Mobocracy, Individual Rights, and Government

This new Bill Whittle series is extraordinary. This one, entitled Government may be the best short explanation of why and how America’s government was designed as it is.

The last week has been rather heavy in British constitutional theory and practice, what with the general election and all. It’s not a bad reason to remind ourselves and others why it is so important to limit the size and power of the (especially general) government.

And yes, the Brits actually do know this as well as we do. That’s where we learned it, of course. We here in the United States, when it came our turn to mount the recurrent civil war (English Civil War, American Revolution, and American Civil War) we learned not only from the Stuarts, and their overthrow but from Cromwell and his excesses. And because we started with a clean slate, and toweringly good men, and above them one, George Washington, we were provided with safeguards from almost all dangers, except for we the people ourselves.

My British friends have always been uncomfortable with the emphasis we put on the individual. I understand their concern well, so did Benjamin Rush, who wrote to John Adams, in 1789.

Philadelphia Jany. 22nd. 1789.

My dear friend

Your affectionate and instructing letter of Decemr 2nd. did not reach me ‘till yesterday. I Embrace with my Affections, as well as my judgement that form of Government which you have proved from so many Authorities, to be the only One that can preserve political happiness. It was my attachment to a constitution composed of three branches, that first deprived me of the Confidence of the Whigs of Pennsylvania in the Close of the year 1776. My Observations upon the misery which a single legislature has produced in Pennsylvania, have only served to encrease my Abhorance of that Species of Government. I could as soon embrace the most absurd dogmas in the most Absurd of all the pagan religions, as prostitute my Understanding by approving of our State constitution—It is below a democracy. It is mobocracy—if you will allow me to coin a word. If you will not permit me to compare it to a Wheelbarrow, or a Balloon. I never see our self-ballanced legislature meet, but I feel as if I saw a body of men ascending in One of those air vehicles—without sails or helm.—I have collected materials for a history of the Revolution in Pennsylvania, but despair of being Able to arrange or publish them, while I am so closely confined to the duties of my profession. They contain such an Account the follies & cries of mankind as would tend forever to discredit a single legislature. …

If memory holds, the Pennsylvania government of 1776, was not all that different from that of England, a fairly weak executive, and courts, all subservient to the basically unitary legislature. It was a decided failure. In England at the time, the House of Commons was moderated by both a much stronger House of Lords and crown than they are now.

In many ways, it’s a balancing act, between the executive, the legislative assembly (House of Representatives, now), the States (The Senate as originally constituted), and the courts, not to mention the people.

Mobocracy is always a danger, of course, as we are seeing in our own time, offsetting that is that by guaranteeing the unalienable rights of the individual, we thereby guarantee those of the family, the community, the church, and the constituent state vis a vis the federal government, which then as now is seen as the most likely to degenerate into tyranny, which must be guarded against from all comers, whatsoever. And it also guarantees them in practice from the mob itself.

If you would know why I, and many Americans, supported Brexit, full-throatedly, you will find your answer here. We, as Americans, if we know our history, easily quote from our Founders, to make all these points, on rights and obligations and all the rest. But so can the British, more than any other people in the world. For all of these men, who bequeathed to America whatever share of freedom and liberty we have maintained, every one of them considered himself a free-born Englishman, and a proud one, until that government attempted to remove those rights. Then they became Americans. There is nothing comparable to the Anglo-American concept of responsible liberty on the face of the earth, there is only the autocracy of the elites, and the mobocracy of the serfs.

Only in the Anglosphere, (not so) strangely including Israel, do men walk as free men, with unalienable rights.

 

The Flying Pigs Report

The author, an Indian-American, visiting her first NRA convention on Friday.

I don’t talk a lot about guns here, mostly because others do it and usually better. But like most of my readers, I’m a very firm supporter of the right to own guns, in fact, I tend to think the NFA is unconstitutional (that’s the one that manned machine guns, and such) let alone the ’68 gun control act. I agree with Tench Coxe, who wrote in the Pennsylvania Gazette back in the day

The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

So it was then, so it should be today.

