Happiness

            On New Year’s Eve, an estimated crowd of one million people will mass in Times Square to watch the ball come down. “Happy New Year” will scream the revelers. But what, I wonder, would actually bring them happiness in the new year?  

            For our Founding Fathers happiness was something to be pursued, one of those inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. It was clear that independence from England is what would make Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin happy. It doesn’t get any more serious than that, considering it was going to take a war to gain that independence. But what about the folks in Times Square? How would they define happiness?

            Most of us would agree that world peace and the end of war would make us happy. But that kind of happiness is too impersonal. What causes one to be happy is often something simple and immediate. For the homeless man sleeping on a New York City grate, it might be a warm bed; for the 10-year old girl, the bike she got for Christmas; for my wife, getting to see her great-grandkids over the holidays.

            True happiness, I prefer to think, is something that comes from deep inside. Call it spiritual, if you like. Jon Voight, in a recent interview with Mark Levin, talked about a trip he had taken to Russia where he found the people looking very unhappy: they walked with heads down and would not look at him in the eye. He thought these people had a fear of strangers resulting perhaps from decades of deprivation and abuse, a people with a deadened spirituality. A people without laughter.

            Voight’s characterization of Russian people may have been too severe and certainly too broad. But he made a good point. Contrast that with this simple anecdote. The other day my wife and I were shopping at Food Lion when she suddenly burst out laughing for no apparent reason. “What’s so funny?” I asked. She pointed at her feet…her shoes didn’t match. We both laughed out loud. And then my wife shared this little absurdity with another woman, a shopper and a perfect stranger. She burst out laughing, too. It was a joyous moment for the three of us. Silly, perhaps, but a bit of happiness that Jon Voight might have observed would not have happened in Russia.

             Happy New Year, everyone, in maters big and small.

Multiculturalism Doubts

            Paris has been the scene of riots and demonstrations ignited by the announcement of a big fuel tax increase. French president Emmanuel Macron was quick to rescind the tax increase, but the riots have spread to many French cities and show no sign of abating. Why is that? Pundits opine that demonstrators are really protesting the financial burdens imposed on a struggling populace by the president’s climate-change agenda. But it may be more than that. Is it possible that we are seeing the beginning of a pushback against Western Europe’s love affair with multiculturalism? And why should that concern us here in the United States?

            There are Muslim-controlled “No-Go” zones in Paris where infidels are not welcome and even the police fear to tread. They are a direct result of France’s generous immigration policy toward Muslims. And France is not unique in that respect. Germany, Sweden, Great Britain, Belgium, and the Netherlands have all opened their doors to Middle Eastern migrants, only to realize that they are losing a power struggle with Muslim immigrants as a result. These immigrants for the most part have no intention of assimilating culturally or politically in their host societies. Worse, the most radical Islamists among them intend to conquer and rule.

            The Western European elites who sing the praises of multiculturalism have been very late in recognizing what is happening. But it’s the people struggling to make ends meet that have felt the effects of misguided policies. They have not only seen rising rents, high unemployment, and crushing taxes and regulations, they also wonder why they should bear the burden of sympathetic social policies toward immigrants they increasingly view as invaders.

            The flames on the Champs-Elysées have now spread to Belgium and the Netherlands. Who knows where else in the coming weeks and months? President Trump has been undisguised in his attempt to prevent Muslims from coming to this country, just as he is now insisting on a wall to prevent drug dealers, criminals, and gangs from overwhelming our southern border. The president may be ham-handed in executing his policies, but are his instincts correct? We may be insulated from European travails by an ocean. But how different is the left’s advocacy of open borders so different from European elites’ willful blindness?

           

           

Paris Is Burning - Again

            Cars burning on the Champs-Elysées, graffiti sprayed on the Arc de Triomphe, and smashed windows of high-end Parisian stores certainly qualify as attention-getters. But that shouldn’t be just for people of French ancestry like me, because these events demand that we focus on global warming and how to deal with it. Notice I did not say “climate change.” Climate change has been happening for billions of years and will continue to happen irrespective of humanity’s efforts to control it. Global warming, on the other hand, is caused by humans. At least, that’s what we’re led to believe by eco-fascists who tearfully predict that our addiction to fossil fuels will destroy the planet in 20 years.

            What the events in Paris are telling us is that ordinary people who struggle to make ends meet have it “up to here” with government leaders who impose outrageous taxes to finance their climate-control agenda. Of course, conditions in France hardly compare with those in America. France must rely heavily on oil and gas imports, one of the reasons gasoline costs over $7 a gallon at the pump; it also has extremely high taxes that squeeze wage-earners to fund very generous social programs; and it has one of highest unemployment rates in Europe, a sure sign of ineffective government economic policies. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the announcement by Emmanuel Macron of a 30-cent gas-tax hike would turn into the match that lit the conflagration in Paris. The flames tell us all we need to know about what ordinary Frenchmen think of the Paris climate accords and Macron’s priorities.

            We are nowhere near this point in this country. We are now the biggest producers—and net exporters—of gas and oil, we enjoy low gas prices at the pump, and we have economic policies that have given us, at least in the last two years, a booming economy and full employment. At the same time, we can point out to climate doomsayers that the United States has done far more to reduce noxious emissions than other countries. Should we be concerned with the long-term effects of climate change? Of course. But mass hysteria is not the answer. Rather, we should continue to support sensible measures that foster prosperity while protecting our environment. And we should take note of Paris and what could happen if we don’t.

           

A Modern Scourge

            I have just returned from Florida where I celebrated Thanksgiving with my son Marc and his family. There were eighteen of us enjoying the turkey with all the fixings. But the real focus of the celebration was family. My son is so blessed in that regard. All three of his children and their three children are within a short drive, as well as in-laws and their families. There was indeed much to be thankful for that day. But much to be concerned about as well.

            Upon returning to North Carolina I read in two daily papers about the continuing decline in life expectancy in the United States. The articles presented in gruesome detail the two main reasons for the decline: suicide and drug overdoses. One statistic is absolutely stunning: 70,237 deaths from overdoses last year, a number that has quadrupled since 1999. Over that period, deaths attributed to opioids had grown six-fold. The greatest factor by far in the increase of those deaths was fentanyl, which accounted for 28,466 deaths all by itself.

