounces that we must Borg ourselves or be incinerated. In a world where if you drive a truck or taxi, you are probably old and need to die anyway to make room for progress. Where anyone with an IQ less than 120 – never mind 100 – needs to get an implant. In this type of world, it matters what type of signals you send to working men and women, and to those who would like to work, and especially to those who have given up trying to obtain work.

But that does not mean continuing to feed the welfare monster that might write checks to the marginalized, but has not been truly successful at helping them regain a productive and satisfying life. Arthur C. Brooks has just published a wonderful article on not just what to do to help those who are in poverty and marginalized, but why we do it. The what is a fairly pragmatic but rather inclusive list of conservative common sense proposals: from welfare reform, to lowering taxes to encourage job creation, to giving parents options when seeking schooling for their children.

But the overarching theme has to be one of giving people back purpose. As Brooks so clearly points out:

The most compelling reason for tax reform and further welfare reform is to create more opportunities for people at the periphery of society.

A conservative reform agenda needs to be proclaimed and seen as inclusive and positive, and not punitive, because the media will paint any reform of the welfare state as punitive. Before the facts are even allowed to roll in – like in charter schools in Detroit. And that means that by giving businesses a reason to hire, and people a sense of purpose flowing from the improved possibilities they face, even a Susan Collins would have to admit that the encouragement of responsibility and independence – core American values if there ever were – are a noble end game to pursue.

And it would also mean that Elon Musk and his dystopian sci-fi pronouncements would stay within the confines of confabs for the elites, and well away from the daily lives of working men and women in America.

It’s not even 4 weeks into it’s mandate yet, and the Trump administration is besieged on almost all sides by forces bent on discrediting and even, in some cases one suspects, displacing it from power. The so-called resistance is coming from many angles: Obama’s PAC Organizing for America morphed into Organizing for Action in 2013 and is now one of the central organizing forces behind many of the protests against the executive order on immigration. Among others.

Remember that executive order? Already almost lost in the battle smoke around General Flynn’s scandal. There’s still a judiciary hard at work, however, trying to block the president’s authority over aliens ability to enter America when national security issues are at stake. And Congressional Democrats are war-painting their faces with any media-scented blood that the Flynn affair has spilled. Graham and McCain, along with Roy Blunt, also want in on the fun that any Congressional investigation can provide.

The media is howling at the scent of prey. CNN asks when Trump knew what. Politico has lusty headlines celebrating the “chaos in Trump World.” Even at Fox News, Shepard Smith provides skeptical if not outright hostile coverage of the latest scandals and missteps. And Charles Krauthammer has worried that Flynn lied possibly to cover up something other than the phone call with Ambassador Kislyak.

And current and former bureaucrats at State and in the intel community are leaking left and right to try and ensure that the administration is crippled by a need to fight fires rather than promote and execute it’s agenda. And that includes the FBI and the infamous, leaked transcript of the phone call.

What the fricking heck – to use a few euphemisms – should the Trump administration do? Here’s a suggestion. Get rid of the multiple power centers in the White House. As Paul Ryan asked a committee of Bannon, Conway, Priebus, Jared Kushner, and Stephen Miller at a meeting in January on tax policy: who’s in charge?

The Clinton administration had a chaotic start in 93, 94 and they faced nothing like this administration does. Leon Panetta had to come in and bring some order. President Trump needs to get rid of the current structure and bring in a little vertical authority – as in a clear and tightly controlled chain of command. Or he will find the current battles he is facing nearly impossible to overcome.

Is that possible in 2017? And with the current people in the White House? Yes it is. The American public – unlike all the other power centers in D.C. that are lined up against him – believe that President Trump is a politician who keeps his word. 62% of respondents to a recent Galllup survey said so.

Only 53% of respondents actually believe he can affect change, however. Is that why he’s so hated in Washington? He actually means to do what he says?