In any case, this story is based on one from CNN (Huh? What? Yeah, I know!) by an Indian immigrant who went to the NRA convention in Atlanta a few days ago. Her name is  Moni Basu, and she learned some things.

Guns are not a part of the culture of my homeland, except perhaps for the occasional Bollywood movie in which the bad guy meets his demise staring down the wrong end of a barrel.

My childhood in India was steeped in ahimsa, the tenet of nonviolence toward all living things.
The Indians may have succeeded in ousting the British, but we won with Gandhian-style civil disobedience, not a revolutionary war.
I grew up not knowing a single gun owner, and even today India has one of the strictest gun laws on the planet. Few Indians buy and keep firearms at home, and gun violence is nowhere near the problem it is in the United States. An American is 12 times more likely than an Indian to be killed by a firearm, according to a recent study.
It’s no wonder then that every time I visit India, my friends and family want to know more about America’s “love affair” with guns.
I get the same questions when I visit my brother in Canada or on my business travels to other countries, where many people remain perplexed, maybe even downright mystified, by Americans’ defense of gun rights.
I admit I do not fully understand it myself, despite having become an American citizen nearly a decade ago. So when I learn the National Rifle Association is holding its annual convention here in Atlanta, right next to the CNN Center, I decide to go and find out more. […]
“Why do you want to own an object that can kill another human being?”
The answers are varied, but they center on three main themes: freedom, self-defense and sport. The first type of response is rooted in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which allows for the ownership of more than 300 million guns in America. How many other countries have the right to bear arms written into their very foundation? It’s unique and because of that, foreigners often have trouble grasping it. […]
I meet Chris Styskal at a booth set up by the NRA Wine Club. […] But then we get into serious talk. Gun ownership, he tells me, has its roots in the birth of this country. “George Washington’s army fought off the British with rifles,” he says. “They overthrew an oppressive government.”
His statement gives me pause. The gun laws in India stem from colonial rule, when the British aimed to quell their subjects by disarming them. Perhaps my Indian compatriots should consider the right to own guns from this perspective. […]
It’s a thought echoed by Brickell “Brooke” Clark, otherwise known as the American Gun Chic. She has a website by that name and also a YouTube channel. Both are bathed in hues of pink and dedicated to her recently formed passion for guns. […]
“What would you tell my friends in India who say Americans are infatuated with guns?”
“I wouldn’t say Americans have an obsession with guns,” Clark says. “We have an obsession with being free.”
I ask what the Second Amendment means to her.
“It means I can live my life without anyone overpowering me,” she says. “It makes me equal with everyone else.”
The great equalizer. I never thought of the Second Amendment in that way.

The Equalizer

Well maybe she hasn’t, many don’t, but we always have. The most iconic of American guns, the old Colt Model 1873 Army, got itself a few nicknames, one of them was “The Equalizer” because in a very real sense it made everybody equal, even a 95-pound woman being attacked by men, or a black man who the KKK was trying to lynch. It’s one of the ways America has made and kept itself free. It’s the one you see in all the movies. To continue.