            Fentanyl has become our modern plague.  And it is easily available, because China floods our markets with it. The Chinese government knows where the illicit drug is being manufactured but refuses to do anything about it. Considering how many of our young people die from this poison, we could reasonably view China’s complicity as an act of war.

            How can we stop this scourge? I can think of at least three ways. One is to engage all means of communications, especially social media, to increase awareness among young people of the deadly nature of fentanyl. Another is to make stopping the importation of fentanyl a priority in our trade negotiations with China. The third is education, beginning in our families and reinforced in the classroom. Easier said than done, considering the growing incidence of broken families, especially those where the parents themselves are struggling with addiction. But this is a war, and it must be fought on all fronts. We must not tolerate the increasing death toll on this battlefield.

Is Nationalism Treason?

            In a November 11^th speech at the Armistice Day centennial observance in Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron fired a blast at President Trump by declaring that “Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism…Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is treason.”  President Trump, an avowed nationalist, took it as an insult, and rightly so.

            Macron surely knows the history of nationalism in Europe. But was he justified in linking the German nationalism that gave rise to Hitler with Trump’s “America First” policy? Then he compounded the insult by proposing that Europe unite to form its own armed forces in opposition to Russia, China, and yes, the United States, leaving no doubt in anybody’s mind that he now views America as a foe. Considering that Trump is in the midst of trade negotiations with Europe and is also looking to Europe to bear a larger share of NATO’s costs, Macron’s speech was extraordinarily rash and provocative. President Trump retaliated with harsh words of his own, reminding President Macron that the United States had saved France’s butt in two world wars. Meanwhile, many Western European countries, echoing Mr. Macron’s obstreperousness, are refusing to go along with U.S. sanctions against Iran.

            I can’t help thinking of a similar struggle between American Catholic bishops and the Vatican. The bishops met earlier this month in Baltimore at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to deal with the church’s sexual abuse crisis. They were prepared to vote on standards for episcopal conduct and on the formation of a special commission to review complaints of violation of these standards. But the Vatican ordered the USCCB not to vote on these matters, telling the American bishops in effect that the Vatican would call the shots. Which makes me wonder about what the American bishops’ response to Rome’s authoritarianism will be. Will they conclude it is time to form an “America First” church independent of Vatican diktat? Can Rome really afford to alienate its largest national congregation and its biggest financial supporter? Could it be provoking a second Reformation? Interesting questions in a world debating the pros and cons of nationalism.

On Promises and Protests

            Hillary Clinton promised that civility would return to the political arena after Democrats regained power in Congress. Well, what happened? No sooner had Democrats learned that voters had given them control of the House of Representatives, their incoming committee chairmen Richard Neal, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and Maxine (“Impeach-Impeach-Impeach”) Waters declared all-out war on the president, his family, his administration, even Justice Kavanaugh. So much for Hillary’s promise of restored civility.

            Meanwhile, election results did not produce a Democrat-like response from Republicans: there were no tears, no predictions of Armageddon, no vows to move to Canada, no mob protests in the streets, or banging on Supreme Court doors. Oh, but there was a banging on a door, the front door of Fox News talk-show host Tucker Carlson’s home. A masked mob outside spry-painted an anarchy symbol on his driveway and shouted, “We will fight. We know where you sleep at night. Racist scumbag leave town. We are outside your home. Mail bomb.”

            This was not a peaceful gathering of protesters exercising their First Amendment rights. It was a threat to Carlson’s life and the life of his family. It was a criminal act. Police were called to the scene, but made no arrests, although authorities promised to investigate. A promise is not enough: if the protesters are identified, they should be arrested and prosecuted for what this was, a hate crime. And the guilty should carry this black mark on their record for the rest of their lives as an example for those who would terrorize people for their political beliefs.

            To their credit, most of the left-wing Trump haters in the media voiced their support for Carlson. Trump critic Stephen Colbert called the protest right: he called it “monstrous cowardice.” I did not see any report of comments from Maxine Waters.

           

Not Buying Anymore

            Not long ago I was price-gouged by a restaurant and vowed never to return. Just the other day I was repulsed by a TV program and vowed never to watch that series again. There is a parallel, I think, between being forced to pay for over-priced food and unexpectedly finding myself watching an offensive TV show. Both deserved the response, a miniature marketplace in action.

            The TV program I’m referring to, an episode of SWAT, featured a character, a regular on the series, who openly admitted to being bi-sexual. When she confided to a co-worker that she was intensely attracted to another woman, she was told essentially to “go for it,” in other words, go ahead and satisfy your sexual urges, even if the relationship would not meet traditional norms. Now, I don’t know how or why producers of this action show felt that this would add to the enjoyment of the program, and I’m not so much of a prude that I object to portrayals of different life-styles. But then a meeting with the two women turned into something more than an expression of interest: it became an invitation by the other woman to enter into a threesome called a “thruple” involving her fiancée. The next scene showed the boyfriend making a lascivious invitation to explore the proposed arrangement’s exciting aspects. The scene ended with the young lady seriously considering it. That’s when I pushed the OFF button on the TV remote.

            As someone with a former connection to the advertising business, I ask myself why an advertiser would want to support a show that asks viewers to empathize with a character who is considering joining a “thruple;” worse, to invite viewers to vicariously weigh the pros and cons of adopting a life-style that flouts traditional morality. This, I submit, is a perfect example of corrosive Hollywood values promoted to the public in prime time.

            I am only one person, but I am saying to those responsible, producers and advertisers alike, “I am not going to buy what you’re selling anymore.”  

Ignorance Is Not Bliss

            No matter how we view the results of the mid-term elections, we have to acknowledge a definite movement to the left in the Democratic Party’s natural constituency of minorities.  This move has been fed by the left’s incessant use of identity politics to promote victimhood, academia’s preaching of the anti-capitalist gospel, and the emergence of public figures like Bernie Sanders who worship at the altar of socialism. Indeed, masses of young people are singing the praises of an ideology that in their star-gazing imagination is the ultimate cure for poverty, inequality, and infectious disease. Unfortunately, the one infection it cannot cure is ignorance.

