The Disaffected Voter's Guide to 2020

On the left we have a group of candidates currently making Stop and Get Frisky look like Murray Rothbard. Spoiler alert: the Socialist Squaw is going to win. Don’t believe me? Take a look at her ravenous fans after
her Bloomberg take down in last week’s debate. On the right, Donald “Yuge Government” Trump, who is going to win the whole thing anyway. Mobs of Bernie Bros and MAGA Hatters are fully prepared to Caps Lock dissenters to death. I can’t be the only one in this environment who is struggling to find much to care about, much less a candidate to support. While the Porcupine Tribune has yet to make its endorsement, here are, to my mind, the best three options at present:

5. Adam Kokesh. All of the above sentiments are enough to make a person want to shut the whole thing down; maybe the candidate we need will look to do exactly that: In his campaign for “Not-President of the United States,” Kokesh pledges to sign a single executive order upon victory. This executive order would set in motion the peaceful and orderly dissolution of the federal government. Maybe that’s not such a bad idea?

4. Vermin Supreme. You want a Nanny State? Forget Frisky. This guy would mandate the brushing of teeth. You want a leviathan welfare state? Bernie may not promise a pony to everyone in the country, but Supreme does. And if all of that (to say nothing of the boot he wears as a hat) sounds absurd and awful to you, maybe consider instead this quote from Supreme’s website: "The mission of this campaign is to spread a loud and
unapologetic message of free thought, clean smiles, and ponies. Through satire and humor, I present real issues with fantastical context, in-depth analysis, and a dose of much-needed humor in the political sphere. With thought provoking activism, I stand against the tyrannical duopoly, the violent police state, and all forms of overreaching government.” WFB Jr. Jr. has said that only paintings with boats in them and the “Hillbilly Baroque” paintings of Thomas Hart Benton qualify as art. But as the husband of an art historian, I am qualified to say that Vermin Supreme is pure performance art.

1. None of the Above. 

Candidates Go Nuclear in Nevada Debate

Perhaps it was the Las Vegas atmosphere, but last night’s debate introduced America to a new side of the Democratic Party. One driven by a singular desire: to continue to the next stage. The candidates were fueled by narcissism, privilege, and last (but certainly not least) desperation. Each came out last night with their swords drawn. When I tuned in I had expected the same milquetoast outing as we’ve seen in previous debates, but what I saw can only describe as pugilistic carnage. Candidates were volleying punches at one another at such a frequency that they didn’t even wait to see if their attack landed before starting anew. Was this a response to a new well-moneyed challenger entering the ring? Perhaps. But it is clear that many of the prospective nominees walked onto that Vegas stage with a ‘nothing to lose’ mentality.

Fresh face, new blood. Mike “Stop and Get Frisky” Bloomberg was the new face on stage. We have suffered through what seems to be an eternity of unwelcomed “Team Bloomberg” ads popping up on TV, YouTube, and even memes. This multimillion dollar ad blitz was good enough to get him onstage, but he seemed uneasy throughout the first half of the debate. Pocahontas had him up against the ropes regarding both his company’s and his own alleged claims of workplace discrimination, workplace hostility, and the numerous non-disclosure agreements former Bloomberg employees have had to sign over the years. Take a look for
yourself, it was almost hard to watch:

A recurring themes in last night’s attack on Bloomberg revolved around how Bloomberg is just another “out of touch” billionaire looking to buy his way into politics. I’ll never be able to wrap my head around how an individual’s success in the private sector should somehow count against them as they seek the Democratic nomination. Some arbitrary line has been drawn to state that if your wealth has come to you as a public servant, that is acceptable, but if you dare to benefit from capitalism you are a wolf in sheep’s clothing. My favorite one-liner from last night’s debate was Bloomberg calling out Bernie by pointing out that “the best known socialist in the country is a millionaire who owns three houses.”

Mainstream media outlets have been quick to criticize Bloomberg’s performance last night. I believe this criticism is missing the mark. As Bloomberg wisely pointed out, every other candidate has been in full campaign mode for the past year. They have all had nine debates to work out their kinks and develop their comfort and attack strategies on stage. All things considered he had a good night. Bloomberg is not on the ballot in Nevada or South Carolina, so these debates serve two purposes: 1) get warmed up for future debates 2) get his face and name out there. By all accounts he achieved both. We can expect to see a better prepped Bloomberg in the South Carolina debate, and then we’ll see his campaign machinery really get into gear as they are operating with a nearly endless supply of money. Something that the other candidates on stage don’t have going for them.

The battle of the moderates.   Up to this point Pete Buttigieg has been the fresh faced nice guy. He’s your hometown Mayor Pete. That chapter of his campaign came to an end last night as he waged an all-out assault against fellow moderate Amy Klobuchar in an attempt to come out as the moderate that can win. The exchange was awkward, uncharacteristic, and not exactly well received by the crowd. The exchange started when moderator Vanessa Hauc questioned Klobuchar’s readiness for the highest elected office because, when asked in a prior interview, she couldn’t name the president of Mexico or speak on his policies. This question was dumb and pointless (more befitting for trivia night at your local watering hole), but provided the spark needed to elicit good television. Buttigieg pounced at the opportunity to hold Klobuchar to account for her record in Washington. It escalated to the point where a clearly shaken Klobuchar bellowed asking whether Mayor Pete thought she was dumb. Pete is the Mayor of Shadetown, population Amy Klobuchar.

The Warren war party. If anyone embodied the vitriol underlining last night’s debate it was the senator from
Massachusetts. Up to this point, she has played the role of a policy wonk who tries a little too hard to be liked. She has a plan for everything, but no one cares. Last night she left the policy briefs, charts, and reports at home and opted in favor for an old fashioned prison shiv. I already covered her raking Bloomberg over the coals, but the entire stage would face her wrath at some point in the night.

She started by attacking the health care plans crafted by Buttigieg and Warren. Calling them a consultant crafted PowerPoint and a Post-it Note, respectively. After a disappointing fourth place finish in New Hampshire she needed draw blood, and hopefully in the process, gain supporters. Only time will tell if
what we saw last night is the new Elizabeth Warren.

Unseen, unheard, unscathed. Whether he intended to or not, Joe had a good night last night. Not in the traditional sense of getting one’s point across and landing political punches against one’s rivals. Biden’s success came from largely staying out the fray and avoiding too many #BidenBlunders. When he began his 2020 candidacy he was the presumptive nominee, but a lot has changed. His polls have been in a freefall recently. Poor performances in Iowa and New Hampshire has raised concerns regarding his long term viability. Fortunately for good ol Joe, he is the establishment candidate in a state where former senate majority leader Harry Reid still has a good deal of political pull. Biden is counting on a “good enough” if not great performance in Nevada to serve a springboard into South Carolina where Joe stands the greatest chance of winning.

The Trump card. When all was said and done last night, there was one clear winner: President Donald Trump. The candidates were too busy squabbling with one another to remember why they were all there: to convince Democratic voters why they were be best suited to defeat President Trump. If this debate serves as a preview of how each of these candidates will perform when the debate really matter (for the hearts, minds, and most importantly votes of the middle 50% of America), I’d be feeling pretty good right now if I were the President.

A Bleeding Heart Libertarian Bill

During the Porcupine Tribune hiatus, I learned something about myself. It began with what I termed “Radical Indifference,” wherein I became so ambivalent to the wrong-headedness of all sides of debate that I
checked out entirely and angrily. After diving into a good amount of Hayek and the Anti-Federalists, some great conversations with thinkers such as Jessica Flannigan and Gary Chartier, and sufficient time away with my thoughts, I would like to suggest a new bill that is built around the reduction of invasive, leviathan government, the advancement of justice, and the sort of compromise William F. Buckley, Jr. Jr. discusses in his new love letter  to Woodrow Wilson (okay, that may be a mischaracterization of a great article).  A two-plank bill as sweeping, idealistic, and improbable as the “Green New Deal,” and even with similar aims, but without
calling for big government control and force.

