Noonan on Trump; Trump and America First; Conservatism; On immigration; and other matters

Chaos Manor View, Saturday, April 30, 2016

Immigration without assimilation is invasion.

Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western Civilization as it commits suicide.

Under Capitalism, the rich become powerful. Under Socialism, the powerful become rich.

Under Socialism, government employees become powerful.



“Those conservative writers and thinkers who have for nine months warned the base that Mr. Trump is not a conservative should consider the idea that a large portion of the Republican base no longer sees itself as conservative, at least as that term has been defined the past 15 years by Washington writers and thinkers.”

That’s how Peggy Noonan concludes today’s column in the Wall Street Journal. I don’t expect that column has won her any friends on the Journal’s editorial board, but she’s been around a long time; not as long as me, but at least long enough to remember Nelson Rockefeller gleefully tearing up a Reagan supporter’s placard in the 1976 Republican National Convention, when Reagan opposed the Republican sitting President, Gerry Ford, for the nomination. Ford won the nomination, and Reagan supported him in the general election, and urged all his supporters to do so. Jimmy Carter won the Presidency. The high point of Carter’s Presidency came after he had lost the 1980 election to Reagan, when Iran finally released the American hostages taken when they stormed Carter’s American Embassy and led them away blindfolded.

It’s unlikely they would have ever come home had Carter won re-election. After the US November election, the Muslim Revolutionary Guard hastened to get them out of their country before Carter left office, and Reagan became Commander in Chief; probably the most intelligent thing they ever did.

In the body of her essay, Miss Noonan observes:

“In my continuing quest to define aspects of Mr. Trump’s rise, to my own satisfaction, I offer what was said this week in a talk with a small group of political activists, all of whom back him. One was about to begin approaching various powerful and influential Republicans who did not support him, and make the case. I told her I’d been thinking that maybe Mr. Trump’s appeal is simple: What Trump supporters believe, what they perceive as they watch him, is that he is on America’s side.

“And that comes as a great relief to them, because they believe that for 16 years Presidents Bush and Obama were largely about ideologies. They seemed not so much on America’s side as on the side of abstract notions about justice and the needs of the world. Mr. Obama’s ideological notions are leftist, and indeed he is a hero of the international left. He is about international climate-change agreements, and leftist views of gender, race and income equality. Mr. Bush’s White House was driven by a different ideology—neoconservatism, democratizing, nation building, defeating evil in the world, privatizing Social Security.

“But it was all ideology.

“Then Mr. Trump comes and in his statements radiates the idea that he’s not at all interested in ideology, only in making America great again—through border security and tough trade policy, etc. He’s saying he’s on America’s side, period.”

And that, I think, is precisely the key to Mr. Trumps astonishing rise from a clown no one took seriously to the presumptive Republican nominee, and quite possibly the Presidency of the United States. Yes: he’s divisive. But he’s not divisive along ideological lines; he ignores ideological lines. Many of his policies are conservative, but that’s hardly surprising: many conservatives believe their policies are best for the United States. But Mr. Trump is opposed to ideological wars.

John Quincy Adams, echoing a sentiment that had prevailed from the founding of the Union, said of the United States: “But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” This sentiment has been forgotten since the end of the Cold War.

The First Gulf War by Mr. Bush may be argued was in fulfillment of obligations to our Saudi allies, although the notion that Saddam, engaged as he was in a seemingly endless war with Iran, could mount an invasion against a forewarned Saudi Arabia or even another Trucial State is not very plausible; mostly Saddam wanted more funding for his war with Iraq, and his plundering of Kuwait would provide it at little cost to the United States.

Then came the Balkan interventions under Mr. Clinton and Secretary Albright. There was no discernable US interest involved, and although the media demonized the Christian Serbs and made innocent victims of the Muslim Bosnians, the actual evidence shows there were atrocities in plenty on both sides; while forcing Serbia to give Kosovo to Albania: a province that as late as 1921 was known to have a Serbian majority, had never admitted a legal Albanian immigrant, and the insurgency was certainly supplied by Albanians in their sanctuary state of Albania. The US motive in all this was ideological, destroying monsters; of course it also had the effect of earning the disdain – even hatred – of pro-Slavic Russia; hardly an American interest at all.

The Second Gulf War saw us invading Iraq in response to the al Qaeda attack on New York, although there was zero evidence that Saddam had anything to do with it. Then came Afghanistan. In each case we sent just enough to do the job, but not overwhelming force to achieve victory – likely impossible in Afghanistan unless we were prepared for decades of occupation, and given the Soviet experience even that was likely to be arduous. All of this seemed to be destroying monsters, not protecting the liberty of the American people.