            First, the vast majority of socialism’s infantile cheerleaders don’t even know what socialism is. In a recent Gallup survey, only 17% correctly identified socialism with government ownership or control. The other 83% associated socialism vaguely with equality, enhanced benefits, and such nonsense as being social to people.

            Second, immature swallowers of socialist pap lack the knowledge necessary to recognize the fallacies in descriptions of socialist utopias. Bernie Sanders would have them believe that socialist economies in Scandinavia, for instance, are thriving, when the truth is that Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have high tax rates to support vast social safety nets, but also have thriving market economies dependent on the private sector. Advocates of single-payer health care systems also fail to mention that countries like Great Britain and Canada that have such a system deliver far worse health care than ours.

            Finally, it is an indictment of our educational system that the majority of our young people are totally ignorant of the history of the Soviet Union and China whose authoritarian regimes put socialism and communism into practice and exterminated tens of millions of people in the 20^th century. Our blissfully unsuspecting youngsters aren’t even aware of the misery brought on right now by the same kind of authoritarian regimes in North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.

            Ignorance may be bliss, but not when it comes to the truth about socialism.

On Health-Care Costs

            Reports of mail-bomb scares less than two weeks from mid-term elections drowned out discussions of other important factors in deciding which party to favor at the ballot box.  One of these is the exploding cost of health care and how to control it.  Socialists like Bernie Sanders continue to push for a single-payer system, even though there is ample evidence that such systems in countries like Canada and Great Britain have resulted in a drastic reduction in the quality of health care. Rather than resorting to socialized medicine, we should be looking at other ways to rein in costs. One of these, among many, is price competition.

            The other day my wife and I dined at a restaurant with moderately priced entrees on the menu. My wife ordered a shrimp dish for $18, but I chose a lamb piccata special listed on a board at the entrance to the restaurant. The lamb dish was good, but it certainly wasn’t worth the $34 I was hit with on the bill. There had been no price listed on the board, and it was my fault for not asking before ordering. Had I known the price I would not have ordered the dish; having been the victim of what I felt was price-gouging, I will never return to that restaurant.

            Can we make this an analogy to health care? How many people facing the cost of a knee replacement and several days in the hospital shop around for the facility with the lowest cost? Probably none, because hospitals don’t post prices. Many costs result from unnecessary tests and procedures, but how many patients question their need and how much they cost? Probably none, if they have insurance that will cover them.

            The point is that there is virtually no price competition among major health care providers like hospitals. I submit that if the prices of all their services were available to the public, the open market would come into play to drive prices down by forcing providers to be more innovative and efficient. Competition, an essential element of capitalism, works in the marketplace, be it in shoe stores, gas stations, and restaurants. Many factors could drive down the cost of health care; competition wouldn’t be a bad way to start.

Elizabeth Warren--Woman of Color

            On November 19, 1493, Christopher Columbus, on his second voyage to the New World, set foot on what is now Puerto Rico and claimed it for Spain. At the time of Columbus’s discovery, the inhabitants of Puerto Rico were Carib Indians, a warrior people rumored to roast and eat the flesh of their enemies. Undeterred by the reputation of the natives, Spain proceeded to colonize the island.

            Earlier this year, my wife, who was born in New York City of Puerto Rican immigrants, spit in a vial and sent it off to have her DNA analyzed. Sure enough, the report came back showing a preponderance of Iberian (Spanish and Portuguese) ancestry. But it also showed 13% Native American blood, which we can assume resulted from a mixed marriage some generations back between a European colonist and a native Carib.

            I asked my son David in jest if he thought he had enough Native American blood to build a casino. It certainly would be enough, apparently, for him to be admitted as a preferred minority to Harvard Law School, which boasted of having in Elizabeth Warren its first woman of color. And she had only .009% Native American blood. So much for Harvard’s commitment to diversity and its policy of discriminating against Asian applicants.

            Warren’s richly-deserved mockery points to the pitfalls of racial identity and to the bankruptcy of programs designed to benefit minorities solely on the basis of their race. DNA doesn’t define who we are as individuals or as Americans. We are a melting pot enriched by the various strengths and talents of the people who live and work in this land of opportunity. It doesn’t matter how or when our ancestors came here.  

              Senator Warren, for her part, has made her own important discovery: nothing damages a self-absorbed politician more than ridicule. As one wag put it, Elizabeth Warren, who profited from her claim of being, as Harvard put it, a woman of color, is in fact whiter than Ivory Soap.

Mobs, Civility, and Lawlessness

            Three words reverberate in our public discourse these days: mob, civility, and lawlessness.

            Commentators on the right accuse the left of inciting mob violence, while the left responds that there are no mobs, only protestors exercising their rights of free speech. Perhaps the screamers at the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing and from the Senate gallery during the voting thought they were doing just that, but those screamers lacked the one quality that could have commanded respect for their opinions: civility.

            Hillary (can’t she just go away?) chimed in last week that civility won’t be restored until the Democrats regain control of Congress. Was she suggesting that the right is uncivil, or was she threatening that Democrats would continue to incite mob lawlessness until the loons on the left outvote the deplorables on the right?

            It is true that President Trump rallies his frenzied base with his intemperate speeches and tweets. But his followers were not the ones harassing Republican senators outside their offices, in  elevators, or commuting to work; they were not the ones banging on the doors of the Supreme Court on Justice Kavanaugh’s first day on the bench; they were not the ones following Maxine Waters’ orders to confront Trump supporters in restaurants, gas stations, and supermarkets; they certainly were not the ones wearing masks while breaking windows and setting fires to prevent conservatives from speaking at universities.

            I don’t know if the “Kavanaugh effect” will be enough to prevent the Blue Wave from gaining control of the House or the Senate in the upcoming elections. But I don’t think Democrats have been helping their cause. George Melloan recently said it best: “It is not a good omen when leaders of a major party and its adherents in the press seem to justify lawlessness simply because they don’t like the president the country elected.” Amen.