Replace all federal entitlement programs with a universal basic income. Many across the conservative,
libertarian, and even anarchist spectrum more qualified than myself have been moving towards this idea from a variety of angles (see here and here for examples). This would address concerns across all ends of the political spectrum and establishes a more just system of addressing poverty. Among other merits, this would  1) eliminate the degrading and intrusive process of showing one’s underwear to the government, so to speak, in order to receive help, 2) prepare us for the coming decrease in low-skill jobs that will likely follow a more automated society, 3) drastically reduce the overall size and scope of government while offering more streamlined, efficient, and tangible help to those in need, and 4) create a system focused on investment in
the individual as opposed to the forced dependency in place now.

Replace federal income tax with revenue neutral carbon tax. The income tax is unjust. There is no compelling argument authorizing the forced taking of earned income from labor. Further, as taxation is increasingly (for better or for worse), used as a means to disincentivize specific behaviors (“sin taxes”) and to nudge other behaviors (the ACA individual mandate). If this is the accepted purpose of taxation, what, outside of revenue collection, can be inferred by the collection of income taxes? A more just and beneficial solution is replacing the income tax with a carbon tax. This would tax behavior that actually negatively impacts other individuals (you have a right to your property, but not to contaminate my air) instead of positive behavior (thereby allowing individuals to keep their earned money in their pockets). And, while my free market beliefs push me away from governmental nudges of this kind as a rule, it would attack cronyist regulations and encourage, instead, businesses to find tax savings through innovation such as 3D printing over transportation. This, along with deregulation, may also create a demand for other innovations such
self-driving uber fleets and even 3D printed meats.

Festivus: We're Back With an Axe to Grind

Dearest Reader,

As some of you may have noticed, while most of you have been blissfully ignorant, your favorite porcupine themed conservative blog has not posted in some time. Mortgages had to be paid, children had to be raised, and speaking for myself, there were fish in the streams and rivers around our nation’s capital that needed to be caught. This is not to say that John Dos Passos Dos and I don’t enjoy writing articles to lay out ‘the way we see it’ or, at times, to badger and ridicule one another through snarky and snide slights buried within an otherwise valid piece of opinion writing.

The goal of the PT was to bring a NeoCon and an anarchi…err…Libertarian together to lament about the lost soul of our beloved party by circumstance. As writers and editors we have lost sight of this.  In a temporary moment where I found myself both nostalgic and sentimental, and after one too many glasses of Blanton’s, I let John convince me that the PT was worth reviving.  That as writers and as men, we still had something to say.

Finding ourselves in a new year, just over a month out from December 23rd (better known as Festivus), I’m going to take a moment to channel my inner Frank Costanza and air my grievances:

1. The impeachment is neither important nor interesting.

   Our friends on the left thought they had Donald Trump with the Mueller investigation.  When the Mueller Report was released, it was a dud. Some things happened that were questionable, but all in all, nothing of substance to prosecute.  Instead of calling it a day and focusing on actually finding a candidate who could take on President Trump in 2020, the Dems doubled down. They brought forth impeachment hearings on some of the shakiest grounds imaginable (even by Swamp standards).

   
   This just solidifies that the Democratic Caucus is terribly outmatched when it comes to procedure. Sure they impeached the president, but what did they gain? In the weeks after the impeachment the reds got redder and the blues bluer. That just doesn’t win national elections. So realizing the dud they had on their hands, Nancy ‘The Clapper’ Pelosi decides that she is going to hold on to the articles of impeachment and delay their arrival to the upper chamber. Why? According to Pelosi, it’s because the Senate was unwilling to allow for witnesses.  In reality, it’s because she realized that Mitch McConnell is a master of procedural rules in the Senate and would scoot this whole matter along to a quick acquittal.

   
   After weeks of holding out Pelosi did what Democrats do best. She folded.  The House held a vote and the articles of impeachment have been delivered. The whole matter is a monumental waste of time. Trump will be acquitted. He will campaign on how the Dems did their best, but once again, no one can put Donny in a corner.

   
   To be clear, Trump is not a paragon of morality. We should not raise our children to use him as a compass for how to navigate life. His election and subsequent administration has been mired by controversy after controversy, many started by the man’s own twitter account. But what I’m getting at is that numerous presidents have committed impeachable offenses, their poll numbers were either high enough to avoid the matter or the lower chamber didn’t have the prerogative to initiate impeachment hearings.  The new Left’s beloved former leader Droney McPeaceprize (known by some as Barrack Obama) is among that list. Did he get congressional authorization for every use of force? Would his administration’s bumbling and obfuscation after the failed ATF plot ‘Fast and Furious’ not have qualified under the articles that Trump is being impeached? You may feel differently about the matter, but I see many similarities.

   
   My opinion is that we should just get rid of impeachments. It is an aspect of the constitution that has aged poorly. When written, term limits did not exist. Thanks to the public being sick of Franklin ‘Scoot After Any Skirt in the Room’ Roosevelt and his four terms as president, the congress ratified the 22nd amendment. Additionally, the impeachment proceedings are not about ‘protecting the Republic’ they are almost entirely politically motivated. Gerald Ford was at least being honest when, as leader of the House Republican Conference, he argued that high crimes and misdemeanors might as well be whatever a majority of the House of Representatives defined it to be, and would vote for.
   The whole process if flawed, the House of Representatives have proven to be ineffectual investigators ignoring or valuing certain evidence over others based on who is sitting in the Speaker’s chair. Let the people decide who serves as the head of state. And if we make a mistake…so be it.

2. Stop blaming the Bureaucracy. It all starts in Congress.

   Since the Carter administration, bureaucrats have become the de facto target of all “right wingers.” We say that are “lazy” or “unskilled.” Does the federal bureaucracy tend to vote for democrats? Yes. Do I blame them? No. When Woodrow ‘Just Make Me King Already’ Wilson was still a lowly academic at Bryn Mawr College, he wrote an essay, “The Study of Administration” wherein he laid out what would become a foundational treatise of what has become the field of public administration. He posited that the political administration and the bureaucratic administration should be wholly separated so as to ensure that the bureaucracy and uphold the fleeting political sentiments. To some, this is ‘classic King Wilson’, but he wasn’t advocating for the replacement of a citizen centric/rule by the governed system (at least not at that point). He believed that the bureaucracy needed to be manned by highly specialized individuals and function as a professional cadre with no allegiance to politics. Unfortunately both for the country and the bureaucracy, Wilson did not continue to hold these sentiments when he took office. He re-segregated the civil service and did everything in his power to bend government to his will.

   
   For my entire professional career I have worked in, with, and around the bureaucracy at every level of government. Many times drawing a salary funded by you, dear reader, as Joe Taxpayer. From early in my childhood I felt what, as a practicing and devout Catholic, I can only describe as a calling to an avocation which served the people and not simply the bottom line. In my time in the bureaucracy I can attest that parts of Wilson’s dream is still alive and well, I have had the pleasure of working with some incredibly hard working, intelligent (sometimes even brilliant), and wholly committed bureaucrats who care about their role and the work they produce and the people they impact.
   I will concede that the bureaucracy is too large and does need to be reigned in. But the culprit is not the bureaucracy itself or the bureaucrats manning their posts. The real target of our frustration is our own elected officials in Congress.  As we all know, it is Congress that wields the power of the purse. Every added agency, program, and hire is a direct result of a policy which has been passed by those chosen to represent the people. If there is one aspect of the current administration that I find myself continually impressed by, it is the willingness to trim some of the most burdensome regulations imposed by the previous administration, and more importantly oppose new regulations. This is one promise President Trump has delivered upon.

   
   In a June 2019 interim report, released by the Council of Economic Advisors, noted that the Trump administration has undertaken twenty federal deregulatory actions which would save American consumers and businesses a whopping $220 billion per year once they go into full effect. This action would raise real incomes by 1.3%.