Morris is 35, petite and soft-spoken, but she’s fierce about her opinions on guns.
“I’m 5 feet tall and 100 pounds,” she tells me. “I cannot wait for a cop to come save me when I am threatened with rape or death.”
People look at guns as this evil tool whose job it is to kill,” [Derrick Adams. He’s a 32-year-old electric lineman from Nottingham, Pennsylvania. He describes himself as part black, part Puerto Rican and part Caucasian] says. “They’re not at all that. They are about protection.”
Adams believes that if all law-abiding citizens were armed, crime would drastically go down. He tells me that Chicago would not have such a high gun homicide rate if good folks in the inner cities were armed to fight “thugs and gangs.”
“Stop looking to government to help us. They are not our parents,” Adams says.
Liberals in America who want more gun control, says Adams, want to keep minorities and poor people dependent on government. Gun control started after slavery ended and was a way to keep black people disarmed, he says.
He’s right, on all counts, way back in April of 2013, I ran an article by Enza Ferreri an Italian blogger working from London, who dug into the stats, and came away with the same conclusion. She wrote a most interesting (and long) article on it, which is linked from there.
Back to Ms. Banu
“You idiots,” Adams says, referring to all people of color. “It was invented to suppress you.”
He looks at me as though to say: You should know better.
Again, I think of colonialism in my homeland and how the British passed strict gun control to keep Indians from rising up.
She ends this way:
I leave the convention trying to reconcile what I’ve gathered on this day with the philosophy of nonviolence with which I was raised. I am not certain that vast cultural differences can be bridged in a few hours, but I am glad I got a glimpse into the world of guns. I have much to consider.
She does, and she wrote a fair article, and that’s rare. In a very real sense, we are who we are because of who we were. Americans were the first to throw off colonialism, and we pretty much did it ourselves, and we still remember how we did it. And the other thing we know is just how horrible a time the Revolution was, and we, none of us, want to go there again. And so we believe that an armed American citizenry is the best defense of freedom anywhere in the world, as it has been for 250 years. Welcome to our world, Moni, and all the others “yearning to breathe free”.

Welcoming Britannia Home

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, …

And so it is done, and the hard work of making the Mission Statement true begins.

Last Tuesday, 28 March 2017, Prime Minister Teresa May signed the letter invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, giving notice that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union within two years. It’s been a contentious debate since the people were asked. They said pretty clearly, “Let’s get out of here.” After the fall of the Prime Minister who promised and held that referendum, a court case that would have done the sue-happy United States proud, and enabling legislation passed by both houses of Parliament, with the Queen’s consent, the UK has decided to regain its independence.

Many of us here, and in the UK saw the analogy as we came up to the referendum, between the American Revolution, and Brexit, both bore very heavily indeed on the sovereignty of the people. It is a true analogy. But it will also hold in the days, weeks, months, and yes, years to come. Invoking Article 50, like our Declaration is a mission statement. It says we will be our own nation.

We fought a war against the most powerful empire in the world for seven long years, to make it so. The UK may not have it quite that hard, but it will be hard. There are forces, especially in Scotland, that wish to dismember the Union. They control Holyrood, at the moment, although their incompetence at governing is becoming legend, thus they use devolution as a smoke screen to remain in power, as they hurt the people, especially the poor. Personally, I think their time has come, and gone. The Scots are canny people, they can see through this wisp of smoke, and as they said a couple years ago, England and Scotland are better together.

Europe will try to browbeat Britain, of course. Thing is, that’s all they really have. The EU is a crumbling house of cards, with centripetal forces all over Europe trying to tear it asunder. In truth in large measure, it has become a Deutsches Zollverein, as Germany becomes more and more dominant in it. Along, of course, with the autocratic, corrupt bureaucracy in Brussels.

It is, in fact, and partly because of the Union itself, the only market in the world that is not growing. The United Kingdom has very much indeed to offer the world, once it is no longer stifled by Europe. This is, after all, the people that taught Americans to be Americans. Almost all that we are, and believe, comes directly to us from British history. From the power of trade, and the necessity of freedom of the seas, to the evil of slavery, this was our school marm. We learned well, we hope Britain has remembered the lessons, as well.

But you know, the British, especially the English do have form on this, as well. Almost 500 years ago King Henry VIII turned his back on Europe, broke with Rome, founded the Royal Navy and started the adventure that led to the modern world. That was the point where the die was cast, that the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Modern India, Singapore, Hong Kong, and many more would happen. It all dates to that day, 3 November 1534, when Parliament declared that Henry was “the only supreme head on Earth of the Church of England” and that the English crown shall enjoy “all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity.”

That was the day that made 4 July 1776 possible, and I think it possible that 4 July 1776 made possible 28 March 2017. Such are the ways of history. People who have tasted freedom find it good, and are not amused when others try to take it away from them.