Ford v. Kavanaugh

            Some final thoughts on Ford v. Kavanaugh.

            Democrats complained that the FBI investigation did not go far enough: it should have probed more deeply into the backgrounds of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, even after their intensive grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats should be happy the FBI didn’t, because a further check into Dr. Ford’s background would surely have raised questions about her veracity.

            Senator Grassley had in his possession a letter from an old boyfriend of Dr. Ford’s accusing her of fudging the truth. The letter contradicted her claims of claustrophobia and fear of flying, and, even more seriously, her denial of ever having coached anyone on how to take a polygraph. The boyfriend wrote that he had personally witnessed Dr. Ford coach Monica McLean, a friend of hers who was applying for a job with the FBI. Of course, McLean denies this. But imagine the furor on the left if this accusation had surfaced at the Judiciary hearing. Now, Judge Kavanaugh could be targeted by all sorts of lugubrious allegations—as a man he was fair game. But nobody could question Dr. Ford’s veracity—as a woman and a victim she had to be believed. Just ask Senator Hirono.

            Senator McConnell appears to be gleefully grateful to the Democrats for their public persecution of Judge Kavanaugh. He thinks that it has energized a furious Republican base that will rebuke the Democrats at the polls next month. That remains to be seen. What is certain is that this whole business has polarized the electorate as never before. And it has likely dispelled any pretense of comity in Washington’s legislative bodies. The Senate well has been poisoned.

            Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Joe Manchin of West Virginia will be excoriated by their respective parties for their treason. Republican Murkowski, an intellectually-challenged lightweight who was appointed to fill a vacant seat by her father, then governor of Alaska, will never get re-elected. Sarah Palin, who booted her father from the governor’s mansion, will see to it.  

            Democrat Manchin’s days as an influential member of the “loyal” opposition are numbered. His vote for Kavanaugh’s confirmation may get him re-elected in red state West Virginia, but he may just as well cross the aisle and join the Republicans. Democrats have no desk on their side for a man of such character.

A 21st Century Inquisition

            The Spanish Inquisition is best remembered for torturing Jews until they disavowed their religion and converted to Christianity. I was reminded of this while watching the Senate Judiciary Committee pitting an accuser with no corroborating evidence against a candidate for high office who was denied any presumption of innocence.

            The Spanish Inquisition did not respect the rule of law because it invoked God as its authority. Dr. Ford’s allegations at the committee hearing, sincere and persuasive as they were, would not have brought a conviction in a court of law. But they did in the eyes of Democrats bent on destroying Judge Kavanaugh, regardless of the absence of evidence. Senator Hirono said it best. She believed Dr. Ford because she needed to be believed—because Dr. Ford is a woman and Judge Kavanaugh is a man. Besides, Judge Kavanaugh did not deserve due process because of his conservative philosophy. Grand Inquisitor Torquemada would have agreed with that reasoning: Jews could not be innocent because they were Jews and did not believe in Jesus.

            There was no one named Torquemada in the Senate hearing room. But it was torture nonetheless, a modern Inquisition designed to make the accused quit or be destroyed. The man in the dock refused to quit, so the effort continues to destroy him.

            If Republicans fail to confirm Judge Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, they will be defeated at the polls and may not recover for generations. Unfortunately for Judge Kavanaugh, even if he does ascend to the Supreme Court, he will never be able to heal the wounds to his family and his reputation inflicted by Senator Hirono and Democrat Inquisitors.

Dirty Politics

            Ford vs. Kavanaugh.  It is not be a case being argued before the Supreme Court, but it may as well be for all the attention it is getting and for the lasting impact it will have on future nominations to the Supreme Court. In the process, Ford vs. Kavanaugh will have established new benchmarks for incivility, political weaponry, and utter disregard for judicial principles, such as the presumption of innocence and preponderance of evidence. It will also have set a new low for dirty politics.

            There is no question in my mind that Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth when she says she was assaulted at a party when she was 15 years old. But I do question the clarity of her recollection after the passage of 36 years. How sure is she now that Brett Kavanaugh was her assailant, given the judge’s categorical denial and the contradictory statements by others who were supposedly in the room at the time? If, as she has said, alcohol was a factor in the conduct of her assailant, could it also have been a factor affecting her recall? Given her initial reluctance to testify under oath and given demands by her attorney to shield her from harsh interrogation, is there something she is afraid of revealing during questioning on these points?

            There is another gaping hole in this affair, and it has to do with Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. I’m not so much troubled by senators Hirono and Gillibrand pronouncing Judge Kavanaugh necessarily guilty because he is a man and his accuser is a woman; I think fair-minded people can see through their bias. But I am troubled by Senator Feinstein’s introduction of Dr. Ford’s allegations at the last minute, and especially by her refusal to give a copy of Dr. Ford’s letter to Chairman Grassley.* Is she so bent on destroying Judge Kavanaugh that she would withhold exculpatory evidence?

            If Judge Kavanaugh is guilty, his nomination should be withdrawn. But if he is prevented from taking his seat on the Supreme Court as the result of an uncorroborated accusation by one woman based on her fuzzy recollection of what happened 36 years ago, judicial fairness will have been turned on its head. Democrats will have found the way to prevent the accession of any conservative to the Court. Dirty politics will have won. America will have lost.

* As of this writing, only portions of the letter have been made public by the Washington Post and CNN. The full text has not.

Florence and Washington

            The disaster surrounding us in the wake of Florence is a perfect metaphor for the mess in Washington.  As the storm that struck and stalled over the Carolinas continues to inflict death and destruction, so the stench of corruption, scandal, and treason reeking from our capital is shredding the very fiber of our democracy. The stark difference is that rescue teams are out in force to save lives threatened by the storm, demonstrating an inexhaustible spirit of neighborly love, whereas nothing can stop the muckrakers, liars, and traitors consumed by their hate for a duly-elected president from tearing this country apart.