   
   The issue is that it has become all too easy to blame the faceless bureaucracy, the men and women in the gray flannel suits who clock in every morning and fulfill the statutory requirements of the laws passed by our legislature. What many fail to come to terms with is that as conservatives we tend to write off demographics as “unwinnable”. Inner-city? Unwinnable. Youth vote? Unwinnable. Government employees? Unwinnable.  We need to not only extend the olive branch (not stopping the constant attack) and start recruiting, and dare I say it, forcibly taking over. We should encourage our youth to serve our nation’s civil service. The best and brightest can serve their nation by taking their principled approach to government and holding a seat at the table when it comes to designing the application and administration of the policy.

3. A New Party of Ideas…Maybe Even a Compromise

   I have never understood the self-righteousness and pride of our elected officials for their record of voting ‘no’. There are entire congressional careers which have been filled with the ‘no’ vote with very few original ideas coming out of their respective office. We must stop deifying the hard liners and recognize that their stances will net few returns for our causes. Numerous members who share our distaste for a government run healthcare system have voted ‘no’ (as they should have, it is a very bad idea), but the GOP’s answer/alternative has been lacking. We can’t hope to win the hearts and minds of the coveted middle 50% of America without bringing something of value to the table. The party that fails to innovate has little hope of surviving. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather the GOP didn’t go the way of the Whigs.

   
   I see only one alternative to rectify our current course. Our legislature must actually do its job the way the founders intended. There is a reason why the House and Senate are set up in Article I; they are the big show. They were supposed to be the bold who guided our nation through well thought out policy which was poignant for the times (a representative only has two years to get things done before facing reelection) and responsible (a senator enjoys six years of comfort before being made to account for their sins…er…actions). Our elected representatives must, in no uncertain terms, craft policy. Not just any policy, but passable policy that can make it through committee and onto the floor. Then they must put in the same effort to build consensus not only within the GOP, but across the aisle. If we stop being the party of opposition, we can be the party of inspiration. That is the goal, the gold standard, and the epitome of what it means to be a public servant.

Immigration's Broken; Everyone's to Blame

My father received a call at 6:00 in the morning "Come quick! Juan has been detained." This had become an ordinary call for us and an even more ordinary phrase among our small Hispanic Seventh Day Adventist church. My father being a head elder of our church was one of very few people that spoke English, had a valid driver's license and was a legal citizen of the United States. He would spend countless hours trying to find out where they were taken, consoling the wife and driving them to wherever they needed to go so they could see their detained family members, and I would babysit the children. These hours would be followed by him coming home exhausted telling those children their dad was being sent back to Mexico and most likely never see him again. Another broken family, another ordinary Sunday.

It has become increasingly hard to avoid the immigration debate between conservatives and progressives. As tensions rise, and twitter debates continue to heat up about what right and what's wrong, there are actual people in the middle of it all waiting for solutions. People who have fled their countries because of corrupt central and South American governments, gang violence, and lack of resources. It's no secret where I lie in this debate. I have seen it firsthand.

I've lost count of how many times I’ve turned off the news in disgust as a stream of headlines pop up in my face. "Shooter targets Hispanics", "Parents arrested at their work, while their children have no one to go home to", "ICE raids in neighborhoods of New York". It’s very hard not to take this personally. With the mixed reports on the ICE raids in the workplace in Mississippi and videos surfacing of a young girl crying for her parents repeating "my dad is not a criminal," the ominous and Un-American impression of an impending police state is unavoidable.

No matter what side people fall on, one truth remains eminent. The system as we know it is broken. Broken in the sense that it fails to effectively receive innocent newcomers, and broken in the sense that avoiding this situation further helps bring in the unwanted real criminals. The real culprits in this debate are the political parties who claim to want what's best for their constituents. These games are the detriment to immigration solutions. A push for an easier path to legal citizenship is the opening to opportunity.

Becoming a citizen of the United States is not a simple task. More than anything, it takes time. Time that not everyone can afford to have. So the simple yet ineffective solution that people offer "why don't you just do things the legal way", becomes more complex when you add a corrupt and dangerous government run by mafias, and drug cartels, waiting time, and dangerous living conditions. This is not to be overlooked as Central Americans deal with these issues every day. Fortunately, and unfortunately, I've had the opportunity of living in El Salvador for some time to see that the poverty level of these farmers and lower class people are so much worse than lower class life in America. No wonder people want to move here!

I don't want to just push aside legitimate concerns such as drug smuggling, illegal immigration crime rates, and economic questions. But I have a sneaking suspicion that if the path to citizenship were made easier, some of these problems would more or less disappear. People without criminal history and drug associations would have no problem with becoming legal economic participants of the United States. It would be made clear who the bad guys were in this case, therefore leaving people who are truly looking to better themselves alone, and detaining the right people. I have to admit that my research for economic detriments/ advantage with immigration has come to a dead end, and I am unsure what a high level of immigrant infiltration will do to our economy. What I can say is that rounding people who have lived here for 15+ years, who have set down roots, communities, and families, is not the way to see advancement. Providing a timeline to integrate them into our economic society is.

I've seen too many comments, tweets and headlines to persuade me that neither party truly cares for illegal immigrants. People are consistently being used as political pawns to further agendas. Donald Trump offers the continued funding of DACA students in exchange for the wall, the democrats say no. He gives two weeks for both parties to come up with a lucrative plan, no further advance has come of this. If they really cared about this issue, they would work together, they would sacrifice, they would adapt, compromise and put aside their own selfish desires without caring which side wins. I don't see any of that from either side. Our questions should be toward these two incompetent parties. Why are you playing games with people's lives? Why do you refuse to meet in the middle?

I often wish there could be a simple answer. Sadly, there isn’t. All I can do is believe both parties will be willing enough to work together, and ultimately make the path to citizenship easier which I believe is the first step to making some real changes in a broken immigration system. As far as I go, I'll continue to do anything I can for my community, as I see there is no better example of the American dream than immigrants.

3 Step Solution to Mass Shootings

It's an embarrassing truth, but a truth all the same: this past weekend I did everything I could to ignore the news of the terrible shootings in Dayton and El Paso.

I was overly curt with my wife on Saturday afternoon when she pulled up a video from inside the Walmart (as Seventh Day Adventists, we keep the Sabbath on Saturday, and I felt at the time that the jarring audio pulled me too much from this purpose).

I largely ignored my co-editor WFB Jr Jr's shot at provoking some a thoughtful conversation on whether some statist solution or another would work - perhaps his findings will make their way to these pages in article form before too long?

And more than anything else, I avoided like the plague what I knew would be occurring on all social media platforms: the mad dash to attribute motive to the opposing political team (it was a draw this weekend, as both the left and right were able to pin a shooter to their foes), the derision of "thoughts and prayers," the varied policy solutions, the accusatory yells at politicians for not "DOING SOMETHING", and on and on, ad infinitum.

But eventually, I was pulled into this horrific orbit with everyone else. It was easy enough to tune out and chalk it my ignoring it up to annoyance at the predictable and, frankly, mostly stupid way we handle every one of these tragedies. But upon hearing that the shooter in El Paso had purposefully set out to kill Hispanics specifically, I was forced out of my willful ignorance.

I was holding my daughter when I received this information. My world. The two foot tall brilliant beauty, who just learned how to say "Dallas sucks" when the Cowboys come on the TV screen, who says "O too" when I say "I love you," and screams like a gleeful maniac when I come home from work. My daughter, who is also half-Hispanic. Call it a lack of empathy or privilege or anything you want, but the thought that for this reason alone she could be seen not as the wonder that I know, but as a target, was a realization I was not prepared for.

That these types of shootings, that even shooting deaths of any kind, occur at a much lower rate than car accident deaths and a number of other causes we don't think much about didn't matter: the only thoughts I had were of how to keep my daughter safe in a world filled with this kind of ugliness and hate.

And as I let myself wander about in the all-too-familiar post-massacre Twitterscape, what struck me most was the lack of ownership.

"WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?" one Twitter user demanded of a politician in furious caps-lock; how strange that he did not ask this question of himself.

In today's parlance, "we" when used to describe societal action is nearly always synonymous with the State (as in "we need to do something"). Why? Are we (the real "we") so powerless? Have the government solutions been so great?

It is not my job here at the Porcupine Tribune to provide policy prescriptions (that's the other guy); my role is to address the cultural. This is in this case fortunate, as that puts laying out solutions to this seemingly intractable solution squarely within my purview.

We live in a fallen world where evil people do evil things. We've convinced ourselves that the government can save us from this, but it cannot.

The answers aren't perfect, but they do exist:

1. Arm yourself. Be vigilant and courageous. In the Army, we were instilled with the notions that "complacency kills" and that "any decision is better than indecision". Armed citizens with such a mentality have time and again ended spree shootings and saved lives by decisive and heroic action.

2. Love and help the sick. We talk about mental illness in terms of red flags and penalties; this serves only to drive its sufferers into alienation and loneliness, where only hate can grow. Act as you would with the physically ill: be caring and encouraging, and understand that their treatment is a battle every bit as real and uphill as a fight with cancer.

3. Pray. There is tremendous irony in the "prayers are not enough" crowd's position: as if it was too much prayer and not enough dependence on the State that got us here.

- John Dos Passos Dos

What's In a Question?

President Trump views the Supreme Court decision, last week, against the addition of a controversial citizenship question to the 2020 Census as a temporary setback as opposed to an unfavorable conclusion.  While Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said that after the decision the administration would be dropping the effort, tweets on Wednesday and Thursday has spurred the Justice and Commerce departments to pull out the stops and burn the midnight oil in order to come up with a new legal rationale for the inclusion of the question in time to meet the 2p.m. deadline today (Friday, 7/5/2019) set by a federal judge in Maryland to explain how it plans to proceed.  While this renewed fight may come at the ire of moderate Republicans who believe it to be fruitless and a waste of time, there is still a vocal contingent urging the president to continue the effort.  President Trump has even hinted at the potential of getting the question back on the form through use of executive order.

The tie between the Census and the formation of electoral districts makes any matter regarding the addition or subtraction of questions from the form inherently political.  Ross has stated previously that the proposed citizenship question would use the same wording as what is already in use in the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.  Supporters of the addition of the question, such as The Heritage Foundation’s Senior Legal Fellow Hans A. von Spakovsky, view its addition as common sense in order to attain accurate data on the US population.  While detractors, such as Rep. Ilhan Omar, suggest that such a question would discourage immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, from participating in the Census.  This would, as they argue, lead to an undercount of the U.S. population and would impact the amount of federal funds and congressional seats going to districts with larger immigrant populations.

There is no question that the ruling served as a major setback for President Trump.  But it is important to understand that the ruling does not kill the issue, it merely sends it back to lower courts to be hashed out.  In a dissent joined by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court should have stopped its analysis when it determined that the citizenship question was both constitutional and within the authority of the Commerce Secretary, and that by doubting Secretary Ross’ motives ignored the “the presumption of regularity” the courts owe to federal agencies.  Further cementing Justice Thomas as a bright and shining example of originalism on the Court today.

Now that we’ve gotten the context portion of this piece out of the way, lets jump into the hard reality.  Politics is a zero-sum game.  What helps Republicans hurts Democrats, and vice versa.  The fact that in 2019 a federal form tasked with gathering demographic data about people living in the United States asking if people living within the United States are citizens of the United States is ridiculous.  The fearmongering being spun up on the Left is blatantly irresponsible.  Let’s just clear the air, the data gathered by the Census cannot be used by federal law enforcement agencies to rally up illegal immigrants for mass deportation.  Title 13 of the US Code (The Census Law) is very straight forward, responses to Census Bureau surveys and censuses are required to be kept confidential and used for statistical purposes only.  The Census Bureau only publishes aggregated statics which do not reveal information about particular individuals, households or businesses.

This question is not malevolent or even unique to the United States in the “Trump Age”.  The United Nations recommends that its member countries ask a citizenship question on their censuses.  The United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany all ask the question.  Only in the U.S. has this issue been considered controversial.  Former Attorney General Eric “Too Fast Too Furious” Holder claim that the question is “irresponsible” and “unconstitutional”.  I’d beg to differ.  The question traces it’s roots back to none other than Thomas Jefferson, who first proposed the question in 1800.  The question officially became part of the decennial census in 1820 and was included on every census until 1950 when it was moved to the “long form”, which was sent to one in every six households, until its discontinuation in 2000.  Since then the question has been sent with the American Community Survey.  To recap, the question traces it roots back to the father of the Declaration of Independence, has been asked for longer than it has not been asked.

Regarding Holder’s doubts of constitutionality, I’d urge him to dust off his pocket constitution (I’m positive I’m not the only one who has one) and flip to Art. 1, Sec. 2, Cl. 3 wherein the power to conduct the census is given to the Congress, and in 13 U.S. Code Sec. 5, the power is delegated to the Secretary of Commerce who “shall prepare questionnaires, and shall determine the inquiries, and the number, form, and subdivisions thereof, for the statistics, surveys, and censuses provided for in this title.”

In my time analyzing the bureaucracy I’ve found that Occam’s razor tends to apply.  When there exist multiple explanations for an occurrence, the one that requires the least speculation is usually correct.  In reality this citizenship question is nothing more than a mundane bureaucratic form change.  One which is inline with numerous other nations and allies throughout the world.  The Democrats are providing lip service stating that they are looking out for vulnerable immigrant communities, while in reality they are simply fearmongering.  They don’t care about response rates; they care about how the returns will affect future electoral maps.  The reality is that the question provides valuable data which will improve the electoral equality for all U.S. citizens by staying true to the principle, one person, one vote.

4 Should-Be Best Picture Nominations

The Oscars miss frequently and it's boring to dwell on. Hopefully, “Roma”, Alfonso Cuarón’s masterpiece will bring home the Best Picture tonight. The film is gorgeous, filmed in black and white and with a removed objectivity, like a crisper “Killer of Sheep” (1978), and tremendously moving. But if it doesn't win, to my mind it doesn't make it less the actual “Best Picture” of the year (“Fences” is still the best movie of 2016 and my mind cannot be changed on this).

That said, I feel it worthwhile to mention briefly four other movies from this year that were deserving of Best Picture nominations this year:

First, Reformed: That this film was not nominated is perplexing to me. It's not as though it came from lightweights or unknowns, as it was directed by Paul Schrader (the man penned freaking “Taxi Driver” and “Raging Bull”) and Ethan Hawke (more on his underappreciated year later). If any movie this year would give “Roma” a run for its moneu, it's this one. The film is a beautiful meditation on faith, loss, and fanaticism and Ethan Hawke’s performance is astounding and heart wrenching.

Mandy: Full disclosure: Nic Cage is in six of my top ten all time favorite films (seriously*). I can, of course, remain intellectually honest and admit it he accepted a role that he had no business accepting, as has happened all too frequently in recent years. But his frequent misfires do not outweigh the amazing body of work this actor has built and it is into this camp that “Mandy” belongs: this is vintage, wild Cage doing what he does best. This film is a psychedelic odyssey with a high level of gore and grossness, and as such some will not be able to buy in. This is a shame, however, as at the heart of this film is an Alexandre Dumas-esque romantic revenge story with the same level of satisfaction.

Blaze: Ethan Hawke was great this year. In addition to his incredible “First, Reformed” performance, he directed this Blaze Foley biopic and plays a pitch perfect Townes Van Zandt. Calling this a “biopic” feels wrong, as it doesn't follow the same formulaic pattern with which we are all well acquainted, but rambles in the same way Foley seemed to. What's most impressive about this work is that it manages to serve as homage that can be appreciated by Foley fans and an introduction for those unfamiliar with his music, while still managing to keep the mystery of this strange and idiosyncratic artist alive (it is a “biopic” in much the same way “I’m Not There” was a Dylan biopic, albeit “Blaze” is much more accessible for non-fans and has more of a straightforward narrative).