And now it is time for us to support the cousins, as they have supported us. Not because we owe it to them, but because we owe it to ourselves. And you know, I’d be very surprised if it wasn’t profitable to us and our economy, as well.

We are very pleased indeed that the United Kingdom will again “ have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.” Although we would be remiss not to remind them that it is a very rough road, and that they will need to do as our founders did.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Welcome home, Britannia.

Judicial Tyranny

This terrific overreach by the federal judiciary is becoming most concerning. Donald Trump, like the first 44 incumbents, is President of the United States, whether you (or the federal judges) like it or not. He has all the rights, obligations, and duties of his predecessors. Like most of us, I worried about Obama’s overreach into prerogative rule with his pen and his phone. But we’ve seen none of that with Trump, his every action has been well within the Constitution. Mark Pulliam has some thoughts.

Daniel Horowitz’s Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America (2016), published before the presidential election, is proving to be prescient—even prophetic.

Horowitz is a columnist for Mark Levin’s Conservative Review who writes frequently about constitutional issues. In Stolen Sovereignty he decries “a runaway judicial oligarchy and an unaccountable bureaucratic state.” He is concerned that the Left “has irrevocably co-opted [the courts and bureaucracy] into serving as conduits for their radical and revolutionary ideas—to the point that even if we win back the presidency and elect only constitutional conservatives to Congress, . . . it won’t matter.”

These words may have seemed like hyperbole at the time, but the federal courts’ implacable opposition to President Trump’s executive orders on immigration suggest that they were on the mark. In a recent post, I expressed dismay at the judicial resistance to the President’s first executive order on immigration (E.O. 13769). Unelected federal judges blocked the President from fulfilling a campaign promise to the American electorate—without even citing the federal statute that expressly authorizes his action.[1]

Some commentators saw the Ninth Circuit’s ludicrous decision as nothing short of a judicial coup d’état. Rather than challenge it in the deadlocked U.S. Supreme Court, on March 6 President Trump issued a revised executive order (E.O. 13780), attempting to correct the alleged defects. Incredibly, the revised order has met with even stronger judicial resistance, spurring  multiple lawsuits and injunctions: a limited temporary restraining order issued by Judge William Conley of the Western District of Wisconsin, a partial injunction issued by Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland, and a nationwide injunction issued by Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii. (All three were appointed by President Obama.)

This judicial obstruction of the executive branch on matters expressly entrusted to the President by Congress grossly violates the separation of powers and constitutes a grave threat to our republican form of government. The courts’ usurpation of presidential authority should be deeply troubling regardless of one’s political affiliation. Indeed one libertarian legal scholar, Josh Blackman, who is no fan of the President (he signed the Originalists Against Trump statement prior to the election), has harshly criticized the judges’ interference with these immigration orders, calling the Ninth Circuit’s ruling a “contrived comedy of errors.”

In a three-part blog post for Lawfare on the revised executive order, Professor Blackman concludes that the President’s authority to act unilaterally pursuant to Section 1182(f) is well-established:

Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama all issued proclamations under § 1182(f), and there was never even the hint that the notice-and-comment process was required.

No court has ever held that aliens that are seeking entry, who have zero connection to the United States, or its residents, have due process rights. . . . . In short, the small subset of aliens who would in fact be denied entry under this policy have no cognizable due process rights, and to the extent that courts find some interest exist, the review and denial by a consular officer provides all the process that is due.

(…) In Horowitz’s view, the modest concept of judicial review expressed in Marbury v. Madison (1803) “has been transmogrified into complete authority over the future of sovereignty, marriage, culture, and the power to regulate every industry in our economy.” Simultaneously, the federal courts have become a bastion of liberal politics; unelected judges now wield more power than legislators; and judicial activism has become the favored means of Progressive policymaking.

via Judicial Tyranny’s Final Frontier – Online Library of Law & Liberty

That’s all true and very troubling, but what can we do about it? These are all Article III judges appointed during good behavior (which is not defined)m in other words, essentially for life, although they can be impeached, it is a very rare occurrence. It is also just possible that they could be removed by a writ of scire facias, a form of Chancery order which dates back to Edward I. The actual writ of scire facias has been suspended in the Federal district courts by Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but the rule still allows for granting relief formerly available through scire facias by prosecuting a civil action.