            Is there anyone not disgusted with the desperate methods Democrats have been using to prevent Brett Kavanaugh from sitting on the Supreme Court? Is there no end to Robert Mueller’s search for anything to destroy the presidency of Donald Trump? Has the integrity of the FBI and the Justice Department been permanently compromised? Has the mainstream media abandoned all sense of fairness and respect for the truth? Will the November elections turn the House of Representatives over to the likes of violence-inciting Maxine Waters and empty-headed socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

            I fear the wrath of Mother Nature less than I dread the answers to these questions.

Presidents Past, Present, and Future

            It was amusing—if not pathetic—to see presidential hopefuls Corey Booker and Kamala Harris make fools of themselves at the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings last week.

            Booker played Spartacus in his audition for an Academy Award: he was ready to sacrifice his position as United States Senator by breaking senate rules in daring to reveal confidential information that would prove Judge Kavanaugh to be a racist for supporting racial profiling. There were two problems with that. The confidential memo had already been released (and Booker knew it), and the memo showed exactly the opposite of what Booker claimed: Judge Kavanaugh had written in opposition to racial profiling.  But little details like that didn’t prevent the senator from grandstanding.

            Senator Harris, self-appointed prosecutor of anything Trump, tried to trick the judge into admitting he’d had contacts with someone at a law firm regarding Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s collusion with Russia. She hinted she had the goods on the judge. He flatly denied the contacts and called her bluff. She lost—she didn’t have the goods. Even the Los Angeles Times, normally a supporter of the senator, called her performance a miserable failure.

            Do these senators want to be president so badly they are willing to risk ridicule on national TV?

            Speaking of presidents, Barack Obama returned from a distant planet to attack President Trump in a speech at the University of Illinois in which he claimed, among other delusions, that he was responsible for the booming economy, not President Trump’s tax cuts and reversal of Obama’s job-killing regulations. With utter disregard for the facts, Obama shamelessly insisted the economy was already booming while he was in office.

            It has been accepted wisdom that former presidents should not come out of retirement to personally criticize their successors. But then Obama’s speech was not so much about President Trump as it was about himself, a speech in which he used the pronoun “I” no less than 108 times.  Proof that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton suffer from the lack of yet another kind of wisdom: they just don’t know when to go away.

Children of Socialism

            The Roman statesman and orator Cicero once said, “Not to know what happened before you were born is to remain forever a child.” That’s a perfect comment on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Socialist darling of the Left and all her fawning, naive acolytes.

            How is it possible for the thundering herd of young people heading for destruction off the socialist cliff not to know anything of the calamitous history of those countries that suffered the consequences of that failed ideology in the 20^th century and profess it even today?          

            Let’s start with the Soviet Union and its satellites in Eastern Europe: Poland, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Hungary, all of them failed states with repressive regimes until freed by the collapse of communism in 1991. Then, how about our despotic friends in Mao’s China, Ho Chi Ming’s Vietnam, Kim’s North Korea, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, all of them with hands bloodied by mass murder and enslavement. 

             But we don’t have to go that far. In our own hemisphere we have the decades-long disaster in Cuba and now the starving populace in oil-rich Venezuela to give daily testimony to the utter bankruptcy of socialism.

            Yet, we have hordes of clueless admirers of Bernie Sanders heading to the polls in November, dreaming of Utopia: free healthcare, free college, free food, free housing, and free lollipops. And no idea whatsoever about how nanny government is going to pay for all of it.

            Oh, let me take that back: we’ll get the money by confiscating the profits of corporations making over a billion dollars a year, a brilliant emanation from the deluded mind of Elizabeth Warren. And, if that’s not enough, we can save the rest by shutting down ICE.

            If Cicero were witnessing this insanity today, he would no doubt express his disbelief by switching from his Latin to our American vernacular and asking our entranced young voters, “What are you? Nuts?”

Bombs Away

            I feel like a soldier in a foxhole trying to take cover from all the bombs going off over my head. There are so many, I’m not sure I could list them all. But here are some of the big ones.

            President Trump has to be shell-shocked at this point from all the attacks aimed at him, not only from his customary adversaries in the mainstream media and Congress, but now from members of his own party and from former trusted associates like “flipping” attorney Michael Cohen and soon-to-testify accountant Alan Weisselberg. Even Jeff Sessions has thumbed his nose at the president, who would love nothing more than for his attorney general to pursue corruption in the FBI and Hillary’s collusion with Russia, both studiously ignored by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

            Meanwhile, Big Labor continues to make direct hits on Trump’s agenda. In May it gained a toe-hold in Boeing’s South Carolina operations by organizing machinists. Then, after unions got a sympathetic judge to side with union picketers in Ohio, the American Federation of Government Employees managed to get another sympathetic judge to overturn a section of a Trump executive order that would have made it easier to fire incompetent federal employees and cut down on government bureaucracy. Finally, earlier this month the AFL-CIO poured millions into a victorious campaign in Missouri to overturn that state’s right-to-work laws, the first state ever to do so.

            As for myself, I haven’t yet recovered from the effects of a mega-ton bomb dropped on the Catholic Church by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, a former apostolic nuncio to the United States. His 11-page testimony accuses top church officials up and down the line, both in Rome and in the U.S., of covering up sexual abuses of and by seminarians and priests in Chile and Honduras and by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and others in this country. Worse, Vigano accuses Pope Francis of reversing sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI. For this and for the pope’s role in the cover-up, Vigano calls on the pope to resign.

            Is “Bombs Away” to be this year’s universal call?

How Far "Me Too"

            The “Me Too” movement began quietly enough in 2006 when Tarana Burke, a black woman and survivor of sexual assault coined the term. She wanted to help other women and girls who had also been victims of sexual violence. She could not possibly have known how the term would explode into an international movement demanding the heads of famous people all over the world who have been identified as sexual predators.

            In the United States, “Me Too” erupted with the New York Times story on October 5, 2017, that exposed Harvey Weinstein for decades of sexual harassment against women, including Ashley Judd who described in detail the Hollywood producer’s assault against her. In rapid succession, accusations rolled in and claimed the careers of notables in the media and in Congress, as well as the entertainment industry. Even the worlds of sports, music, medicine, academia, and the military have not been immune. And new light was shone on the long-ignored or excused sexual predations of people like Bill Clinton and Roman Polanski.