Spiderman: Into the Spider-Verse: In discussions of cultural topics, WFB Jr. Jr. is wrong quite frequently, such as his asinine unwillingness to admit that Battlestar Galactica > Star Trek (sorry, trekkie nerds). I always counted his affinity for Spiderman among these wrong positions. But of all the millions of recent Spiderman flicks, I finally got the appeal through a slightly aged, downtrodden Peter Parker (voiced by Jake Johnson) and a young Miles Morales (Shameik Moore). “Spider-Verse” is fun, adventurous, funny, and dazzling to look at. As good as “Black Panther” is, this is the superhero movie that should have received the nomination.

*Here they are:

• La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc (Dreyer, 1928)

• Freaks (Browning, 1932)

• Gospel According to St. Matthew (Pasolini, 1964)

• Woman Under the Influence (Cassavetes, 1974)

• Rumble Fish (Coppola, 1983)

• Raising Arizona (Coen, 1984)

• Wild at Heart (Lynch, 1990)

• Bringing out the Dead (Scorcese, 1999)

• Adaptation (Jonze, 2002)

• Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (Herzog, 2009)

- John Dos Passos Dos

The New Abolitionist Imperative

As the drama of Virginia Governor Ralph “Coonman” Northam, abortion enthusiast and racist moonwalker, continues to unfold, the revelation of seemingly multiple incidents of past racism have entirely overshadowed his abhorrent abortion comments. While every aspect of the Northam ordeal deserves discussion (WFB Jr. Jr. does a great job doing so here), it is truly unfortunate that after a fleeting moment of national attention and discussion, the world’s leading cause of death fell yet again to the background.

Brushing aside the abortion conversation is nothing new: newly announced 2020 independent presidential candidate Howard Schultz recently did exactly that while appearing on the View, stating “I think the most important thing facing the country right now is not the issue of abortion or the cultural issues that divide us.” But relegating abortion to a “cultural” or, as is likewise common, “social” issue is about as reasonable as describing America’s history of slavery in the same terms. While many balk at drawing parallels between slavery and abortion, the similarities are often unavoidable and this case is no exception: the abysmal practice, once condoned and protected legally (the justification of which hinging on pseudoscientific arguments, such as phrenology, that denied the humanity of an entire subset of people) cannot be viewed as a minor “cultural issue” for which differences of opinion are valid and acceptable.

It was for this reason that a large portion of the Whig Party in the mid-1800’s defected and formed the Republican Party: there was a scientific and moral imperative to abolish slavery, and they recognized it. So to now with abortion. While the pro-choice movement has shamed pro-lifers into softening language and has reframed the argument into a women’s health issue, the fact that as a nation we are condoning and legally protecting the mass killing of preborn lives is every bit as morally and scientifically indefensible as slavery; as with founding father slaveholders, it is this barbarism which will plant an asterisk by the accomplishments of today’s leaders and thinkers when looked upon historically. As such, there exists now a new abolitionist imperative to end this practice.

When viewed through a lens of intellectual honesty and objectivity, the scientific arguments for where a life begins are unassailable. Conception is the earliest stage of human growth, at conception all of required characteristics of life as defined biologically are met, and conception is the point at which a unique set of human DNA is created. The science is clear: life begins at conception, regardless of how one may feel about that fact.

Though on the surface it seems paradoxical, this case has been articulated by Peter Singer, one of the best known voices for abortion rights. In an interview with the San Francisco Review of Books, Singer stated “My view of when life begins isn’t very different from that of opponents of abortion. It isn’t unreasonable to hold that an individual human life begins at conception. If it doesn’t, then it begins about 14 days later, when it is no longer possible for the embryo to divide into twins or other multiples.” In the same interview he dismissed viability as being a suitable metric in this conversation, as it “varies with the state of medical technology, and for that reason doesn’t seem a good place to draw a line.”

Singer justifies abortion by applying the philosophical concept of “personhood” as being different than being a human being. Because Singer holds this view from an intellectually honest perspective, he cannot define an unborn human as not having achieved the standards of “personhood” and also make the claim an infant has, arguing that “the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. This conclusion is not limited to infants who, because of irreversible intellectual disabilities, will never be rational, self-conscious beings. We saw in our discussion of abortion that the potential of a fetus to become a rational, self-conscious being cannot count against killing it at a stage when it lacks these characteristics - not, that is, unless we are also prepared to count the value of rational self-conscious life as a reason against contraception and celibacy. No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time”.

While I profoundly disagree with Singer regarding abortion and infanticide, he is among the few that follow this “personhood” distinction to its only logical conclusion. Singer has taken much criticism for this position, but I would argue that this is the only logical pro-choice position. If you consider yourself to be pro-choice, but are uncomfortable with infanticide or even with denying that an infant is a person, you are holding an inconsistent position.

This line of thinking would seem to be the ideological origin of the recently passed bill in New York and with the proposed bill in Virginia. Polling has consistently shown that Americans overwhelmingly do not support the concept of late term abortions, and it should follow that most Americans would then be uncomfortable (to say the least) with the idea of infanticide. Most pro-choice positions, then, are rooted in ill-conceived, ill-defined, or outright intellectually dishonest logical origins. An example is the completely disingenuous nonsense abortion stance peddled by the likes of Senator and former Vice-Presidential nominee Tim Kaine, who describes himself as being personally opposed to abortion, but politically pro-choice:

If abortion were not the ending of a life, there is absolutely no reason to be “personally opposed”; in fact, I would be personally for it: I have a wife, a daughter, and five younger sisters who know and will always know well that I would never presume to be more capable or equipped of making decisions about their lives than any of them are and moreover I would never have a desire to do so.

But the science makes it clear that each abortion is the ending of a life. Singer, one of the most important ethical thinkers of our time and ardent abortion supporter, makes it clear that there is no personhood line that doesn’t likewise apply to killing infants. And it is universally agreed upon, across creed and culture, that the murder of innocent life is inherently wrong. At this time, there is no fight more worthy, no fight more necessary, than the fight to save the millions of innocent lives being taken every year in our country. This is the right side of history.

- John Dos Passos Dos

More Than Egg On His Face: The Fall of Ralph Northam

What a week it has been in my favorite commonwealth, Virginia.  Politics and partisanship run deep in the Old Dominion, but for the most part, it tends to be governed with a light touch and Richmond tends to stay out of the national spotlight.  As the old saying goes, “when it rains, it pours”.  Virginia has been treated to a back-to-back political spectacle usually only reserved for the commonwealth’s role as a bell weather for now larger downstream elections will pan out.

On Tuesday, House Bill No. 2491 was debated and subsequently went viral on social media.  Similar to the recently passed, Reproductive Health Act, the bill would have reduced restrictions on and allowed later term abortions.

As can be seen in the heated debate between Delegates Kathy Tran and Todd Gilbert, Tran concedes that the bill would allow for an abortion to be performed through the third trimester.  Delegate Gilbert seeks clarification as to whether the abortion can be performed until the end of the third trimester, Tran replies “Yep. I don’t think we have a limit in the bill.”

Seeking to back up his party’s agenda to loosen restriction and expand late-term abortions, Governor Ralph Northam proceeded to add fuel to the fire during a radio interview on Wednesday where he described a hypothetical situation where an infant who is unlikely to survive after birth could be left to die without any attempt to resuscitate the infant.  After the interview many were left dumfounded wondering whether a sitting governor, and trained medical professional, had condoned infanticide.

While this could provide ample ammunition for a full length piece about the evolution of the pro-life movement in the United States and the recent rash of pro-choice legislation making its way through state houses recently – Hint, hint, to my esteemed co-editor John Dos Passos Dos, it’s getting a little lonely on this site without you – the primary focus of this article is about what came up just days later and what is likely to lead to the unceremonious fall of Governor Ralph Shearer Northam.

Just days after putting his foot squarely in his mouth, the conservative blog, Big League Politics released a piece which shows Governor Northam’s 1984 yearbook from his time at the Eastern Virginia Medical School.  The yearbook displays what one would expect to see on any red-blooded American man’s page: a dapper photo in a jacket and tie, a laidback picture in jeans and a cowboy hat, and a picture with a fast car.  What has stood out and caused the Governor’s second ‘doggonit’ of the week is a final picture of two young men – one in blackface the other dressed a member of the Ku Klux Klan – drinking beers.  That’s right.  Let that sink in.

To add further context to this photo, just two years later, former Governor Douglas Wilder would be sworn in as the first African American Lieutenant Governor of Virginia.  This picture didn’t take place in a time “before they knew any better”.  The excuse “it was a different time back then” doesn’t holds water.  Northam has graduated from the Virginia Military Institute, commissioned in the Army, and was in his last year of medical school.  He most certainly should have known better.

Initially, Ralph Northam released an apology video on Friday where he confirmed that he was indeed in the photo (though he did not state which costume was his) and stated that he was deeply sorry for the decision he made to appear in the photo and for the hurt that he has caused both then and now.

Since that apology, and presumably after watching the 2000 instant classic “It Wasn’t Me” by Shaggy, Northam has reversed course and is now stating that he was not in the picture.  Supposedly, he had “reflected with family and classmates from that time” which affirmed his conclusion that he was not either of the people in the photograph.  He also came out and admitted that though he was not the person in blackface in the yearbook photo, he had attended a party that year which he “darkened” his face as part of a Michael Jackson costume.  For an added cringe, here is Governor Northam having to be told by his wife, Pam Northam, that a press conference responding to racist photographs isn’t the time nor the place to show the press corps that he can still moonwalk.

Make no mistake, the Northam ship is sinking. The Democratic Party of Virginia released a tweet on Saturday morning stating “We made the decision to let Governor Northam do the correct thing and resign this morning – we have gotten word he will not do so this morning”.  Major national players within the Democratic party have also joined in calling on Governor Northam to resign, including Crooked Hillary, the dancing machine AOC, and Virginia’s creepy uncle Tim Kaine.

While it does the heart good to see major political figures on the Left not partake in the hypocrisy, as we have come to know them for, there are still cronies who are comparing Governor Northam’s yearbook to now Associate Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh’s infamous yearbook.  There is just one difference.  Brett “I like beer” Kavanaugh wasn’t in blackface or in a Klan robe. If he had been, he wouldn’t be an Associate Justice. Kyle Smith, from The National Review, wrote an excellent piece which further shows how any comparison between the two is indefensible.

As stated previously, at this time, Governor Northam has no plans on resigning his office.  He continues to reiterate how sorry he is for the hurt he has caused but is unwilling to accept the personal responsibilities and consequences of his office. The once easy going, gentile, Southern Democrat’s reputation has been ruined and he is now unable to lead the state.  I’d like to bid farewell to Governor Ralph “Coonman” Northam, dedicated racist and infanticide enthusiast, Virginia deserves better.

- William F. Buckley Jr. Jr.

Prickly & Pithy: State of the Useless

Now that the Government has reopened, 800,000 federal employees are ambling back into their offices after being furloughed for 35 days. As an ostensible olive branch, Speaker Pelosi has reversed course and has invited President Trump to deliver his State of the Union (SOTU for you beltway insiders) address within the House chambers on February 5th. Trump accepted Pelosi’s invitation in a letter, stating that it was his “great honor” to give the address and that “we have a great story to tell and yet, great goals to achieve!” Hurrah! The Republic is saved! The show will go on!

I’d like to offer a divergent take…let’s not have it at all! Having spent numerous years of my life studying and writing about government, there is no tradition (in my opinion) more archaic and monarchic than the annual State of the Union. In its current form, the SOTU has no place in the American political sphere because it adds absolutely nothing to the modern discourse. It is devoid of substance, favoring instead pomp and circumstance. Applause lines are scripted as are the camera pans to capture the opposing party’s perfectly timed “harrumph”.

Kevin Williamson puts it best:

The annual State of the Union pageant is a hideous, dispiriting, ugly, monotonous, un-American, un-republican, anti-democratic, dreary, backward, monarchical, retch-inducing, depressing, shameful, crypto-imperial display of official self-aggrandizement and piteous toadying, a black Mass during which every unholy order of teacup totalitarian and cringing courtier gathers under the towering dome of a faux-Roman temple to listen to a speech with no content given by a man with no content, to rise and to be seated as is called for by the order of worship — it is a wonder they have not started genuflecting — with one wretched representative of their number squirreled away in some well-upholstered Washington hidey-hole in order to preserve the illusion that those gathered constitute a special class of humanity without whom we could not live. It’s the most nauseating display in American public life — and I write that as someone who has just returned from a pornographers’ convention.

What is so often overlooked is that the SOTU in its modern form does not harken back to the traditions put in place by the founders. One needn’t feel a sense of nostalgia when watching our Commander and Chief list off platitudes and overt calls for the legislature to line up and march lockstep to whatever the president is pushing for that week.

In Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution it states that the president “shall from time to time give the Congress information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient”. That’s it. No additional details or prescriptions are provided, such as the definition of “time to time” or what information to provide.

George Washington interpreted “time to time” to mean an annual address. He and Adams both addressed the legislature, but it was hardly the spectacle it is today. In fact, the annual address in person was short lived. Thomas Jefferson, viewing the practice as being too closely resembling the behavior of the King of England, delivered the SOTU via written message. This tradition was followed by subsequent presidents and was viewed as the norm until the early twentieth century.

Who was the POTUS who decided to shuck tradition? None other than Woodrow Wilson. It seems almost too fitting that the sordid pageantry serving as the modern foundation of the SOTU came by the hands of one of the most narcissistic and monarchical presidents ever elected. The same man whose absolute disdain towards the constitutional limits on his power, and believer in governing by “expertise” (even if the expert was of the unelected variety), has led to the bureaucratic swamp we know and love hate today.

Wilson’s poor example has gone on to inspire a modern tradition of “throne speeches”, as Wilson’s biographer A. Scott Berg put it. Spurred on by advancements in technology, and a general level of one-upmanship, these speeches have grown considerably in length and done away with any substance which is not “soundbite” quality. Prior to Wilson, addresses tended to be dry and administrative, consisting of reports, budget figures, and other administrative documentation (i.e. an actual State of the Union as compiled by the head of the bureaucracy). When Wilson gave his first SOTU address in 1913, it came in at roughly nine minutes. Today they average forty-five minutes or longer.

Now more than ever, I believe we can finally close the door on this monumental waste of time, energy, and resources. Declining viewership and plummeting Nielsen ratings call for a change. I’d go as far as to argue the country would be better served by another episode of The Bachelor/Bachelorette than to have to suffer through another tired SOTU address.

While television may still be the dominant resource for news, online outlets are quickly taking over market share according to a 2016 Pew Research Center study. No president before has had the cornucopia of communication mediums to choose from. For better or worse, President Trump is a master of media. His tweets beget administration policy.

Every day his followers on Twitter receive their very own State of the Union, crafted by the very thumbs which lead the free world. What will President Trump say that he hasn’t already tweeted?

Just imagine a SOTU twitter thread from @RealDonaldTrump followed by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez providing a response via Instagram live video while showing her followers how to make cocktails? It’s a content creator’s world, we’re just living in it.

As former Governor and now President of the Purdue University, Mitch Daniels put in his opinion piece in the Washington Post, the State of the Union has long since passed its sell-by date, and no longer fulfills the purpose that once justified its existence. I’m calling on President Trump and all future executives to do away with the theatrics and find a more authentic way to connect with the American citizenry.

- William F. Buckley Jr. Jr.

Fed's Dead Baby, Fed's Dead

In the age of the Marvel Cinematic Universe an all too common archetype is the unknown or overlooked hero emerging at the most fortuitous time to take on the villain and restore order and justice to the land.  Steve Rogers went from an altruistic and patriotic sideshow attraction to Captain America, Bruce Banner went from mild mannered introvert to the Incredible Hulk, and (one of my personal favorites) Peter Parker went from lonely outsider to the Amazing Spider Man.

What would this trope look like in the real world?  More specifically, what would it look like deep within the bowels of the Rayburn House Office Building?

That hero would have an unwavering conviction to the constitution.  The hero would fight tirelessly against the self-serving status quo to promote individual liberties and ensure government transparency.  That hero is a congressman from Kentucky and his name is Thomas Massie.

On January 3rd, Representative Massie introduced H.R.24 – Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2019 which, if passed, would require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks.

For the long-time fed skeptics and the ardent Massie followers, this bill should seem very familiar.  Massie introduced similar bills in 2017 and 2015, Paul Broun introduced a similar bill in 2014, and the perennial liberty crusader Ron Paul introduced a similar bill in 2009.

The Federal Reserve System has long been a thorn in the side of free market evangelists.  Its fingerprints can be found on the Great Depression, the Great Inflation of 1966-1981, and the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009.  These disasters are not unique to our central bank, but to central banking in general.  In 2011, the European Central Bank played a role in the Eurozone’s double-dip recession through a series of quarter point adjustments to the target interest rate.

As you read this, you may be asking yourself “Why isn’t this covered in the news and the center of a public debate?” or “Why haven’t our elected officials done anything about this?”

The answer is that as a country, we are not well educated about the role the Fed plays in developing our monetary policy, the powers it holds, or the impact it has on our day to day lives.  Our elected officials also have little recourse to reel in the Fed’s powers because Fed operations are not transparent.  In its over 100-year history it has never been fully audited by an outside source and continually resists any kind of congressional oversight.  Congress may have birthed the beast, but it has little role in monitoring or regulating it under the pretense of it being independent of politics.

In short, the Fed has entirely too much power to be left unaccountable.  The central bank independently controls and determines the money supply and it has the ability to create money without restriction.  This translates to the fate of our monetary policy being left up to seven unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats serving on the Board of Governors.

By developing our monetary policy, the Fed controls the aggregate demand, i.e. the total amount of spending in the economy.  It’s able to manipulate the aggregate demand by making adjustments to the money supply and the short-term interest rates.  In effect, the Fed plays a massive role in affecting the inflation in our economy.

These practices have led to what Dan Sanchez from the Foundation for Economic Freedom has described as the Federal Reserve’s shell game.  It is able to take on a monetary expansion policy which it uses its ability to produce FIAT money to inflate the money supply.  Alternatively, if the US government seeks to borrow from a private bank, the US Treasury creates a treasury bond note (an Uncle Sam IOU) which gives the bond holder the ability to recoup the principal plus interest.  The Fed, looking for government debt, purchases the treasury bond from the private lender (in which the private lender makes a profit).  The federal government now owes itself money and is paying itself interest.  As Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff puts it:

“The Treasury pays interest and principal to the Fed on the bonds, but the Fed hands that interest and principal back to the Treasury as profits earned by a government corporation, namely the Fed.”

While this arrangement may seem ideal (the government gets the funds required to purchase what it needs, a private lender makes a profit, and the government just ends up paying the interest back to itself), in actuality its causing inflation and growing the size of government.  The Austrian Business Cycle Theory explains that as these false booms are occurring, caused by the increased money supply, misleading signals are being sent to producers.  Because interest rates are low and available money is plenty, they increase production, not necessarily tied to demand.  This increased production is a malinvestment, i.e. a poor allocation of resources.

These examples and their negative affects on our economy, and ultimately us as citizens, are precisely why a bill like H.R.24 is so necessary.  It provides the crucial first step in making the Federal Reserve System more transparent and accountable to the citizens of the United States.  I applaud Representative Massie and the twenty-five men and women co-sponsoring this bill.

In a future article I will discuss policy prescriptions, both radical and pragmatic, to adjust and reform the Federal Reserve System.

- William F. Buckley Jr. Jr.

Backed Up Against the Wall: Trump's Options Moving Forward

As Nancy Pelosi regained her speakership after spending the past eight years in the minority, she gaveled in the end of Republican unified government for the foreseeable future.  One of her first acts in the role was to call a vote to reopen the government, noticeably and poignantly, lacking any funding for the border wall.  What is sure to be remembered as a Republican mishandling of a previously bi-partisan issue, the question has shifted to “Now what?” for many on the Right who have been left, unceremoniously, without closure.  Has border security become an afterthought?  Will Republicans go home and tell their constituents “we’ll get ‘em next time?”

One hopes not, there is still much to be done and fight left in the administration.  What Republicans need to be asking is what actions can President Trump take to unilaterally protect the border?  Back in November, the Center for Immigration Studies released a backgrounder by Dan Cadman which provided an overview of the President’s emergency immigration powers.  Among the many listed, use of the military, border agent force multipliers, and modifying the asylum policy show the most promise.

In late October 2018, the President deployed more than 5,000 active-duty soldiers to the US-Mexico border to assist Border Patrol agents in preparation for the arrival of the caravan of migrants making their way from Central America.  Troops were utilized for their specialized skills in setting up the logistical supply chains and infrastructure needed to handle the asylum seekers, numbering in the thousands.

With the operation set to end on Jan. 31st, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is preparing to request that the Pentagon not only extend the deployment, but send additional troops.  One hopes the severity of this crisis will not be lost on the new Democratic majority in the House and urges them to reconsider their stance on the border wall funding.  As they have a history of ignoring the expertise of border officials in the past, it’s unlikely they will change course now.

As mentioned previously, President Trump’s options don’t solely rely on the armed forces.  Per Cadman in the backgrounder, “the president can assign as many federal law enforcement personnel as he chooses, en masse, to be temporarily assigned to border security duties.”  The federal agency most likely to be readily prepared to deal with this issue and most impact the border security goals as a force multiplier is the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).  DEA agents are already active along the US-Mexico border battling the ever present threats of drug trafficking by illegal immigrants affiliated with the cartels.  They possess the specialized training (language, logistics, terrain) to deal with the migrants, and by securing the border they also work towards their agency’s mission of reducing the flow of drugs and gangs entering the Country.

The President is also empowered by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to cross-designate and deploy local and state law enforcement officers to assist in the enforcement of immigration laws.  Section 103(a)(10) of the INA reads:

(10) IN the event the Attorney General determines that an actual or imminent mass influx of aliens arriving off the coast of the United States, or near a land border, presents urgent circumstances requiring an immediate Federal response, the Attorney General may authorize any State or Local law enforcement officer, with the consent of the head of the department, agency, or establishment under whose jurisdiction the individual is serving, to perform an exercise any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred or imposed by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder upon officers or employees of the Service.

Empowering local and state agencies to assist in border security has numerous positives.  Chief among them is that these local officers operating in the region are familiar with illegal immigration and are best equipped to know what solutions would work best in their jurisdiction.  Additionally since it is unlikely that the Governor of California, Jerry Brown, would condone such actions, but Doug Ducey (Governor of Arizona) or Greg Abbott (Governor of Texas) might, it would allow for the President to focus federal law enforcement resources on the California border and entrust the state/local officials in Arizona and Texas to be dedicated to the cause of protecting their communities.

The options listed above are all reactionary in nature.  To truly impact our broken immigration policies, we will need to close the loopholes in the asylum system.  Too often illegal immigrants are able to shirk a quick deportation by claiming asylum.  With a success rate of around 10% actually being granted asylum it is clear that the system is broken.  On December 20th, the Administration took steps to deal with the issue when Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen accounted that the United States will begin the process of invoking Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA, better known as the Migration Protection Protocol (MPP).

Under the MPP, individual who enter the United States from Mexico illegally may be returned to Mexico for the duration of their immigration proceedings.  In the announcement Nielson said, “We will confront this crisis head on, uphold the rule of law, and strengthen our humanitarian commitments.  Aliens trying to game the system to get into our country illegally will no longer be able to disappear into the United States, where many skip their court dates.  Instead, they will wait for an immigration court decision while they are Mexico.  ‘Catch and release’ will be replaced by ‘catch and return.’”

The impacts of this move will serve to reduce the number of asylum claims by removing the incentive to attempt to game the system and skip their court appearance and never be seen again.  Those who actually need asylum will receive the focus they deserve and experience faster processing times since the system will not be burdened by false claimants.  Our border security personnel will be able to focus on their primary mission of keeping our borders secured instead of reducing the asylum backlog.

In an age when the Left is calling for the dissolution of ICE and CBP and refuse to fund a physical barrier along the border, this Administration must find a creative solution to surpass the barriers and ensure that the border is secure.  This is not only an immigration issue, but much broader national security issue.  Something must be done, if not a physical barrier then we must use what tools and options we have at our disposal.

- William F. Buckley Jr. Jr.

Likeability is Not About Gender

On Thursday, while a video (released Wednesday by an apparently extraordinarily misguided QAnon-affiliated Twitter account) of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dancing as a high schooler reenacting the famous dance scene from The Breakfast Club went viral, a slew of articles (here, here, here, and here, but there are many more) arrived with more or less the same thesis: the concept of “likability” is sexist and that the term “unlikable” is reserved for competent and qualified female candidates, rarely applied to their male counterparts, largely written in response to Politico article from Monday discussing Elizabeth Warren’s ability to overcome “likability” concerns (here).

It is true that “likability” should not be a major consideration in determining whether a candidate should be President of the United States; Article II of the Constitution says nothing about “likability” (frankly, much of the modern presidential role is absent from Article II as well, but that’s a different discussion). But elections are decided by the more activated base and/or the swing votes. Is the party loyalist who doesn’t always vote going to be more likely to be energized by charisma or by a bore? Will the not very political, undecided voter who votes with the gut be swayed by the drone or the inspired? Should is nice, but my should president is Silent Cal, and the man would be unelectable today.

The results of this can be seen when looking at almost any modern presidential election, going back at least to Richard Nixon sweating next to the charismatic, handsome, and youthful John F. Kennedy in the 1960 Presidential Debate. Consider Bubba playing sax on The Arsenio Hall Show vs. the older, prudent Bush 41. Consider Dubya, the man everyone wanted to drink a beer with, who met Laura in a backyard barbecue and, love at first site, married her three months later vs. the robot or the smug guy who married into a ketchup fortune. How about the young and effortlessly cool, gifted orator and community organizer from humble beginnings?

At the risk of writing what could be construed as a puff piece about a politician whose politics I absolutely abhor, here are some subjective statements that are about as inarguable as opinion can be: the aforementioned viral video of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is absolutely endearing. Beyond the video, she is charismatic and charming. She is relatable, with her down-to-Earth, mixed bag childhood and adolescence, her leaked bartending pictures, and her finger-on-the-Millennial-pulse tweets. She has moxie. She is, in a word, likeable.

 Another subjective, but inarguable statement: Hillary Clinton could not be more different. Her speeches are tortuous. The various affectations she accrues to pander to this crowd or that reek of inauthenticity. She can’t seem to help coming off as condescending and arrogant, even to her supporters. Her entire demeanor is that of someone who feels entitled to the Presidency and is expecting coronation. Of course, Hillary and Trump were both historically disliked, but as concisely as can be stated, Hillary was disliked in the wrong places and that is why she lost (the most accurate assessment of why she lost was actually written before she lost by, of all people Michael Moore. There is much to take issue with in the assessment, but it is certainly more accurate of an assessment than anything in Clinton’s full book of excuses, which is incidentally the type of book an unlikable person writes).

It is unfortunate that the first major female candidate for president was someone as utterly unlikeable as Hillary Clinton. But while “likability” is unlikely to be a good metric by which to judge a presidency, it is certainly a good metric, if a bit intangible, for predicting the winner of a presidential election. And this is why “likability” is worth talking about.

The Elizabeth Warren defenders behind the barrage of “likability is sexist” articles would have perhaps made better use of their time making the case for Warren’s likability, rather than jumping to bias accusations. Warren is certainly more likeable than Clinton (a low bar, but she clears it easily), though she isn’t AOC-level likable. Warren’s main problems are her disastrous genetic test reveal, her “Pocahontas” nickname (easily the best Trump has devised), and her extremely radical left-wing policy stances. But as far as likability goes, she has a backstory (if she can get away from the Native American stuff), can give a decent speech, and comes across as an actual human person. In the words of Obama in 2008, she’s “likeable enough”.

- John Dos Passos Dos 

Make Comedy Great Again

A recent 50 minute set from comedian Louis C. K. has leaked on Twitter and roughly two minutes of it have sent Twitter into yet another outrage frenzy. During portion in question, Louis C.K. pokes fun at the idea of being told to refer to individuals by the plural pronouns “they” and “them,” and at the seriousness and prominence of the Parkland school shooting survivors. He does not mention the Parkland students specifically, but is almost certainly referring to them when he talks about teens testifying before Congress and when he states “you went to a high school where kids got shot, why does that mean I have to listen to you? Why does that make you interesting? You didn't get shot. You pushed some fat kid in the way and now I gotta listen to you talking?”

None of this is really constitutes uncharted territory for Louis C. K., who built his entire career on jokes of this nature: for the unfamiliar, his rise to fame was filled with envelope pushing, whether discussing having sex with dead children or describing in extreme detail graphic sexual acts, and made frequent use of words such as “N****r” and “F****t” (see literally any Louis C. K. set for examples). Before Louis C. K.’s fall from grace following the 2017 sexual misconduct allegations against him, he had become one of the most prominent and highest paid comedians in the world, and yet very rarely (if ever) found himself in the “hot water” of the humor police. So make no mistake: the outrage following these most recent jokes is not about the jokes themselves, but rather about the man himself.

More discussion on the events that transpired and on the requirements for his path to redemption would surely be useful, as would a deeper dive on the broader and age old “art vs. artist” debate (for my part, if you’re able to retroactively dismiss and stop watching “Annie Hall,” “American Beauty,” and “Chinatown,” et al, then more power to you, but I’m not there myself). But for the sake of argument, let’s pretend this was actually about the jokes.

It’s easy to dismiss “low” and “crass” comedy as sophomoric and dumb, but some of the world’s great art is littered with it. Mozart was a big on scatalogical humor (so much so that there is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the topic, found here). And I don’t know that it would be unreasonable to say that about 75% of Chaucer is dick and fart jokes (in fact, that director Pier Paolo Pasolini understood this is what made his 1972 version of “The Canterbury Tales” such a delight). The outrageous and unsafe can, in fact, be funny. Moreover, it can poignant in a way that the safe and conventional cannot.

Throughout his career, Louis C. K. has sought to do this: nearly every joke he has made, no matter how crude, how vulgar, seeks to act as a kind of commentary. These jokes are no exception. While most have taken the path of least resistance and commented on the surface level “offenses,” there are questions in these jokes that deserve consideration. Despite the references to the non-binary gender crowd and Parkland survivors, the jokes aren’t about them; Louis C. K. wants to know about a much broader group, a new royalty that creates and enforces the new rules of social etiquette and conduct. He wants to know who they think they are and from where they believe this power comes.

As Sonny Bunch of Washington Free Beacon put it in 2015 (Policing Comedy and Defining Terms of Debate) “When we decide what others are allowed to joke about, we decide what is allowed to be discussed, period. It narrows the terms debate”. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, this new royalty has called foul, as if on cue. If we continue to outline content parameters for comedians, not only will comedy cease to be funny, it will also cease to matter.

 - John Dos Passos Dos