Other than that, there is little legally to be done. I seem to remember that while the Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated, all the rest are the creation of the Congress, and could simply be disestablished, and new ones established, although at best, that would have the effect of retiring the judges, not firing them, and would certainly be messy for all concerned.

But perhaps there is a less, shall we say, formal method. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline writes this:

President Trump admires Andrew Jackson. He sees himself as Jacksonian.

Accordingly, it might instructive to recall how President Jackson is said to have responded when the Supreme Court ruled, in Worcester v. Georgia, that Georgia laws calling for the seizure of Cherokee lands violated federal treaties. Here is the statement Jackson may have made:

John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

Jackson may never have uttered these words. However, both Georgia and Jackson ignored the Supreme Court’s decision. Chief Justice Marshall’s decision was never enforced.

At the rate liberal judges are going, we might see similar defiance of the judiciary by President Trump. I don’t expect Trump to respond that way if the ruling that he cannot temporarily ban immigration from six countries fails to survive judicial review. That ruling doesn’t seem important enough to defy the judiciary over.

I don’t either, but I can foresee occasions where it might be necessary. The founders considered the judiciary the weakest branch, and so there are fewer safeguards here, than anywhere else. That started changing with John Marshall and Marbury v. Madison, and that unchecked power has metatized rather badly in the last fifty years. I don’t know what the answer is, but a solution is needed.

How we Got Trump

1776Mollie Hemingway wrote yesterday in The Federalist about Saying People Can’t Say ‘This Is Why Trump Won’ Is Why Trump Won.

See, one of the reasons tens of millions of Americans voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton was that they were sick of this type of media bullying. But you’re not supposed to point out that BuzzFeed and their ilk’s behavior contributed to Trump’s victory.

Remember when Meryl Street gave her sermon at the Golden Globes about how awful Trump is? Liberals, and that includes many in the media, absolutely loved it. CNN put out a “breaking news” alert that she had torn into Trump. Conservatives tended not to love it so much. I panned it for its inaccuracy, the lack of empathy it supposedly called for, and general cluelessness.

Yep, and she’s right: That’s why you got Trump.

But there’s nothing whatever new about it, it’s ancient folk wisdom in our countries, and rings through our joint and several histories, all the way back to 1066, at least. Here’s our Kipling put it.

THE WRATH OF THE AWAKENED SAXON

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy — willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddenly bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

The Bible puts it slightly differently when it says “Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.” It will happen every time, and it has. Go ask King John, or Charles I, or Napoleon, or Hitler. The Anglo-Saxons are dangerous enemies. And yes, both in England and America, for with our heritage many of us also imbibed many of the characteristics of our Mother Country. Kipling again.

1776

after
The  snow lies thick on Valley Forge,
The ice on the Delaware,
But the poor dead soldiers of King George
They neither know nor care.

Not though the earliest primrose break
On the sunny side of the lane,
And scuffling rookeries awake
Their England’ s spring again.

They will not stir when the drifts are gone,
Or the ice melts out of the bay:
And the men that served with Washington
Lie all as still as they.

They will  not  stir  though  the mayflower blows
In the moist dark woods of pine,
And every rock-strewn pasture shows
Mullein and columbine.

Each for his land, in a fair fight,
Encountered strove, and died,
And the kindly earth that knows no spite
Covers them side by side.

She is too busy to think of war;
She has all the world to make gay;
And,  behold, the yearly flowers are
Where they were in our fathers’ day!

Golden-rod by the pasture-wall
When the columbine is dead,
And sumach leaves that turn, in fall,
Bright as the blood they shed.

Jess wrote long ago:

It was a brothers’ war, and when it was over they bore no real ill-will and became friends and allies.