            For me, as a Catholic, the newest revelations of the Church’s abysmal response to the widespread abuse of as many of 1,000 minors by 300 priests in Pennsylvania decades ago are particularly troubling. Cardinal Donald Wuerl, who was archbishop of Pittsburgh at the time, is accused of covering up the abuse instead of dealing with it forcefully.  Wuerl is also in big trouble with the pope for defending retired Cardinal Theodor McCarrick, his predecessor as archbishop of Washington, who reportedly preyed on seminarians and had a 20-year history of molestation.

            How much farther will the offshoots of “Me Too” reach? Will we see positive results like the end of the sex trafficking and pornography rackets here and abroad? Will the practice of sexual mutilation of women by Muslims earn the universal revulsion and condemnation it deserves? Indeed, what will it take to eradicate sexual abuse and degradation of women and children in this world?

            As the movement created by Tarana Burke has shown, victims must not be afraid to speak up. Silence, even in the most sacred precincts, is not an option when innocence and human dignity are at risk.

Making a Friend Happy

            A friend of mine, an avid Trump supporter, gets upset whenever I criticize President Trump. I voted for Trump and have often praised him for his domestic policies on tax reform, deregulation, judicial appointments, energy, and the environment; I support his foreign policy on Israel, Iran, and military action in the Middle East; and, with some reservations, I approve his show of strength on North Korea, Russia, and now Turkey. His list of accomplishments is impressive and deserving of praise. But there is another side to the ledger. Regrettably, it threatens to undo the positive results of the president’s first term in office.

            President Trump’s policies on immigration (sanctuary cities, the wall, law enforcement, etc.) are sound, but implementation has been shaky and inconsistent and often thwarted by a leftist judiciary. His trade policies (TPP, Nafta, import tariffs) are a disaster; the trade war with China is at best a stalemate that will have long-lasting consequences both on the American economy and on foreign relations with our allies in the Pacific.

            Affecting all these policies is the president’s management style. His unfortunate method of communicating with tweets and ill-considered off-the-cuff remarks may energize his base, but it fuels the Trump-hating media, divides the nation, and gives Democrats visions of surfing a blue wave to congressional majorities in the fall elections.

            And then there’s the Mueller investigation. It has been a millstone around the president’s neck for more than a year, but he has not found an effective way of dealing with it. Calling the probe a witch hunt is not it. The best way for the president to pull the fangs from Mueller’s vampires is to declassify all documents relating to the anti-Trump intrigues in the FBI and the Justice Department and order Rod Rosenstein to turn them over to Congress. “Sunshine is the best disinfectant,” as the saying goes. Let the sun shine on the intrigue and the corruption in the Deep State. And have Mueller’s prosecutorial powers turn to a real Russian collusion scandal.

            Maybe that will make my Trump-supporting friend happy.

High Stakes Poker

            Tariffs on imports are taxes. We, the American people, have to pay them. When prices go up on air-conditioners and washing machines because of tariffs, Americans have to pay more for them. When tariffs are imposed on steel and aluminum imports, products made with them cost more. And we have to pay those higher prices as well. Now, if President Trump goes through with his promises to place tariffs on all Chinese imports, we will have to pay more for the higher prices on them.

            Not everybody needs a new air-conditioner or washing machine, or a new car made with imported steel parts. But how about shoes? Some 97 percent of them sold in our stores are imports, two-thirds rom China. Who doesn’t need shoes? The bare fact is that all America is starting to see prices rise as a direct result of tariffs. And they will continue to rise if the president continues his unwise protectionist policies.

            Maybe it’s all a poker game with him. He went all in by calling for a 25% tariff on European cars. Maybe it was a bluff, but it succeeded: Europe blinked, because Germany depends heavily on selling BMWs in America. Maybe tariffs between Europe and America will all be eliminated as they have been between Europe and Japan. If they are, the president will have won that game.

            China will not be so easily bluffed. The Europeans are allies, but the Chinese are not, and they hold a lot of high cards. One is that President Xi does not have to fear being ousted from power. Another is that China owns more than a trillion dollars of our debt. Yet another is that we need China to cooperate on the denuclearization of North Korea. For China, this is not a game: it’s a war over its control of the South China Sea and over its growing influence in South America, Africa, and the Asian sub-continent. It’s a war about who is to be the world’s dominant power.

            President Trump holds a lot of high cards, too. But China will not be bluffed. To paraphrase a familiar song, “There’s a time to hold ‘em, and a time to fold ‘em.” The stakes are high. And the biggest losers may be us.

           

Local Taxes Well Spent

            I’m very fond of our new library. I fervently hope that the children of our county will discover the many treasures that it holds. I’m also fond of another facility paid for by our tax dollars: the Perquimans County Senior Citizen Center. I visited it recently and was amazed at how much it has to offer our older adults.

            The center, located off Harvey Point Road, has 8,000 square feet of space devoted to a wide variety of activities. These include an exercise room, an arts and crafts room, a pool room, a computer center, a lunch room, and a multi-purpose room where I found four tables of seniors playing canasta, pinochle, and another game I didn’t recognize.

            The center serves 70 to 100 seniors daily. Many come for the line dancing, the Tai Chi, the Zumba and Yoga classes, and the low-impact aerobic exercises. If that’s not enough, the seniors can go over to the Recreation Center for a game of bocce, pickle ball, or a 2K walk.

            Most interesting are the entertainment programs, such as music and choir concerts, and informational presentations on topics as diverse as medical care, elder law, nutrition, safety, and even protection from scams targeting seniors.

            Because the county makes a transportation van available to the center, seniors have been able to travel to the Only Place for an evening of entertainment and to the Carolina Moon Theater. They have even taken a trip to Fayetteville for ziplining.

            These and many more activities keep our seniors active and involved. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a very good use of our tax dollars.

The Partisan Deaf in Helsinki

            “A dialog of the deaf” is an apt description of what masquerades as debates between President Trump’s opponents and his supporters. One side wants to drive the president out of office, while the other sees him as doing no wrong.  Neither side wants to give an inch. Why, for instance, can’t Democrats and their mainstream media echoes give Trump credit for the robust economy?  Why can’t his core supporters admit his trade policies are a disaster? Just recently, reactions to Trump’s summit with Putin provided us with more extreme examples of the partisan divide.

            I do not believe that Trump’s unfortunate remarks in Helsinki qualify as craven capitulation to an adversary or collusion with Putin, as some have charged. The president certainly did not merit the hysteria spewing out of the mainstream media, calling the president a dumpy stooge, the greatest threat to our democracy, and a traitor. Do the leftwing crazies actually see nothing wrong with an MSNBC commentator comparing Helsinki to Pearl Harbor and Kristallnacht?

            There was criticism from Republicans, as well, especially from John McCain. In fact, blowback from the right was so swift and severe, it stunned the president enough to force him to correct his “misstatement.” On the other hand, blind supporters like Sean Hannity praised the president, and, as usual, could find nothing to criticize in his management of foreign policy and his diplomatic relations with his enemies or his allies. To them, Helsinki—minus that little press conference blip—was a success in personal diplomacy.

            Let’s face it. The reason we are having yet another example of extreme reactions to Trump is Trump himself and his over-confidence in his ability as a negotiator to brow-beat his allies and butter up his enemies. It didn’t work very well at the G5 or NATO meetings, and it achieved little in Singapore and Helsinki.

            What’s next? An invitation to Putin to come to Washington for Round Two? What we don’t need is more impulsive diplomacy to supply the partisan deaf with more ammunition for their political wars.

                

A New Republican Mascot

            Now I know why the Republican emblem is an elephant. Or should I say a flying Dumbo. President Trump is jetting all over the world trumpeting his impassioned views on nuclear security, trade imbalances, and NATO obligations, while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo dutifully follows behind like a circus worker with a pail and shovel picking up Trump’s undiplomatic excretions.

            In his first year and a half in office, the President has had an extraordinary string of successes: tax reform, regulations cutback, judicial appointments, the environment, energy, and defense. I could go on. The point is that President Trump has accomplished more in a short time than anyone could have expected. But now his policies on trade are threatening to reverse all the progress he has made.

            When it comes to trade economics, President Trump is an ignoramus surrounded by dunces like Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross. The problem is that Trump sees any trade deficit as a sign that America is being taken advantage of. So first, he scuttles a healthy trade agreement (TPP) with Asian partners, then he antagonizes Canada and Mexico on NAFTA, and now he is embarking on a trade war not only with China, but with our European allies, believing that he can achieve better trade agreements simply because other countries need American markets more than we need theirs. He refuses to consider that this is a war in which everybody loses, starting with the American buying public.

            President Trump insists on fair trade as well as free trade. Fine. But there is a better way to achieve it than through rhetorical excesses and destructive tariffs. China’s unfair trade tactics and theft of intellectual property need to be addressed, to be sure, and European tariffs on American goods need to be reduced. But not by upping tariffs, and certainly not by invoking executive authority to do so on the absurd premise that the importation of German automobiles is a matter of national security.

            The president needs better advisers on economic policy. Or Mike Pompeo sooner or later is going to decide that he’s no longer willing to fill his pail with Dumbo’s droppings.

Rolled

            It seems that not a day goes by anymore that some critical issue doesn’t make headlines in Washington. It’s hard to keep track of what crisis dominated the news yesterday, never mind last week or last month. A case in point is North Korea.

            When President Trump returned from his meeting with Kim Jong Un, he pronounced the nuclear crisis over. Trump had used his unparalleled persuasive powers to get Kim to commit to North Korea’s complete denuclearization. It was a triumph of Trumpian diplomacy. No more needed to be said. It was a done deal and time to move on to the next challenge. Except it doesn’t appear to be working out that way.

            When a friend had asked me what I thought about the Singapore Summit, I replied that I thought Trump had gotten rolled. He had nothing but nice things to say about Kim, confident that the North Korean dictator would keep his word. His word was enough for Trump to show his faith in Kim by ordering, to the consternation of his military advisers, the postponement of joint military exercises with South Korea. No need to worry, said the President. “North Korea is no longer a threat.”

            Energized by his East Asian success, Trump ordered his foreign policy team to arrange a summit with Vladimir Putin. Putin is a reasonable man: he will fold his cards, just like Kim. Except that Kim is not folding his cards.

            On June 28^th, The Wall Street Journal reported that satellite images had revealed that North Korea had begun to upgrade a nuclear site, in direct contradiction to Kim’s assurances that he would proceed immediately to end his nuclear program. Should anyone be surprised?

            Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was dispatched to Pyongyang to set matters straight, but he returned with the bitter taste of reality about North Korean trustworthiness.

            Kim Jong Un is doing exactly what his father and grandfather had done before him: he is reneging on his promises and is not about to give up his nuclear weapons. Mr. President, admit it: you got rolled.

Democrats Should Worry

            If I were a Democrat, I’d be worried about what is happening to my party.  Last week saw two seismic events that will have long-term consequences for the party, one in the primaries and one in the Supreme Court.

            In the New York Democratic primaries, a 28-year old Latina socialist named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated Joe Crowley, the 10-term congressman from Queens, even after he outspent her 10 to 1.  If the 4^th most-powerful member of the Democratic House can be beaten by an unknown far-left candidate, what does this portend for the soul of the party?  If a Democratic blue wave sweeps the elections in November, will the Republicans, already in disarray, concede that they are powerless to prevent leftist radicals from leading the country on an unstoppable stampede over a Socialist cliff?

            On the other hand, conservatives can take heart that the Supreme Court at least is not caving in to the leftward shift.  Four important decisions went their way this month: one on a cake-maker’s religious freedom, one protecting the free speech rights of pro-life pregnancy centers, one on the constitutionality of Trump’s travel ban, and, most importantly, one restricting the power of organized labor.

            Nothing could have been more devastating to the power of public-employee unions than the Supreme Court’s decision that a union can no longer collect fees from workers who choose not to join the union.  This decision has pulled the plug on union power; we are sure to see more and more public employees opt out of union membership, depleting its resources even further.  As a long-time member of a Board of Education who witnessed firsthand the abuse of union power, I have little sympathy for the losers in this case.

           

           

Enough Already

            Haven’t we had enough of Hollywood entertainers like Robert de Niro, Michelle Wolf, and Peter Fonda firing F bombs and vile insults at President Trump and his family? Haven’t we had enough of television personalities like the self-absorbed ladies on “The View” attack conservatives for their positions on abortion and religious freedom? Can we stand any more hysteria from the Radical Left when it attributes any challenge to its infallible doctrine on diversity and equality to intractable racism?

            Sarah Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant because she works for President Trump. While having a private dinner in another restaurant not long after holding a press conference to explain President Trump’s immigration policy, HHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was surrounded by a mob who then followed her to continue their protest outside her home. So much for the Left’s respect for free speech and the right to privacy.

            ICE agents are charged with protecting Americans by hunting down and deporting dangerous illegal immigrants who have committed violent crimes. New York Gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon called the agents—get this—TERRORISTS.

            Roused to new levels of moralistic indignation at the images (some of them faked) of caged children separated from their parents at the southern border, ABC, CBS, and NBC devoted a combined 176 minutes of air time to the subject from June 13 to June 18. Worse, CNN and MSNBC compared the detention centers of illegal immigrants to Nazi concentration camps 22 times during that same period.

            When it came time for Democrats in Congress to denounce such odious comparisons, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut orated, “The policy of forced separation reminds us of the cattle cars of Nazi Germans when children were separated from their parents.” What??? Such hyperbole is not just outrageous and despicable, it is an insult to the memory of Holocaust victims. It is obscene.

            Haven’t we all had enough?

Man of the Century

            Time Magazine chose Albert Einstein as its Person of the 20^th Century. The honor was well-deserved, but in my opinion it should have gone to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn for writing what I consider to be to the most consequential book of the century, perhaps of any century.

            In his novel The Gulag Archipelago Solzhenitsyn exposed the political and human failure of the Soviet Union’s socialist ideology and was a major factor in the dismantling of communist dictatorships in Russia and its satellites in Eastern Europe. With 30 million copies published in 35 languages, no other book in modern history has championed the idea of freedom as much as this one.

            Interestingly enough, Solzhenitsyn became a fierce critic of the West as well. He despised our vulgar materialism and our pop culture, especially our addiction to moronic television and bankrupt music. Beyond that, he was a fierce critic of the press. In a commencement address he gave at Harvard in 1978, he attacked the media for its hypocrisy and deceit. “The press,” he said, “…not elected by anyone…has amassed more power than the legislative, executive, or judicial power. And in this “free” press itself, it is not true freedom of opinion that dominates, but the dictates of the political fashion of the moment, which lead to a surprising uniformity of opinion.” I wonder what he would have to say our mainstream media today.

            When it came to the subject of freedom, Solzhenitsyn was a great admirer of America as a bastion of liberty. But he railed against those who would abuse freedom by turning it into license. A freedom without morality and spirituality, he felt, is a corruption of the ideal upon which this nation was founded.

            Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was born in 1918 and died in 1998. We should honor him in this, the 100^th anniversary of his birth and the 20^th anniversary of his death, by heeding his words of wisdom, especially now that the socialist ideology he fought to destroy continues to be force-fed to young minds in our universities and echoed by leftist politicians and their sycophants in the media.  

Scary

            On May 22^nd Otto Szentesi and his wife Mimi sailed their 43-foot sloop into Yeopim Creek and tied up at berth 4 on C Dock in Albemarle Plantation Marina. They had heard about the Albemarle Loop and wanted to see what it was all about. They had no idea what they were in for.

            The Szentesis are veteran sailors. Before buying their own boat, they chartered ocean-going sailboats with friends and sailed the Caribbean and the Pacific, going as far as Tahiti on one venture. But when Otto retired as Senior Vice-President for Corning Cable Systems, he said to Mimi, “Let’s buy our own boat.” And that’s how they came into possession of the Hunter 426 christened “Best of Times.”

            Sailing out of Oriental, North Carolina, the new boat owners headed for Exuma Cays in the Bahamas, a snorkeling paradise that Mimi says is her favorite destination in the whole world because of all the sea life. In fact, the Szentesis now go there every January and stay until mid-May. Then they usually head north, sailing to another favorite place, Newport, Rhode Island. Otto says he gets quite a kick out of passing by the Statue of Liberty before heading up New York’s East River and into the Long Island Sound.

            When Otto tied up at the Albemarle Plantation Marina, it happened to be tournament week at the Plantation’s Sound Golf Links. Being a golfer himself, Otto might have stayed to watch 120 young professionals compete in the 2018 Biggs Classic. But something happened to take precedence.

            When I stopped by the Best of Times to say hello, Otto wasn’t there, I was told he had been taken to a local pharmacy by Steve Harris, Commodore of the Plantation’s Osprey Yacht Club. I left and returned an hour later. Otto was back and welcomed me aboard. That’s when I found out why he had gone to the pharmacy. I was greeted below by Mimi who held out her hand. But she couldn’t see me. She was blind.

            Mimi told me the story of her accident that morning. She had been preparing to do some laundry when the Tide Laundry Pod she was handling burst, splashing the strong lye liquid into her face and eyes. She rinsed her eyes out as best she could, but it wasn’t enough. Hence, the trip to the pharmacy for proper medication.

            When I saw Mimi later that evening at the Clubhouse restaurant, she still could only see shadows. She needed to see a doctor. Otto told me they would sail to Edenton the next morning to find an ophthalmologist, but he was unable to locate one. So, he called on Commodore Harris once more to take him to Elizabeth City where he did find one. Mimi was diagnosed with corneal abrasions and chemical burns, but the prognosis was encouraging: in time, with rest and proper medication, Mimi would regain her sight. And she would once again be able to swim among the sea life of Exuma Cays. For now, it was back to Oriental for that much-needed rest.

            On June 3^rd the Szentesis and Best of Times were back in berth 4 on C Dock, this time with friends who had flown in from Oregon to do the Albemarle Loop with them.  At their invitation I went back for another visit.  This time Mimi greeted me not with a handshake but with a hug—she was so glad to SEE me.