Some of us said so at the time. The response from National Review, once (when under Bill Buckley) the voice of the American Conservative Movement, was to feature the Egregious Frum reading out of the Conservative Movement all those who did not enthusiastically support the invasion of Iraq. Since that time I have not been “a conservative”. Paleo-conservative, perhaps; one who believes Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk have much to teach us; yes. But officially not a conservative according to National Review. Since I am not one of them by their own account, having been read out of their movement, I have no obligation to defend their policies – not that I ever defended all of them; after all, they did read me out of their ranks because I opposed the long war in Mesopotamia, did not think we could build democracy in a “nation” composed of Kurds, Shia majority, and Sunni, and ruled by Baathists, and thought we had no business expending blood and treasure when we had no describable national interests.

Trump’s people think the same way: patriotism trumps ideology. That is, of course, a very conservative principle, or was when I was teaching political science; apparently it is not so now. Miss Noonan sees it; I doubt the neoconservatives who have become to leaders of the conservative Movement will understand, or care; but perhaps the American voters will. Reagan was no ideologue, and he won. True: Trump is no Reagan; but you know, Mr. Reagan was not always Ronald the Great either. But he was always a patriot.

I urge you to read the entirety of Miss Noonan’s essay.

I am reminded that Senator Cruz is also on record in favor of being friends of liberty everywhere, but guardians only of our own; I doubt his and Mr. Trump’s foreign policies would differ much. It is a pity that they did not debate real issues much in the debates.


From View 380 September 19 – 25, 2005

Why I Missed the National Review Party

My friend Cat held a big National Review party up at her house about a block from here. I was a charter subscriber to National Review, back when paying for it wasn’t easy; but I didn’t go because not long after the Iraqi War started, National Review had the egregious Frum write an editorial denouncing all those who weren’t enthusiastic about our invasion of Iraq. “As they turn their backs on us, we turn our backs on them.”  Then they had “rebuttals” in which Frum got to insult Stephen Tonsor, something I still have trouble understanding given Tonsor’s stature. So I declined to go up the hill, even though I was assured that the egregious Frum wouldn’t be attending.

I had thought I had pretty good conservative credentials, at least of the old school. Possony and I wrote books together, Russell Kirk was a very old friend and godfather to one of my sons, etc. I was, true enough, more Cold Warrior than political philosopher, I did manage to be campaign manager for Barry Goldwater Jr.’s first campaign for Congress, and more than one conservative congressman knows who I am. I have a few credentials and can claim a few accomplishments in slowing the mad rush to Jacobinism. But Frum made it clear, those who weren’t for the war from the start are to be ignored. Without discussion or debate: “We turn our backs on them.”

Incidentally I note that Buckley now says “If I had known then what I know now, I would not have supported the war.” Which is fair enough, but National Review read out of the conservative movement all those who did know then what he knows now: that invading a secular regime in Mesopotamia is not the way to curb militant Moslem fanatics; that killing terrorists in Mesopotamia while allowing the hotbeds and breeding grounds of the madras system to flourish is futile since for each one killed there will be at least one more to avenge him; and that while it is easy for the Army to conquer these places, pacification requires constabulary, not Army, and the tasks of soldiers are not those of constables; that Saddam was largely deterred; and that the argument that if we do not fight them over there we will have to fight them over here is true only if you continue to allow open borders and unrestricted travel to the US.

And finally, that $300 billion is better spent on energy independence for these United States than on breaking things and killing people in Iraq; or even trying to pacify the old Turkish Empire provinces welded together into a compensatory kingdom for the Hashemites. Well, some of us knew all that then, and now presumably Buckley does as well; does Frum get to read him out of the party? I confess I almost went up the hill to Cat’s house just to ask him, but I didn’t really want to be the unpleasant guest at what Cat tells me was a pleasant party.

Now it remains true that we can’t just cut and run. The neo-conservatives have got us into a pickle, and if we cut and run now we hand the jihadists a victory of great value and magnitude. That can’t be the right way out of that place. But it also remains true that we need to look very hard at how we got into there; at what arguments induced us to believe that democracy can be exported on the points of our bayonets; at the Jacobin assumptions that seduced us into going abroad to seek monsters to slay. We need to look very hard at the notion of expanding the standing army with foreign recruits so that we can avoid conscription, and at the price of both conscription and a large standing army; and we need to rethink the requirements of a global war on terrorism. There are far better ways to wage that war than putting the flower of our youth into Mesopotamia, disrupting the National Guard and Reserve systems, and generally reorganizing for waging of overseas war of long duration. Those are more the skills of empire than republic, and any student of history, particularly our history, should know this. We need to learn from our own history — but then, until recently, that is precisely how America did learn. By studying the New World Order we created one hot summer in Philadelphia.

William Buckley once notably said that America was unique in that anyone could study and learn to be an American. That was before “diversity” was elevated to the chief goal of the land. Now we aren’t sure what it means to be an American although sometimes events like Katrina demonstrate some of the best of what that used to mean. Is it not time that we turned our attention to what we had all during the Cold War and are now losing? Would it not be better to pay attention to the fading republic rather than seeking overseas monsters to slay? But of course Adams warned us that losing our own republic might well be a consequence of going abroad to slay dragons. I suppose Frum turned his back on Adams as well — assuming that he ever heard of him.

Ah well.


Another essay from the past: I see no reason to change it.

On Immigration

From my mail:

more Gingrich!

He’s advocating amnesty now.

Time for you to admit you’re wrong about him. And no, that does not mean hemming and hawing and talking vaguely about how maybe he has a point. He does not have a point. It is entirely within DC’s power to enforce the law and make it unacceptably difficult for them to remain here; that DC does not is plain treason, and anybody enabling and supporting such treason is going to get caught in the crossfire when the shooting starts. Amnesty is the best way to trigger that.

They are invaders and will be treated as such if this country actually has any future at all. They all must go.

I don’t know what it is that I am supposed to have been wrong about, and this interview doesn’t change it. What Newt said:

Gingrich was asked a question on a different hot-button issue — immigration — on Thursday in Iowa, the Midwestern state with a key early contest in the race for his party’s presidential nomination.

He preceded his response by acknowledging that he risked sparking another controversy.

Gingrich recounted how World War Two-era U.S. draft boards chose who would serve in the military, saying a similar system might help deal with the millions of immigrants living in the United States illegally.

“Because I think we are going to want to find some way to deal with the people who are here to distinguish between those who have no ties to the United States, and therefore you can deport them at minimum human cost, and those who, in fact, may have earned the right to become legal, but not citizens,” Gingrich said.

That is not my definition of amnesty; and it does raise a question that must be answered. There are about 20 million illegal aliens living in the United States. Suppose that Congress and the President decided tomorrow that “they all must go.” How would that come about? Merely transporting Twenty Million People is a non-trivial task. Assume that of the 20 million aliens in the US, ten million will require transport of 1,000 km (621 miles). That is ten billion passenger/kilometers. The total annual rail passenger traffic in the US, including commuter travel, is about 17 billion passenger/kilometers. They would have to be fed. Many would have medical needs. While many of them could be transported by rail to the Mexican border — in boxcars? or must there be at least day coach transport? — many would have to go elsewhere, some to Latin America, but many to Asia and Africa, and many to places that will refuse to accept them.

A non-trivial task, even assuming that we could identify them all, and assuming there would be no expensive legal actions required: just identify, apprehend, and transport. It would take an enormous budget to accomplish.

Now add political realities. It’s all very well to grab some thug with a long criminal record and say “Enough! Out!” to the general applause of a vast majority, but even then there are going to be problems with the ACLU as well as various immigrant rights organizations. Assume that it can be done: what fraction of the 20 million will that account for?

Of course advocates of amnesty or the dream act like to show the example of a teenage girl brought to the US at age five, brought up to speak English and assimilate to American customs, earning a high school diploma with an A- average, and in general an all-American girl who ought to be college bound. Or the young oriental boy with much the same record. We don’t have to concede that people with similar stories will be a very great fraction of the 20 million, but it is not zero, and every one of those will be paraded by the media as soon as apprehended. Who is going to throw Marie into the boxcar headed for Tijuana?

Incidentally that is not a trivial question: an operation this large will require a lot of police agents. Do we insist that they all be capable of handcuffing teenagers and putting them on the train to the border? Do we want a lot of people with that attitude to have police power? And what of illegals who have joined the Armed Forces? Veterans? Active duty soldiers? An operation this large may well require action from the Legions: will they pay more attention to the orders of their officers or the appeals of their comrades? Of course that’s a silly question, but my correspondent did talk about crossfire and punishing treason, which probably means civil war, and the Legions, both Regulars and various reserves and militias and National Guard are certainly not going to be idle while that happens.

But suppose that all the questions of how to do it are answered, and there is magically a black box with a button: push the button and all 20 million of the illegal immigrants will be magically teleported to their country of origin. If we took a national referendum on whether or not to push that button, what would be the outcome?

It’s no good saying that conservatives ought not think about such matters. Of course they must. The problem of the illegals amongst us will not go away simply because we don’t think about it.

Note, incidentally, that Newt distinguishes between the right to be a legal resident and citizenship. This is not brought up in most “amnesty” discussions, but it should be. Citizens have rights, including the right to sponsor other immigrants. The Supreme Court has held that illegal immigrants have rights very similar if not identical to citizens, but that is not the plain language of the Constitution. A sane immigration policy will make that distinction — including entitlements.

I am not going to “solve” the illegal immigrant problem here, but I will say that denouncing as “amnesty” anything other than a policy of ‘deport them all and deport them now’ is not useful. We aren’t going to deport them all, and no Congress or President will do that, nor could even if it were thought desirable. The United States is not going to erect detention camps nor will we herd people into boxcars.  We can’t even get the southern border closed. Despite President Obama’s mocking speech, we have not built the security fence mandated a long time ago. We probably could get Congress to approve a moat and alligators, although there are likely more effective means. We can and should insist on closing the borders. That we can and must do. It won’t be easy or simple, but it’s going to be a lot easier than deporting 20 million illegals. Get the borders closed. We can all agree on that.

That leaves the problem of the illegal aliens amongst us. We can and should do more to enforce employment laws; but do we really want police coming around to demand “your papers” from our gardeners and fry cooks and homemakers? For if “your papers, please” becomes common practice, there will be demands for equality; for not profiling; for equal opportunity harassment — but you get the idea. Think about what goes on in airports.

Every time we bring up immigration policy, someone will bring up Angela and Maria and Alexa and Chanying, charming young ladies illegally  brought to the United States as children, all speaking perfect English and thoroughly assimilated into the American Way of Life, none with a criminal record, and now looking to the future. They will also bring up Felipe and Ramon and Sergei, all young men with flawless records, all brought here illegally when small children, and all willing and eager to join the Armed Forces (and perhaps some of them already have); and it will be demanded that we say what is to be done with them. Those making the demand fully understand that there will be no consensus, but there will certainly not be a majority in favor of putting them on an airplane back to their country of origin.

Of course when that happens we ought to bring up the others, the career criminals with long rap sheets, and insist that the amnesty advocates tell us that they would do with these. And perhaps, perhaps, there will come a time when there is an actual serious discussion of the subject, and we can come up with policies and tactics that have a chance of working and of actually being adopted.

But we will never get there so long as bringing up the subject for discussion makes you a traitor.

= = = =

I see no reason to change a word of that, although it was written long ago. It ought to be asked of every candidate: realistically what shall we do with the 20 million illegal aliens already among us?


: ISIS, Trump, Mexican Cartels, National Security

As riots erupt among people waving Mexican flags, denying access to public spaces (disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace, I forget which), smashing police cars (vandalism), hurling rocks at motorists (assault consummated with battery), and committing other crimes, we see why border security, immigration enforcement, and law enforcement are important.

LAPD are outnumbered, according to news reports. This is a danger to national security and domestic tranquility. We have a small army of — what appear to be Mexican nationals waving Mexican flags — menacing citizens of the United States and interfering with activities related to the American body politic generally and the California primary specifically. Why isn’t this happening? Why can’t I travel in my own state without feeling menaced by foreign nationalist criminals? Why isn’t the National Guard stomping their guts out and letting LAPD mop up?

Recently, I emailed you a news article that reveals Mexican drug cartels helped Daesh (ISIS) terrorists scout targets in the United States and helped Daesh terrorists cross the border. Further, this cooperation between Daash and the Mexican cartels becomes personal — for some people — when you learn that 3,600 ordinary New Yorkers have been targeted by Daash hackers who encouraged terrorists to attack


I have possible solutions:

First: We must take the fight to them and unleash Hell with free reign. We should have no compunctions about collateral damage. This is their problem, they didn’t deal with it and they must not like how we deal with it. This will encourage them to get their act together and keep it together next time. Vagaries in my use of “them”, “their”, and “they” are intentional as this is general policy.

Second: If this situation worsens it seems prudent to encourage, perhaps even compel, capable US citizens to carry a loaded firearm (or

firearms) at all times in case of a terrorist attack

Third: If the Mexican government cannot regulate the conduct of its citizens and criminals in such a way that it does not have an adverse effect on the United States, it’s people, and/or it’s politics then it may become necessary for the United States to take a more active role in governing Mexico.

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

Percussa Resurgo

ISIS has declared war on us. We can wait until they can actually kill a lot of Americans, or eliminate them before they do; since we are at war, it seems prudent to strike when three divisions of Army (for Iraq/Syria), two regiments of Marines (for Libya), and the Warthogs will be enough for overwhelming force and thus fewer casualties will do the job; waiting means more opposition and more casualties. As to what to do with their territory after we have taken it: there may be parts of Libya worth keeping; I have not studied the map. We know there are parts of Iraq coveted by our Kurdish allies – any competent deal maker should find that easy. Some of Iraq is not Kurdish, and may be more of a problem; but there is oil, enough that we should be able to hire a constabulary. For the rest, once ISIS is destroyed, we can consider our options. We may even want a convenient base with acceptable climate suitable for our troops to bring their families for a year, just to make sure we can nip any opposition in the bud. Again: territory we take from ISIS is no longer Iraq or Syria; it is part of the as yet unconquered Caliphate which has declared war on us, and will no longer exist when we proclaim peace.

As to the ISIS threat on the Mexican border and the Cartels, we can do nothing until we have the will to do something. The power we’ve got. Wild idea: Quite possibly we have illegal aliens who would be glad to join the fight for the right rewards. Of course once ISIS in the Middle East vanishes, the situation south may change for the better.


Amazon puts Microsoft away in the Battle of Seattle (USA Today)

John Shinal, Special for USA TODAY 7:55 a.m. EDT April 29, 2016

With Amazon raising its revenue forecast for the current quarter, the online retailing giant is leaving fellow Seattle-area tech giant Microsoft in the dust in terms of annual sales.

It’s also closing in on a certain Cupertino, Calif.-based seller of smartphones, the heavyweight in tech sales.

Amazon’s (AMZN) bullish prediction makes Wall Street’s full-year estimates more of a lock, and that view is a sweet one for growth investors. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is expected to boost the company’s top line 21.5% this year and another 20% in 2017.

For Microsoft (MSFT), however, the contrast is stark and a good illustration of how growth in the sector has moved from hardware, software and chip companies to Internet firms selling goods or advertising online.

The maker of Office and Word is expected to post a 2% decline in revenue this fiscal year, which ends in June. In fiscal 2017, it’s seen growing just 4% off that lower base.

The upshot?

By next year Amazon is seen generating $156 billion in sales, or nearly two-thirds more than Microsoft’s $95.4 billion.

So while Bill Gates helped put Seattle area on the map as a U.S. tech hub, Bezos now runs the largest tech company in the State of Washington, by far, in terms of sales.

What’s more, Amazon is also putting more distance between itself and two other fast-growing Internet companies, Facebook and Google-parent Alphabet.

While Facebook posted the fastest first-quarter growth, at 52%, and Google sales rose 17%  — a hefty number for its size — it was Amazon that added the most new business in the tech sector.

With revenue surging, Amazon won $6.4 billion in new business during the period, versus a year ago. Alphabet (GOOGL), meanwhile, added $3 billion in new sales and Facebook, $1.84 billion.

That means that while Google and Facebook (FB) began today valued by stock investors more than Amazon, there’s only one tech firm still larger than Amazon by revenue.

That would be Apple (AAPL), which in spite of its recent iPhone slowdown, is still expected to post revenue of more than $200 billion for this year and next.


A House committee wants to know what the Obama administration is doing to remove illegal immigrants who commit new crimes. A Puerto Rico-born conservative voices reservations about the territory’s fiscal mess. Josh Siegel reports on both. Big businesses have some nerve pummeling a ballot question on religious liberty, Katrina Trinko writes. We’ve also got an excerpt from James Rosebush’s new book on Reagan; James Gattuso on requiring Congress to OK major regulations; and Genevieve Wood’s interview with a CEO for whom Obamacare is personal.


A Way to Curb the Power of Unaccountable Bureaucracy


Each year, regulators impose thousands of rules on the American people—over 20,000 during the Obama administration’s tenure alone.

Read More

We have not heard much from the candidates on this subject; we know Hillary will do nothing; Sanders will do nothing; Bush and the Republican establishment will do nothing. Someone might ask Cruz and Trump.











Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.




Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.