They could do that because of a shared love of freedom and the same concept of justice. There was no need to ask what culture was, and those uncounted millions who found in the New World a haven, embraced those values – so much so that people took them for granted – they were surely universal.

They were, and they are for us and ours, on both sides of the pond. Which is why we tend to look on with amusement at the loons here, and there, and then get on with business. But there are limits to that.

“The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, ‘This isn’t fair dealing,’ my son, leave the Saxon alone.

“You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears;
But don’t try that game on the Saxon; you’ll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field,
They’ll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.

“But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs.
Don’t trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their wrongs.
Let them know that you know what they’re saying; let them feel that you know what to say.
Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear ’em out if it takes you all day.”

The Normans learned this, pretty fast, and it worked out OK. But these fools remind me of Louis XVI. They have remembered nothing and forgotten nothing. I fear they will come to a bad end.

Trump’s Immigration Order ≠ Hitler

From Bookworm Room

From Bookworm Room

From Bookworm Room. Long and well worth your time.

The Progressives on my real-me Facebook feed are having a collective mental collapse in response to President Trump’s new immigration order. Typically, their behavior is predicated, not upon actual facts, but upon media propaganda and their own factual and historic ignorance. This post will rebut the worst, most misleading of these arguments, which is the claim Jews and all other decent people must accept unlimited refugees from Muslim countries because Hitler.

My Facebook feed is being inundated with the fallacy holding that, unless we allow unlimited immigration from those seven terrorist-fomenting Muslim countries, we’re no better than America in the late 1930s, when it refused to allow in Jewish refugees, most of whom perished in the Holocaust. [My Twitter feed as well. Neo]

Most especially, because I am a Jew, the Progressives insist I should be on the front-line in the war against the immigration order, screaming “Stop! Don’t take any of these people in the country.” This is a morally evil argument predicated upon ignorance and misrepresentation. […]

We have to begin by remembering who the Jews were and what they were facing:

The Jews were a Europeanized people tied to the same Biblical morality and cultural tradition as America’s Christian majority. As was true for Americans, Jews abided by the Ten Commandments — unsurprising, given that it was Jews who introduced those same commandments to the Christians. As Dennis Prager has explained in his excellent Ten Commandments series of videos, these Commandments serve as the basis for a high functioning, safe, moral community.

The Jews were highly literate and the ones from Western Europe had advanced professional skills that meshed well with and, indeed, added to the American skill set. Many were as, if not more, sophisticated than the majority of Americans.

Most importantly, their grounding in Torah meant that they were exceptionally law-abiding. Not only do the vast majority play by general rules governing good citizenship, they never engaged in rape as a means of conquest, honor killing, genital mutilation, systemic discrimination, or genocidal ideology. Taking them into America would not have affected American values, nor would it have put American citizens at risk of mass rape, female mutilation, torture, or murder on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, or sexual orientation.

The Jews were also on the receiving end of an utterly unprecedented, completely aberrant, attempt in the modern era to destroy an entire race of people. Europe, of course, had always practiced a deadly antisemitism, but it was sort of like an endemic disease: It appeared randomly, it never killed everyone, and the disease’s victims (i.e., the Jews) had learned to adapt to it.  They survived and, in Enlightenment Europe, they even thrived.

Hitler’s approach was entirely different. It wasn’t an endemic problem. It was, instead, a pandemic disease that had a 100% mortality rate for Jews. Even worse for those poor Jews, there were no contiguous nations immune to the disease. While righteous individuals in those nations took a stand, most of them eagerly embraced the sickness.

Another notable fact about the Jewish refugees was that they were women and children (think of the few thousand children whose lives were saved by the Kindertransport). Young men were not overly represented. Instead, applications involving older men came from intact families with men who were no longer of fighting age (rather like the highly cultured, peaceful family of Otto Frank, father to Anne).