Mr. President you have nearly the entire apparatus of government and the media trying to sink your ship of state. It’s time for a little law and order on the bridge. A clear chain of command. Start with that, and your battles will become far more clear, and far more likely to end in victories.

Immigration law is coming to get you, and bring you back to America. Even if you’re an alien with no visa and no permanent legal status as a lawful resident of America. It might not happen tomorrow, but if people like George Mason law professor Ilya Somin, and others, have their way, this strange day is coming sometime fairly soon.

It revolves around what some in the legal world call the Plenary Power Doctrine, which basically says that congressional immigration classifications are immune from judicial review – to use Gabriel Chin’s language from his essay on the subject. In other words, rights are denied to some potential immigrants, that would be deemed unconstitutional were they denied in a domestic context (basically to American citizens), rather than being applied to immigration. To Chin himself, and to Ilya Somin, this is a bad thing. Consider what Somin says:

I would consider that the plenary power doctrine is ultimately indefensible and should be overruled by the Supreme Court.

And this:

There would be no need to explicitly limit some rights to citizens if there were a general presumption that non-citizens are excluded.

And for goodness sake don’t you mention the Preamble and “posterity” as meaning American citizens! To Ilya Somin there should be no:

…ignoring the rights and welfare of potential migrants in making decisions on immigration policy.
__
And to justify this, Somin massages the meaning of the word “posterity” to support what he’s aiming for: the U.S. Constitution being legally applicable to anyone on the planet. And thus immigration policy legally bound to consider the rights and welfare of any potential immigrant to America. Yes, you can find that last quote at openborders.info in case you’re wondering what type of world Somin is advocating for.

In other words, the open borders movement has attached itself to Trump’s executive order like a school of starving remoras and are dying to suck the life out of any attempt to restrict any type of immigration to America – or anywhere else one would imagine. But it’s America and its constitution that their lips are firmly attached to right now.

With these sorts of undertows swirling around the 9th circuit court of appeal’s decision to maintain Judge Robart’s ruling at least for now, and possibly forever, one wonders if an ambitious power grab by the left coast circuit will team up with the open borders activists and try to shred any control over immigration that the executive – and even Congress – currently have.

This is about a new world order, in which an unchecked judiciary extends its tentacles across the globe to ensure the unimpeded movement of all people across suddenly meaningless borders. Something that does not generally displease financial markets – until some of those people murder and set bombs off. Or fly airplanes into buildings.

What the administration is trying to do is prevent that. And any outlandish campaign comments by Trump were in that vein. They were about security for America and its citizens and residents. But those statements were not policy, they were campaign rhetoric. Something else that will soon come under the suffocating purview of the courts, if the 9th circuit, Judge Robarts, and Professor Somin have their way. New World Order indeed.

Guess what? It’s all about the money. Washington State AG Bob Ferguson might have preached about his state’s lawsuit against President Trump’s executive order on immigration being about defending the constitution. And the separation of powers. But the basis for his Washington’s lawsuit against Trump is really about damages to the state government coffers.

Let Ilya Somin go on about Trump’s campaign statements on Muslim immigration. And let the liberal judges in the 9th circuit decide that newspaper articles on a candidate’s pronouncements are important facts in deciding if the president overstepped his authority granted to him by Congress by 1952’s Immigration and Nationality Act.

But behind this grandstanding and the feisty protests by the advocates of diversity over any other consideration, lies the economic reality that the state of Washington is worried about. Microsoft loves – really really loves – H1B visas and the ability to use them to import cheaper tech workers to write the code that keeps the billions and billions flowing. All at a cheaper cost than if a larger percentage of Americans were hired.

Many of these workers come from Muslim-majority countries. Or countries – like India – that have substantial Muslim populations. Amazon loves those visas too. Boeing sells lots of planes to Muslim countries, and has a juicy deal with Iran, for example. And international students who pay several times the tuition fees that in-state students do, add millions and millions to the coffers of universities and colleges in the state of Washington, and elsewhere of course.

And anything like a presidential executive order that could potentially be seen in a bad light by Muslim interest groups would tarnish the state’s globalist brand. And cut into their revenues.

But it gets even more interesting. Arkansas’ Senator Tom Cotton and Georgia’s Senator David Perdue have put together what they call the RAISE Act. That would stand for: Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment. And yes, it does foresee limiting legal immigration, as well as combating illegal immigration. That puts the two GOP senators in direct philosophical and economic conflict with Washington State AG Ferguson and the economic interests of Silicon Valley in general.

In other words, underneath the cries of racism and prejudice – themselves a theatrical over reaction to a focused vetting scheme – are worries that those who profit from today’s globalized world will see their revenue streams dry up as a result of any substantial change in immigration policy. Of course, aside from Trump’s executive order winning a battle in the 9th circuit and possibly going all the way to the Supreme Court; a substantial change in immigration policy would also require that someone like Mitch McConnell not let Cotton and Perdue’s RAISE Act die a noble death in some senate committee. The odds are, however, that McConnell will indeed let the RAISE Act wither and die in the dark corridors of senate protocol.

But this is a battle on all fronts: political and policy-wise, economic, and cultural. And there’s a lot of money at stake as well. It may be that the established and entrenched interests are too powerful to allow a significant change in immigration policy. But President Trump is sure going to give it a try. And he finally has his AG to back him up.

The feisty little glowheads at The Daily Beast must be soaring and swooning like fireflies on a warm August night. Thanks to some unnamed official at an undisclosed but perhaps deducible agency, the hard left media outlet now can share with a salivating public, confidential data on the security of both of America’s borders. The one with Mexico. And the one with Canada.

According to leaked FBI Monthly Domestic Encounter reports from 2014 through 2016, the northern border is far more active in terms of encounters with known or suspected terrorists. People on DHS or FBI watchlists, in other words. Far more have been occuring in states like New York and Michigan than in Texas, for example.

Wonderful! Now terrorists have a heads up and know that America will start shifting its attention – thanks to the media onslaught which will now follow – from the southern border, and focus more resources and talent on the northern border. Perfect. Could you copy the FBI reports directly to ISIS next time, please? So that their media analysts don’t have to waste time pouring over sites like The Daily Beast?

Does it matter that America’s border with Canada extends over 5,000 miles, while Mexico’s extends for slightly less than 2,000 miles? Of course it does. Every and any relevant factor that impinges on the security of America’s borders should and surely does matter to the men and women charged with securing and patrolling those borders. And to every agency dealing with the security of citizens across the nation: from first responders to wonky analysts burrowed in basement offices somewhere in the beltway.

Does it affect the numbers, the fact that the total number of illegal border crossings is far less at the northern border? And that the relationship between American officials and their Canadian counterparts is generally quite good? Yes, but perhaps the time has indeed come to devote adequate resources to staffing and equiping any and all agencies that work the northern shift, so to speak.

But that decision, especially the nitty gritty in the weeds numbers that The Daily Beast has gloatingly released, should be a discrete – but always decisive – policy question that is debated out of the limelight. Does the press have a right – even a duty – to question officialdom on what the heck they are doing at both land borders? Yes, of course. Should they leak valuable information? Sorry, but that seems a step too far.

The Daily Beast quotes an unnamed DHS official as well as Michigan Democratic Senator Gary Peters. Michigan is the site of a large number of encounters with potential watchlisted suspects. North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp gets in a plug for more resources for border agents and equipment in her state as well (a most reasonable request, but that’s not the point).

And U.S. Border Patrol chief Agent Aaron Heitke – who’s basically in charge of the Great Plains area – pushes back against the Texas Department of Public Safety report that highlighted worries about terrorists being smuggled in across the southern border. Yes, he wants more money for his area too. And it’s fine that he is honest enough to push for it in public.

DHS referred The Daily Beast to Customs and Border Protection – who refused to comment. So who leaked? It sure looks like DHS, specifically that senior DHS official who was quoted. Is this how policy concerning the security of America’s borders should be litigated? With leaks to a media site that revels in its hostility to the current administration?

Chuck Schumer was right. Six ways on Sunday. And every other day of the week.

We had our high school yearbook photographs taken on the stone front steps. In winter as I recall. My pants were checkered and slightly flared and my shirt had a big collar. It was the mid-70’s ok? And I take full responsibility for my sartorial choices. What I take no responsibility for, however, is the JFK quote the yearbook editor gratuitously snuck in and that made me look like an even bigger dork than the one I surely was. The in-jokes and snide little digs were, and still are, a part of the joys of the mostly thankless job of assembling a yearbook.

Could something like a high school yearbook caption, therefore, ever be considered legitimate material for judging the character of a government appointee? Much less, revealing of the character of a Supreme Court nominee? When the caption in question had nothing to do with reality and everything to do with one of those in-jokes that populate most high school year books?

When the progressive and activist world is in a screaming, hysterical rebellion against the duly elected President. When media is a partisan echo chamber that goes above and beyond its call to dig up the dirt on those in power. When a former official at Defense, and current law professor at Georgetown, suggests options for cutting short President Trump’s first term in office in Foreign Policy. Including a possible coup by the military who would theoretically refuse to carry out orders and defy the White House. When disobedience by the deep state bureaucracy is public and shamelessly partisan.

When all of this is true. Then the answer, predictably and appallingly, is yes. Neil Gorsuch apparently has a caption in his high school yearbook that includes a reference to a “Fascism Forever Club” that never existed -according to teachers and students who were at Gorsuch’s private school – and was an ironic reference to his conservative outlook and how it conflicted with much of the liberal views espoused at the school.

Never mind. The Daily Mail dug it up and it is now being shouted out loud and proud throughout social media. And this is just getting started. Judge Gorsuch will have to answer question after question from Democrat lawmakers in his hearing, about how he was not a fascist in high school. That’s the level that discourse has descended to. Yes, the previous campaign had a lot to do with a nastier discourse. On the part of both Hillary’s and Trump’s campaign teams.

But this is different. This is the left unwilling to give any legitimacy to a duly elected administration. It will be tempting for GOP senators – like maybe Ted Cruz – to fight fire with fire and go looking for silly yearbook captions on the part of Democrat members of the Senate committee. Gorsuch himself, however, would be best advised to try and rise above the fray as he patiently responds to the most provocative and muck-racking falsehoods the media can find.

Once you use a weapon in Washington, it is then seen laying there for all sides to use, as they see fit. From now on, a high school yearbook will potentially be a mine filled war zone for anyone seeking office. Heck, for just about anyone who has a public profile. Thanks to the Daily Mail, for upholding the best of Fleet Street traditions.

In the middle of David Frum’s Phillip Roth-like portrait in The Atlantic of a dark and authoritarian America under Trump, his contempt for a central tenet of America’s republican system of government slips through. He compares the consequences of a loss of confidence in Britain on the part of the Prime Minister by her or his own party (the her is a better pronoun seeing May is a her and Thatcher, one heck of a her, had to resign in the early 90’s due to a lack of confidence if not an outright vote by her own party’s members) to the ability of the president to remain in office despite a lack of confidence by members of Congress of his own party.

Yes Mr. Frum, an impeachment proceedings in Congress is a far more difficult thing to achieve than a non-confidence vote in Britain. Or in Canada, a country you know all too well.

But your fear that the opposing ambitions that the framers constructed with the separation of powers, over 200 years ago, will crumble because of your accusations of an impending kleptocracy engineered by Trump seem just a tad, hysterical?

You, David Frum, are ascribing to the very liberal (to not say extreme left) view that Trump is indeed an evil genius. One who will single handedly dismantle nearly two and a half centuries of the world’s most successful republic. One that allows a nerdish little mensch from Toronto like you, David Frum, to ascend and rub elbows with and advise the president of that republic, based on your merits and hard work. Once again, you are a living breathing example of the wonders of America, David Frum, even as you declare those very wonders to be close to expiring.

But of course, you are not merely saying that Trump is an evil genius. You are also saying that America, or that part of America that is not loudly denouncing every move Trump makes, is dumb and thus is being hoodwinked by Trump. Or agree with his authoritarian plans. As the progressive elites and radical activists engage in the most vile public shaming of anyone who doesn’t despise Trump’s administration, you insist that a small minority of racist trolls (which they certainly are) are the only ones poisoning public discourse. Not the crazed left.

Less than two weeks into the new administration, and you foresee – like Phillip Roth in his novel – a grand plot against America. The GOP senate majority will cautiously acquiesce. The balance of power between professionalism and partisanship in the civl service “will shift.” Will? How about already has?? In Obama’s DoJ? In State? In the intel community?

Ah, but Fox News is a Trump propaganda machine. Look at poor Megyn Kelly! Presidential pardons will be forthcoming for his children. This is a Hollywood script, David Frum. You need to get a concept fleshed out with a script writer and raise some interest and money, in Los Angeles. Although one suspects many a script writer and producer are already hard at work imagining some dark Trump dystopia, to soon appear on Netflix and elsewhere.

Perhaps you, David Frum, could give a speech in lieu of a cancelled Oscars ceremony. And warn America of its impending doom. Because if you truly believe that Trump is so incompetent and venal, that he threatens a document like the Constitution, you had better start preaching about the end of America. In fact, you already are. Aren’t you?

You have always been a liberal David Frum. Much as you attempt to portray yourself as a Churchillian beacon, rallying voters to resist Trump in their “finest hour”. Trump himself has now given you the perfect excuse. Welcome home.

Did you know that 65% of Californians want an end to sanctuary cities? Sorry, that’s incorrect. 65% of Hispanic Californians want an end to sanctuary cities. 70% of Independents, 73% of Democrats, and 82% of Republicans in California all agree.

Come on, this must have been a USC/LA Times poll, right? The one that actually got the election right. Uh, no. Sorry. The poll in question was done by IGS/UC Berkeley. That’s the University of California at Berkeley. A rather unconservative campus over the last 50-odd years. Again, sorry.

So how do the elected representatives of the people of California respond to this groundswell of criticism at the practice of sanctuary cities in their state? By introducing a bill, the California Values Act, courtesy of State Senate President Kevin de Leon, that purports to essentially make California a Sanctuary State.

Governor Jerry Brown is all for the idea, needless to say. He picked State AG Becerra to head a lawsuit against Trump’s sanctuary cities order, should it ban funding to California as a result of their refusal to cooperate with immigration authorities. There are also moves to set up state-funded legal counsel for illegals in California.

So, if this escalates – and with a hyper-partisan environment where Whoopi Goldberg can compare the Trump administration to the Taliban on The View, escalation is almost inevitable at this point – where will this all end up? If Trump indeed continues to attempt to enforce immigration law across the country, and states like California reject and resist those attempts in order to devise their own contradictory legislative and security framework, is secession next?

Before Governor Jerry Brown and his righteous claque of progressive lawbreakers stand before the cameras in Sacramento and declare a new republic is to be born, they might want to ask a few people who might have an interest in that outcome: the 40 million residents of the Golden State. Who in their overwhelming majorities have shown that they feel that sanctuary cities – not to mention sanctuary states – are a bad thing.

So before virtual or near secession of states like California occurs, and before the war of words raging across America becomes even more vile in its confrontational hysterics, realize that even in California – that means the whole damn state not just greater LA and the Bay area – voters can reach the point where they say: enough. Stop. Now.

Anyone remember Proposition 13? That, would be a very good thing to keep in mind.