Now let’s look at the Muslims who Progressives insist are analogous to the Jews:

Middle Eastern Muslims, especially the ones from the list of terrorist-promoting countries (a list Obama’s team compiled) are not people who share America’s Biblical morality and cultural traditions. Indeed, their mores are often the complete opposite of ours. As foolish Europeans have already discovered, the citizens from Muslim countries such as those on the Trump list come from cultures that aggressively advocate mass rape, pedophilia, honor killings, genital mutilation, the erasure of women through veils and sequestering, the slaughter of gays, and discrimination (often murderous) against other faiths, especially Judaism.

Regarding that last point, do remember that Muslims aren’t shy about their hatred for Jews. After the Jews refused to recognize Mohamed as their prophet he, in a remarkably un-saint-like way, got petty. He began by denigrating Jews and, as his wounded ego festered, began to demand their deaths.

via Trump’s immigration order does not mark the second coming of Hitler Go and read it all, I’ll wait.

OK, got all that? She’s right you know, completely and utterly right. She also says this.

Oh, and speaking of those wealthy countries, they border the lands from which the refugees come, they share the refugees’ culture, and they have significant space and resources for handling refugees. In other words, unlike the Jews during the 1930s and 1940s, there are contiguous nations that ought to be perfect refuges for those suffering in Syria from the war, or those suffering elsewhere from the burden of their own culture.

It’s worth noting that all these wealthy Muslim countries refuse to touch with a ten-foot pole their Muslim compatriots from countries on the terror-sponsoring list. They know, as Europe is learning, that while Saudi Arab and Qatar and Kuwait have exerted some control on Islam’s worst impulses, the incoming refugees will wreak havoc with and destroy their fragile, wealth-driven stability.  Put another way, people who are religiously wedded to hatred and ignorance, many of whom are illiterate as well, are not good immigrants, and that’s true even if they travel to countries that share with them a slightly more civilized (or at least tightly controlled) version of their culture. […]

When your Progressive friends get all shrill and weepy about the fact that President Trump, using terrorist data from the Obama administration, has put a 90-day hold on the influx of dangerous people from a perpetually hate-filled, ignorant, misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic, anti-Christian, anti-Hindu part of the world, in order to come up with immigration systems that can more readily separate the more violent immigrants from the ordinary lumpen mass of people steeped in medieval hatred, comfort yourself with the thought that Trump is on the side of morality and wisdom. A President’s first job is to protect Americans. This is not the same as shutting our eyes while people die abroad. This is a sober, compassionate evaluation that says we cannot save others if we cannot first save ourselves.

In contrast, the Progressives are, as always, completely ignorant. Moreover, as always, they unable to separate the more serious, substantive facts from their complete reliance on emotionally manipulative, extremely shallow, propaganda pictures and headlines. Getting our policy ideas from the Left is a sure recipe for national disaster.

Oh, one more thing:  For a clear-eyed view of just how reasonable Trump’s policy is, and how consistent it is with American policy both before and during the Obama era, you must read David French’s analysis of the new policy. Keep in mind as you read it that French is not a Trump fan, so this is not a blind, slobbering love letter.

Emphasis mine.

The Constitution says this:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 2, Section 1 says this:

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. …

Article 2, Section 2 says this

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments,….

Article 2, Section 3 says this

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Got that? We, the people of the United States (yes, that means the citizens, and perhaps legal aliens) commissioned the President, currently Donald Trump, to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, of these United States.

We did not elect him to please a bunch of Progressives whose every utterance is a denial of the above words, of the German Chancellor, of the Iranian Mullahs, or even a bunch of British luvvies. His job is to defend us, the people of the United States, in the words of the oath that every other American official (as well as naturalized citizen) takes, “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” While preserving our liberties, not anybody else’s. It may be and often is, “necessary and expedient” to preserve other people’s as well. That is why we fought Hitler, as well as Japan, but it is not mandated.

It is certainly beyond (and contrary to) his commission to aid and abet the importation of possible terrorists (of any kind, but Islamic at this point) into America.

Clear enough?

I thought so.

%d bloggers like this: