Sunday Potpourri

Sunday morning was especially sweet this week, as I lounged in bet until 0930. For some reason, the Kitten and I are very different about sleeping in. I get up early...a lot. So when I sleep in, I feel as though I have really accomplished something. She tends to sleep in, and by that I mean 0830 or so. On the days (rare) when she sleeps past that, she feels bad, as if she's wasted part of the day. I never consider sleep to be wasted time.

The interwebs are alive this morning with the frenzied reaction of the Trump Administration--led largely by a President with nothing to do because of bad golfing weather and a serious Twitter addiction--to the unfortunate leak of information that the Mueller grand jury has handed down an indictment (sealed). One can be very much anti-Trump and also anti-leaks. That's me. There has been a horrible amount of leaking during this administration--part of it attributable to people dead-set against its policies and pronouncements, part of it by self-serving members of the administration jockeying for favor, and part by clearly concerned members of the administration who fear that they've bought into a disaster. It is always difficult to know who is leaking, but the fact of the leaks remains regrettable.

As is so often the case with Trump, the "squirrel" machine is in high gear, with the President (he who leads the entire government) urging everyone to instead concentrate on the actions of the campaign of the woman he dispatched en route his current position. If there's one thing that Trump/Trumpkins are predictable on, its the "yeah, but Hillary" line that is sure to follow any bad news for Trump. Repeat after me, people: Trump is the President. Hillary is not. She will never be. He is. He must be judged in the here and now, not in comparison to a Clinton Presidency that never did nor never will happen.

The Wahoos football team was dispatched in Pittsburgh yesterday, and it seems my modest enthusiasm (as opposed to reckless homerism) was the right move with this team. They are 5-3, which is a damn sight better than last year, but they are improving--not good. Next week doesn't get any better, with Georgia Tech coming to C'ville. I'll be there, so I hope the team shows up.

Let's talk about the NFL, shall we? My interest in the NFL began to wane long before the national anthem kneeling kerfuffle, though that hasn't exactly increased my appetite. No, my disinterest stems from two things--the first is the endless celebrating of mundane accomplishments, and the second is the plain and simple poor quarterbacking. But hey--apart from that, everything looks fine.

To end the Potpourri, a short clip of something that I'm not supposed to worry very much about.

White nationalists chant Nazi Germany slogan "Blood and soil" in Shelbyville. Led by Brian Culpepper of National Socialist Movement. pic.twitter.com/DPGA2aOxCZ

— Natalie Allison (@natalie_allison) October 28, 2017

Homeward Bound

The United Lounge here at SFO is hopping this evening, with very few seats available. I have a prime one, with solid access to electrical power and a good view of the silenced TV. I am enjoying a bit of a layover before the redeye back to Baldymore (hon), seat 10C (United) which means a few extra inches of room as compared to my flight here in steerage (28C). I am not a tall man, but in a slight slouch, my knees were right up against the seat in front of me. I feel sorry for tall people in coach.

I had a busy few days in San Diego, and I've stayed on East Coast time as is my custom. It is 21:19 hrs West Coast, which means it is bed time--but the flight doesn't board for another 90 minutes, so I'll have to power through for a bit. My plan was to arrive early tomorrow morning and then drive straight home to my bed, but a rare Saturday morning meeting will have me veering southwest to DC for a few hours before finally getting the nap I will so richly deserve.

I will make four trips to Southern California between 24 October and 20 December, so the miles I burned down taking my sweetie to Europe are slowly building back up. Winter travel gets dicey, and if I can't do a non-stop, I try to go through Houston rather than Chicago or Denver. But one doesn't always get to choose.These redeyes are kind of a pain, but they go quickly because I generally get a few hours of sleep. And if I were to stay overnight in SD and get the first flight out, I would essentially spend the whole day traveling.

Wednesday--as you all know--is the first day of the Christmas Season. I will spend some of this weekend practicing my Christmas carols (I play the trumpet, sort of), and in a sop to social convention, I hold off until the first day of the Christmas Season (1 November) before posting them on Facebook. You're welcome.

Good News on the Economy

Word today of solid economic growth in the third quarter, as GDP was up 3%. This is very good news.

I got in a little social media discussion this morning with someone who brought this up and asked me how I could be so anti-Trump when "he was doing so well". I managed what I thought was a good answer, but it pales in comparison to a much better one I saw offered elsewhere on Twitter:

Friend: How can you criticize Trump when 3Q17 GDP was 3%?
Me: Did you say same re Obama in 4Q09, 2Q10, 4Q11, 3Q13, 4Q13, 2Q14, 3Q14, 1Q15?

— Patrick Chovanec (@prchovanec) October 27, 2017

In other words, consistency counts.

Trump and His Policies are the Problem

In a comment yesterday, the following point was made: "If you can point to one policy, one nominee or one executive order President Trump has put forward that is NOT in keeping with MAINSTREAM conservative thought then I'd be interested in hearing about it. Even most never-Trumpers in their more honest moments will tell you their problem is with the man, NOT his policies."

I found this statement interesting for a number of reasons. First, I am not a "never-Trump", because that position was rational and sensible during the campaign. I am today, decidedly "anti-Trump".  Second, even if it were true--even if Trump had done NOTHING but things I love since coming into office--the suggestion that I should then just shut up and get onboard is ridiculous. The damage this man's behavior is doing to America's position in the world, to our internal civil discourse, to the office it self--is alone worthy of scorn. That so many are willing to give him a pass for behavior they'd (presumably) not take from a friend or loved one--strikes me as a tangible sign of the continuing damage he is doing to civil society. Third--and this one should not escape notice--he has done virtually nothing substantial since getting into office. On two fronts, he has done wonderful and marvelous things--judicial appointments and de-regulation--and he should be (and is) lauded for it. But the suggestion that there is something coherent and whole in Trumpism--that there is a policy book sitting somewhere that lays out his proposals and that he is standing by--is lunacy. The problem isn't that I disagree with his policies--it is that he doesn't have any policies to disagree with. If you don't like his view on Iran, Afghanistan, DACA, taxes, healthcare or what have you, just wait a few days, he'll change it.

For more on the this, check out Noah Rothman in Commentary yesterday, or this morning's Washington Post.

Flake and Corker: Good, Not Great

Yesterday's announcement from the Senate floor by Arizona Senator Jeff Flake (R) that he will not seek re-election in 2018 is being huzzahed from the highest mountains by many anti-Trumpists for its stinging criticism of both the President and the future of the GOP.



This, only a day after retiring Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) made some sharp comments of his own on the same subjects:



A couple of things are worth saying.

First of all, I agree with virtually everything these two men said about the President, his Presidency, and the state/direction of the GOP. Trump is a disaster, and the degree to which even his supporters point to the steadying influence of a few respected, key advisers is evidence of a general sense of his instability.

That said, these comments--as satisfying as they are to hear--are coming from men retiring from seats that were (in Flake's case) in real trouble, and in Corker's, up for grabs. This is not a sign of the strength of the anti-Trump Team within the GOP, but its weakness. Yes. Bush, McCain, Romney -- the last three GOP noms--have spoken out too recently -- but what ties them all together (save for Romney--more on this later) is that they will not face an electorate again. Real opposition to this President from within his Party---at least publicly--is non-existent. Such is the nature of politics. There is no end of the irony though, that the very nature of the continuing public support for Trump from R's in Congress--the behavior of naked political calculation--is what Trumpkins have pouted and whined about for years. They seem ok with the behavior now that it is in support of their man.

I've seen some backlash against both Corker and Flake from needlessly purist anti-Trumpers who criticize them for (in Corker's case) enabling the President's election and in Flake's, waiting until Trump was elected to speak out. If the anti-Trump movement is to have any real impact, there is no place for this kind of purity. Anyone--whether they were from the get-go anti-Trump--reluctant Trump voters, or even one-time MAGA-types--need to be welcomed with open arms.  What is important is the degree to which they continue to hold conservative principles dear, and the degree to which they now agree that Trump is damaging the country.

I heard an interesting bit on a podcast yesterday that confirms things I've seen in the news...that Mitt Romney may be considering running for the Senate from Utah. Seems a natural fit. I'd love to see him do it.

The bottom line here is that there is a serious schism in the GOP. Time will tell how bad things are and I think that time is November 2018. If the GOP gets its ass handed to it, the President's general public support from members of Congress will disappear in a New York minute.

On the Road Again....

Perched at a large group bar table at a place called the DuClaw Brewing Company, I am ravenously hungry two hours before boarding my flight to San Diego via Denver. The serviceable menu included chicken wings (natch) and what appears to be a fine grilled chicken sandwich. Things started early this morning, with some treadmill time and a bit of TwitterSnark before the two hour drive to Bethesda MD. It was there that I was to be the lecturer for a group of curious seniors who are involved in a pretty cool program of continuing education for people of their experience. I gave them a version of the Seapower Gospel--this time with more education and less advocacy, but still with plenty of advocacy. I spoke for thirty minutes and then answered (excellent) questions for another hour. Folks were concerned about the size of the Navy, its competence, the reality of President Trump and nuclear weapons, North Korean aggression, and myriad other big picture subjects. I really love doing stuff like this, and bonus here is that there is an honorarium headed my way.

Upon leaving, I drove north to BWI airport--hoping that somewhere along the way there would be a KFC or a Popeyes so that I could indulge in a bit of fried chicken. None was to be had, so that's why I'm eating in this pre-security spot in A/B terminal. Key safety tip: I'm doing it wrong here. If you are going to be involved in a terror hit at the airport, it is almost certainly going to happen in the terminal before security. I generally minimize the time I spend in this part of the airport, but low blood sugar is calling.

I'm headed for three days of work in San Diego, something regular readers know I do regularly. There is no United Lounge here at BWI (that I know of), though there is something of a generic lounge available somewhere that I will likely pass up. I have an hour between landing and next flight in Denver, which is unlikely to afford me the opportunity for dinner--I seem to be in this same situation more than I care for, and wind up on the other end (San Diego) either ravenous or having eaten bad airline food.

These trips to SD are monthly, and my client pays the freight for coach class tickets. I wind up buying into Economy Plus on my own dime, but just for the longer portions. On the way home, I'll redeye Friday night, and the bit of extra room in economy plus makes a difference. I occasionally get bumped to first class, but not nearly as often as Tigerhawk does.

My travel rig is more in line with what readers clamor for. Whereas I usually do sneakers, warmup pants, sport coat (for business wear) and t-shirt, I am in my morning speaking get-up (khakis, button down, blazer) sans tie--which is in the bag. I just saw a fellow doing it right walk past in flip flops, plaid shorts, t-shirt, a fleece, and his suit jacket--assuming his suit pants/shirt/tie were stowed away in his bag.

I will get to SD about 9PM local time, grab the rental and drive the two miles to my hotel--where collapse occurs until early morning--when my body tells me it is 6AM but the clock claims 3. I tend to stay on East Coast time for these dashes west, with bed time coming as close to 8PM as I can.

So far, the DuClaw Brewing company is not wrapping itself in glory, as the neither the chicken wings nor the chicken sandwich have been delivered yet. I am contemplating eating a napkin. It is good that I am not traveling with anyone close to me, as most routine human interaction would be beyond my abilities right now, until I've had a few bites in my system. The Kittens are well aware of this syndrome and tend to call me on it. It is good that I have plenty of time to kill.

On one of the several televisions is a program with which I am unfamiliar. It is a talk show of some kind starring a blonde, African-American lass named "Wendy" (apparently, as this seems to be the show's name). The sound is turned down, but the close captioning is allowing me to follow along with things that are of no interest to me. Her audience appears quite happy to be there.

My waitress just came up to inform me for the second time that it would be a few minutes on the food. I informed her that this was not satisfactory.

Sunday Potpourri

In the previous instantiation of this blog, Fridays often included a post known as "Big Fat Friday Free For All" in which I solicited the thoughts of others in the comment section. It was additionally, a method of oversight for a diet then underway, and provided a means to publicly crow (or whine) as the case that week had been.

As I read the New York Times online this morning, searching for something worth writing about today, the concept of simply musing for a bit arose--mostly because nothing in the news really caught my eye. And so is born the "Sunday Potpourri" post, which will consist of brief little blog postlets, none of which are sufficiently developed to warrant their own post, but some of which might be worth thinking about.

Let's start with the pitiful performance yesterday by the University of Virginia football team, which entered the game with Boston College a 7 point favorite and then proceeded to get trounced. My Hoos are better this year than they have been recently, but I fear the runaway enthusiasm in the fan base got out in front of the headlights. I texted with the Hammer yesterday before the game that BC's victory over Louisville the week before had me concerned. I suppose I was right.

Writing this post is designed to kill two birds with one stone--the first is to provide content so that you and others will continue to come back to the site and read it when I have something interesting to say, and second to get my writing juices flowing for important work projects I have to tackle today. I was able to juice out about 700 words yesterday on a project that should come in at 2500 or so, but I'd actually hoped to finish it--or at least a draft. Will get on it when I finish this.

One of the projects I have is to put together my speech/lecture for a group of curious seniors I am talking to on Tuesday. These folks reside in a seniors community in Maryland, and have what essentially boils down to a revolving series of lecturers come and teach/educate/challenge etc. I'm going to talk with them about the role of Seapower in American national security. Some of you know that I did a Seapower speaking tour of Maryland Rotary Clubs last fall and winter, but that was more advocacy--this is likely to be largely educational. I like doing stuff like this--sorta wish I could make a living just doing it exclusively.

My guilty pleasure on Sunday mornings is reading the New York Times wedding announcements. I love reading the pomposity of it all, realizing of course that they aren't preening for me, but for each other. There were several gentlemen in their 50's today marrying ladies in their 30's....which for nonspecific reasons, I find re-assuring.

After my talk on Tuesday, I head to the airport for a flight to San Diego. I spend 3-4 days a month there on business, and my musings from the road tend to be among the more commented upon posts here, at least my posts. That's always bothered me a little, as I'll spend a long time thinking about and writing a piece on something incredibly important and political--and no one will notice--and then sit down in an airport and riff on the people walking by to great praise. My friend Todd laughs at me when I complain about this.

My Mom and Dad are in their 80's and still married, both of which are noteworthy. They celebrated their 61st Anniversary two days ago, which seems like a really, really long time until I contemplate the speed with which the last 10 years with The Kitten have passed. They thank you for your kind wishes.

Have a good Sunday.

The Trump Tax Plan

As a conservative, plans for lowering taxes automatically get my attention. President Trump has a plan for reforming the tax system and lowering taxes that should be taken very seriously, although his frequent claims to having "the votes" for it in Congress are as silly as most of his claims, as there is in fact no bill yet before either body.  I reproduce it in its entirety below, and you can download it here. All in all, it is a reasonable and straightforward plan, but it has some aspects that are better than others. I've worked some comments in among text that you can see--bolded and un-italicized.





TAX REFORM THAT WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
The Goals Of Donald J. Trump’s Tax Plan

Too few Americans are working, too many jobs have been shipped overseas, and too many middle class 
families cannot make ends meet. This tax plan directly meets these challenges with four simple 
goals:

1.   Tax relief for middle class Americans: In order to achieve the American dream, let people keep 
more money in their pockets and increase after-tax wages.

2.   Simplify the tax code to reduce the headaches Americans face in preparing their taxes and let 
everyone keep more of their money. 

3.   Grow the American economy by discouraging corporate inversions, adding a huge number of new 
jobs, and making America globally competitive again. While I think that lowering the corporate tax rate is a net positive, Republicans tend to overstate the impact. 

4.  Doesn’t add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large. I have yet to see an analysis of this plan that does not project at least $1T in additional debt over 10 years. 

The Trump Tax Plan Achieves These Goals

1.   If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, 
you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the 
income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, “I win,” those who would 
otherwise owe income taxes will save an average of nearly $1,000 each. I am in principle, against people not paying anything in income taxes. I realize that wage earners pay a very regressive payroll tax--but those "taxes" are not for the continuing operations of the US government; rather they are for entitlements that the payer will likely participate in to an extent greater than what they paid in--even with interest. But--I think this is a lost cause.

2.   All other Americans will get a simpler tax code with four brackets – 0%, 10%, 20% and 25%
– instead of the current seven. This new tax code eliminates the marriage penalty and the 
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II. The elimination of tax brackets makes people think that there is a greater simplicity to the system, but when it comes down to it, when the form is filled out, we are only in one bracket at a time. So I don't get why this is such a big deal. 

3.   No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job 
to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. This lower rate makes corporate 
inversions unnecessary by making America’s tax rate one of the best in the world. This one provision could comprise a great deal of the taxes actually cut. Again, the theory is that businesses paying less in taxes would apply at least some part of the savings to expansion and job creation. I personally would benefit from this provision as the owner of a sole proprietor business. 

4.   No family will have to pay the death tax.  You earned and saved that money for your family, 
not the government. You paid taxes on it when you earned it. As a conservative, I love this. As a pragmatist, this would be something I trade away in negotiations to get something that benefits more Americans.

The Trump Tax Plan Is Revenue Neutral

The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:

1.   Reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich. This is thought to include portions of the state income tax deduction. VERY RICH here means essentially those who itemize and who live in states with an income tax. 

2.   A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 
10% tax rate, followed by an end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad.

3.   Reducing or eliminating corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as 
deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business 
income. We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business interest expenses.

DETAILS OF DONALD J. TRUMP’S TAX PLAN
America needs a bold, simple and achievable plan based on conservative economic principles. This 
plan does that with needed tax relief for all Americans, especially the working poor and middle 
class, pro-growth tax reform for all sizes of businesses, and fiscally responsible steps to ensure 
this plan does not add to our enormous debt and deficit.

This plan simplifies the tax code by taking nearly 50% of current filers off the income tax rolls 
entirely and reducing the number of tax brackets from seven to four for everyone else. This plan 
also reduces or eliminates loopholes used by the very rich and special interests made unnecessary 
or redundant by the new lower tax rates on individuals and companies.

The Trump Tax Plan: A Simpler Tax Code For All Americans

When the income tax was first introduced, just one percent of Americans had to pay it. It was never 
intended as a tax most Americans would pay. The Trump plan eliminates the income tax for over 73 
million households. 42 million households that currently file complex forms to determine they don’t 
owe any income taxes will now file a one page form saving them time, stress, uncertainty and an 
average of $110 in preparation costs. Over 31 million households get the same simplification and 
keep on average nearly $1,000 of their hard-earned money.

For those Americans who will still pay the income tax, the tax rates will go from the current seven 
brackets to four simpler, fairer brackets that eliminate the marriage penalty and the AMT while 
providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II:


Income Tax Rate
Long Term Cap Gains/ Dividends Rate

Single Filers                  Married Filers                Heads of Household
0%           0%                           $0 to $25,000                  $0 to $50,000              
      $0 to $37,500
10%         0%                           $25,001 to $50,000         $50,001 to $100,000         
$37,501 to $75,000
20%         15%                         $50,001 to $150,000       $100,001 to $300,000       
$75,001 to $225,000
25%         20%                         $150,001 and up             $300,001 and up               
$225,001 and up

With this huge reduction in rates, many of the current exemptions and deductions will become 
unnecessary or redundant. Those within the 10% bracket will keep all or most of their current 
deductions. Those within the 20% bracket will keep more than half of their current deductions.

Those within the 25% bracket will keep fewer deductions. Charitable giving and mortgage interest 
deductions will remain unchanged for all taxpayers.

Simplifying the tax code and cutting every American’s taxes will boost consumer spending, encourage 
savings and investment, and maximize economic growth.

Business Tax Reform To Encourage Jobs And Spur Economic Growth

Too many companies – from great American brands to innovative startups – are leaving America, 
either directly or through corporate inversions. The Democrats want to outlaw inversions, but that 
will never work. Companies leaving is not the disease, it is the symptom. Politicians in Washington 
have let America fall from the best corporate tax rate in the industrialized world in the 1980’s 
(thanks to Ronald Reagan) to the worst rate in the industrialized world. That is unacceptable. 
Under the Trump plan, America will compete with the world and win by cutting the corporate tax rate 
to 15%, taking our rate from one of the worst to one of the best.

This lower tax rate cannot be for big business alone; it needs to help the small businesses that 
are the true engine of our economy. Right now, freelancers, sole proprietors, unincorporated small 
businesses and pass-through entities are taxed at the high personal income tax rates. This 
treatment stifles small businesses. It also stifles tax reform because efforts to reduce loopholes 
and deductions available to the very rich and special interests end up hitting small businesses and 
job creators as well. The Trump plan addresses this challenge head on with a new business income 
tax rate within the personal income tax code that matches the 15% corporate tax rate to help these 
businesses, entrepreneurs and freelancers grow and prosper.

These lower rates will provide a tremendous stimulus for the economy – significant GDP growth, a 
huge number of new jobs and an increase in after-tax wages for workers. I am ready to accept that a cut in the corporate rate and taxing pass-through businesses at a lower rate could lead to growth. 

The Trump Tax Plan Ends The Unfair Death Tax

The death tax punishes families for achieving the American dream. Therefore, the Trump plan 
eliminates the death tax.

The Trump Tax Plan Is Fiscally Responsible

The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:

1.   Reducing or eliminating deductions and loopholes available to the very rich, starting by 
steepening the curve of the Personal Exemption Phaseout and the Pease Limitation on itemized 
deductions. The Trump plan also phases out the tax exemption on life insurance interest for 
high-income earners, ends the current tax treatment of carried interest for speculative 
partnerships that do not grow businesses or create jobs and are not risking their own capital, and 
reduces or eliminates other loopholes for the very rich and special interests. These reductions and 
eliminations will not harm the economy or hurt the middle class.

Because the Trump plan introduces a new business income rate within the personal income tax code, 
they will not harm small businesses either.

2.   A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 
10% tax rate. Since we are making America’s corporate tax rate globally competitive, it is only 
fair that corporations help make that move fiscally responsible. U.S.-owned corporations have as 
much as $2.5 trillion in cash sitting overseas. Some companies have been leaving cash overseas as a 
tax maneuver. Under this plan, they can bring their cash home and put it to work in America while 
benefitting from the newly-lowered corporate tax rate that is globally competitive and no longer 
requires parking cash overseas. Other companies have cash overseas for specific business units or 
activities. They can leave that cash overseas, but they will still have to pay the one-time 
repatriation fee.

3. An end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad. Corporations will no longer 
be allowed to defer taxes on income earned abroad, but the foreign tax credit will remain in place 
because no company should face double taxation.

4.   Reducing or eliminating some corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as 
deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business 
income. We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business interest expenses.

------------------------

So--in general, I think this is a good plan--but it if it were to find its way into an actual bill, it would not pass. And it would not pass for the very simple reason that because they pay the most in taxes, the rich would gain most of the benefit from this proposal. And as a matter of balanced books, it likely contributes to the national debt -- so you lose liberals and debt hawks. Additionally, virtually every Senate D would vote against this plan--and so the 52 Republicans in the Senate would each become the prancing ponies they have shown themselves recently to be, and will hold the bill hostage. No. I just don't think that this will pass.  But what would? What kind of a tax reform would garner enough D support? How about this one.

1. There are currently seven income tax brackets: 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, 35, and 39.6. Ninety-seven percent of American households are in the 25% or less brackets. Cut the tax rate in these three brackets by one or two percent. Will this result in a great boon to the treasury? No--but the political benefit of being able to state that 97% of Americans will have their taxes lowered would be considerable.

2. Implement all aspects of the Trump corporate tax scheme. Relentlessly tie this to estimates of jobs that would be created as a result.

3. Tie the percentage of deductibility of state income taxes to the tax bracket--i.e. the less you make, the more you get to deduct as a percentage. To toss the base some red meat, the highest earners in the high tax states (insert "liberal professional class" here) would not be able to deduct their state income tax at all.

4. Eliminate marriage penalty and AMT--these are blots upon the tax system.

Is this a sweeping reform of the tax code? Nope. Does it deliver upon the conservative desire to lower taxes? Yep. Most importantly, it outlines an approach that has a prayer of making it through a closely divided Congress. Trump needs a win on something, and this could be it. His plan is a good one, but it simply isn't acceptable in this political atmosphere.

It occurs to me that we seem to have lost the ability to value incremental change--and an incremental change is about all we can expect.

The Staggering Genius of Kevin Williamson

You should read this piece on why white underclass populism and conservatism are incompatible.  It is--as are most things Williamson writes--brilliant. Care for a bit of it?

"White people acting white have embraced the ethic of the white underclass, which is distinct from the white working class, which has the distinguishing feature of regular gainful employment. The manners of the white underclass are Trump’s — vulgar, aggressive, boastful, selfish, promiscuous, consumerist. The white working class has a very different ethic. Its members are, in the main, churchgoing, financially prudent, and married, and their manners are formal to the point of icy politeness. You’ll recognize the style if you’ve ever been around it: It’s “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am,” but it is the formality of soldiers and police officers — correct and polite, but not in the least bit deferential. It is a formality adopted not to acknowledge the superiority of social betters but to assert the equality of the speaker — equal to any person or situation, perfectly republican manners. It is the general social respect rooted in genuine self-respect. 

Its opposite is the sneering, leveling, drag-’em-all-down-into-the-mud anti-“elitism” of contemporary right-wing populism. Self-respect says: “I’m an American citizen, and I can walk into any room, talk to any president, prince, or potentate, because I can rise to any occasion.” Populist anti-elitism says the opposite: “I can be rude enough and denigrating enough to drag anybody down to my level.” Trump’s rhetoric — ridiculous and demeaning schoolyard nicknames, boasting about money, etc. — has always been about reducing. Trump doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to duke it out with even the modest wits at the New York Times, hence it’s “the failing New York Times.” Never mind that the New York Times isn’t actually failing and that any number of Trump-related businesses have failed so thoroughly that they’ve gone into bankruptcy; the truth doesn’t matter to the argument any more than it matters whether the fifth-grade bully actually has an actionable claim on some poor kid’s lunch money. It would never even occur to the low-minded to identify with anybody other than the bully. That’s what all that ridiculous stuff about “winning” was all about in the campaign. It is might-makes-right, i.e., the politics of chimpanzee troupes, prison yards, kindergartens, and other primitive environments. That is where the underclass ethic thrives — and how “smart people” came to be a term of abuse."

Readers may recognize the type from examples in their everyday lives. 

Paul Ryan at Al Smith Dinner

Here's a couple of minutes of Paul Ryan (who is in his second term as VP gearing up for his own run in 2020 in my alternate reality) giving the keynote at the annual Al Smith Dinner in NY. I almost typed something like "another good man dragged down by his association with Donald Trump", and then it occurred to me that Ryan's decline was self-inflicted.

One Day, One and a Half Remarkable Speeches

Amid all the clatter of this messy and sometimes ugly time in America, two lights shone today, when two good men chose to speak. In the first, President George W. Bush delivered a ringing defense of freedom, and American engagement in and leadership of the free world. Here is the text of his remarks, and the video is below.



Bush calls out Russia and China, and democracies who seem to be retrenching from the global order--including our own. He points out that our "...discourse has been degraded by casual cruelty." Spot on. Liberals--who for eight years excoriated this man--have taken to their favored social media platforms today to point out how wonderful he is. Most of us already knew that.

The second speaker was the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States, John Kelly. In a remarkable presentation, Kelly--a retired Marine four-star and father of a Marine killed in Afghanistan--walked the White House press-room through a number of subjects that most of them probably hadn't thought about much before, or at least before the other day. He described the process of alerting next of kin when someone dies in combat. He laid out what have been the processes/procedures followed by recent Presidents, specifically whether phone calls were made or not. He described his conversations with the President about what to say in such a call--which must surely be a terribly difficult call to make. You can watch it below:




Kelly speaks here with the authority of a combat marine who has ordered men to their deaths, and he speaks here with the experience of a grieving father. It is a riveting speech--and Kelly had me in the palm of his hand for much of it--until this:

"It stuns me that a member of Congress would have listened in on that conversation. Absolutely stuns me. And I thought at least that was sacred. You know, when I was a kid growing up, a lot of things were sacred in our country. Women were sacred, looked upon with great honor. That's obviously not the case anymore as we see from recent cases. Life -- the dignity of life -- is sacred. That's gone. Religion, that seems to be gone as well. Gold Star families, I think that left in the convention over the summer. But I just thought -- the selfless devotion that brings a man or woman to die on the battlefield, I just thought that that might be sacred."

Hold on, General, back that truck up. What the member of Congress did by listening in and then blabbing to the press was indeed reprehensible, and you are to be commended for calling her out. But the rest of it? Your views on what was once "sacred"? Women? Religion? Gold Star  families?  Do you remember who it is you are Chief of Staff to? Wasn't this the man who took great pride in committing sexual assault against women?   Wasn't this the man who claimed that an entire religion "hates" the U.S.?  Wasn't this the man who said that John McCain--who endured unspeakable torture for six and a half years--when he could have accepted an earlier release--was not a hero?

I was with you General Kelly. You were telling it straight, and you did a good job of humanizing the very difficult job the President would have had in making  those calls. But the minute you began to wax poetic about the loss of the sacred in America--when you work in the next office over from the most sacrilegious man to ever hold the office, who daily cheapens our national discourse and has put the "bully" in the bully pulpit--you lost me.

UVA Football is 5-1

Final Score: UVA 20--UNC 14

Long-time blog readers know that the editorial stance here is very pro University of Virginia. In the past few years, the football team has been a bit lackluster, but this year they appear to have turned the corner. I retain my season tickets and have had the pleasure of watching alongside two men whose friendship is now entering its fourth decade. I won't be able to make the game this weekend, unfortunately. But you will be kept up to speed on their progress for the rest of the season.

The Conservative Wahoo is Back

Sketches made to help choose the blog avatar

In February I took a break from this blog, after over a year of political anguish, aggravation, disappointment, and recrimination. What I had sought to help derail--a Donald Trump presidency--was the new reality, and America was settling in to face it.

Eight months have passed, and I think we all have a sense of where things have settled out. Of course, no two of these versions match each other, but it seems clear that we've had sufficient time to measure the man and his impact, which has been as enormous as it has been inconsequential.

The plain truth is that I missed blogging. I missed writing about politics and social issues. Honestly, I missed having people pass me and say, "hey, I really liked that post you did the other day on...." I missed the thrill of driving along and having an idea pop into my head for a post (only to realize that I had no outlet for it). I'd given up politics on Facebook, and Twitter isn't great for complete thoughts, though it is where my annoying sarcasm and snark can be viewed in its full glory @ConsWahoo.

And so, I return to this labor of love. She is a cruel mistress, this blog. She demands constant attention, constant interaction. She is jealous of my other interests. Her way of showing love back to me is sometimes hurtful, cruel, and hateful. Sometimes, I give her works of great thought and passion, and they are ignored. But I love her nevertheless.

Now for a little administration. I will -- for the foreseeable future--be the only blogger to entertain you here. This leads to less content--but I'm ok with that. Next, comments are encouraged, but I will moderate them. Every single one. If I don't like its tone, it won't show up. Keep in mind, the First Amendment applies to the government restricting the speech of individuals. You have no First Amendment rights here, Bub. This is a mostly benevolent dictatorship.  Comments will be moderated at most once a day--so if you make a comment and it doesn't show up immediately, assume 1) I haven't gotten to it yet or 2) it failed the tone test.

I remain an unreconstructed critic of President Trump, and this will likely color a good deal of the writing you see here. If you are looking for cheer-leading for the Administration, look elsewhere. But I am also an unreconstructed cuck, globalist, Burkean, Friedmanesque, von Misen, Bucklean conservative. If you are looking for critiques of this President from the left--you will be disappointed. For those who say that I pay too much attention to what Trump says and not enough to what he does, I will only answer that 1) he hasn't done much and 2) what he has done that I agree with I point out. What he says (Tweets, etc) is also important because of the degree to which his example and conduct are central to the norms and values that -- along with law -- govern our political system. If you wouldn't accept his behavior from your teenage son, yet you give the President a pass, you're part of the problem.

You will also be disappointed if you look to me to be so ideological as to eschew compromise. It seems clear to me that we are where we are (up Shit's Creek) because we--the people and our representatives--have lost the capacity and the will to compromise. We return people to Congress term after term who reflect our dead-ender mentality, and so nothing gets done. When a politician suggests that there may be a real compromise to be had, where we get a little more than they do, we reject it because we're not getting everything we want.

I severed my relationship with the Republican Party when it appeared obvious that Trump would win the nomination, and I will not rejoin the Party until I am convinced that his influence has been extirpated. So if your argument amounts to "you're not supporting the Party", well then, you're arguing with the wrong guy. On the other hand, the Democratic Party is an abhorrent confederation of victimization merchants underwritten by unrestrained virtue signalers--and it is no place for me.

So here I stand--without Party, and without reservations. I look forward to our interaction, and I hope that what you read here is occasionally interesting.

Time for the Conservative Wahoo Blog to Take a Little Rest

Folks, posting is going to be sporadic here on the blog for the foreseeable future, although I am going to leave it "live" and active so that you can continue to have access to past posts. I'm cutting down on social media and dedicating myself more to my paid vocation.

Because I do not want the blog to become unduly associated with the views of the other contributing blogger (The Hammer), I've removed his access to post. Hammer once had a separate blog of his own, and I hope he'll post the URL in the comment section and that those of you who enjoy reading him can follow him there.

Thank you for staying with us this long.

Bryan McGrath

I Have a Theory

If you know me and have listened to my BS for five minutes, you know I have certain life theories. To name but a few; never EVER have sex on a motorcycle (moving or otherwise), never sneak a peek into the kitchen of a Chinese takeaway, UFOs are real and aliens walk among us (not just Mexkins) and a good few of our Republicans (for some perverse reason) enjoy calling themselves conservative when they have more in common with Nancy Pelosi.

An excellent example is our own Cryin' Johnny Boner (fake conservative not space alien, although that's possible). The original politician du orange assures us Obamacare ain't going nowhere, it just needs a few tweaks he sobbed. This is I think, not so coincidentally the same message our Soros funded rent-a-mobs are expressing at Republican town halls across the country. Maybe our chain-smoking, crying drunk of an ex-Speaker knows something we don't. After all he has his handpicked boy running the show (a worshiper at the alter of Kemp, another "conservative"). So if he indeed is right, after all the struggling we real conservatives did, after all the lies we were told by BOTH parties, Boner will have played a major role in the destruction of the Republican Party as we know it. Some legacy he'll have.

Plus his legacy will be ours. Make no mistake, if we blow this chance there will be no rebuilding of anything. And just to be clear, that is the theory isn't it, to quietly work with the Democrats to undermine Trump's presidency and then when The Donald crashes and burns pick up the pieces and rebuild IN OUR OWN MODERATE IMAGE?

Attention #nevertrumpers, those of you who ARE NOT liberals in conservative guise, I say this as a friend and with all humility (well as much as I can muster anyway) STOP the fantasies. Never gonna happen. You saw what Trump can do. He brought out blue-collar voters like no one since the beloved (God rest his sainted soul) Ronald Reagan. If anything is certain in this life it's that moderate Republicans cannot beat a Democrat. So what on Earth would make you believe you can piss-off MOST of your base and win anything ever again? Leave the Bill Kristols behind. They are not our friends. Their agenda is not ours.

Take a look at CPAC. Hear the message. Trump is NOT our enemy. Indeed at this point he is our only hope and the facts bear me out. So far DJT has conducted the affairs of the Executive in a straightforward, conservative fashion. He is returning to federalism. He is cutting spending ($12 billion this month alone). He is focused on our security and jobs. His cabinet rates a 90+ percent from CPAC-ACU. He has nominated a SCOTUS replacement for Scalia just as brilliant and just as conservative. There is NOTHING Trump has done that would give a true conservative apprehension or pause. Even CW said he would happily work with Trump in whatever capacity the administration saw fit (I hear there's an opening for a defense attache in Port Moresby). So let's all get on board, set our hurt feelings and old grudges aside and take the fight to the REAL enemy! We've got a lot of work to do and we need everybody in the game if we're to win, and that ain't no theory.

The Elites Strikes Back

The Donald is running up against the stark reality that is Washington, DC. It's never a good idea to piss off too many people at one time, but those were the circumstances of his election. He threw down the challenge and squared off with the cesspool of American politics, and now he's gonna have to back it up. If Trump HAD NOT gone after the elites, had he run a traditional campaign, is there any doubt we would have HRC as out President?

We all know no one ever gives up power willingly and certainly not the globalist elite. Plus it's not even a power thing, it's a defense thing. Fear is the primary motivator. Right now just about every political faction, group and entity inside the insulated confines of our nation's Capital (and the world) hates and FEARS Donald Trump. They see his success as their vulnerability. They are well aware half this country would see them in hell given the chance, and they are running scared. Hence the lies...the lies.

I don't want to get all PBS on you, but The Donald reminds me a lot of Julius Caesar. Just like Caesar, Trump has the love of the people to the detestation of the elites. I think we all remember how that turned out for old JC. But chew on this my Beltway buddies, Julius Caesar was murdered in 44 BC. Less than two years later all the main conspirators, Cicero, Cassius and Brutus were dead as hell and Caesar's adopted son was Emperor...for over 40 years. Think Augustus got some payback maybe?

The forces of history demand a Donald Trump. If not him then somebody else. Our current "system" of ignoring the will of the people, the Constitution and our laws is untenable, and 'we the people' are on the case. So do your best GOPe and leftists of this variety or that. The only question remaining is what price you will eventually pay for the mischief you create now. It's just a matter of time.

Navy Stuff

Care to spend an hour listening to me chat with Ben Domenech of The Federalist about Navy stuff?  Well then, here you go!

Actually, THIS is War

Hammer's latest piece dips into the inkwell of comparing the facile (in this case, partisan politics) to war. In an attempt to remind readers of the differences, Some examples of war are included below.

This, on  the other hand, is most assuredly NOT war.

See how that works?

The War Rages

What a three weeks huh? I hope you're all doing well, but I'm curious, how would you describe your political mood these days? Shock, dismay, disgust, outrage or optimistic and encouraged... what exactly? I'm VERY optimistic but also a little outraged, but only just a little. My outrage is directed at the Democrats of course and even more their lapdog Republicans. The left is still in the midst of their Soros funded national hissy fit and my guess is it won't subside for at least another six months or so, but it eventually will. They needed just one more election to solidify their gains to the point of no return and they can't believe they got THIS CLOSE! The pain (and panic) is almost overwhelming. From the conservative perspective the great philosophers tell us now is the time to harass our enemies, keep them agitated, angry and distracted. I think Trump is following this tried and true stratagem to a tee, but not so our Congressional leaders. I wonder why? The answer is they are part of our lapdog problem.

Did you see that the judge in Washington state who stayed Trump's immigration restrictions is a Bush appointee? Of course you did, the press screamed it from the heavens. You may not recall his name but I guarantee MOST of you know he was a Bush appointee. The media wants you thinking this man is a completely dispassionate jurist with absolutely no political ax to grind. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. This chuckle-head was a Patty Murray gift appointee by GWB and as SJW as they come. Ordinarily I would say something like how many times does it take for us to learn(?), but Trump's accession has shown us we aren't 'us' anymore, in fact never were. Half of 'us' have proven to be 'them'. Tell me, have you seen our Congressional leaders come forth defending the President? Neither have I. Mitch 'the Bitch' McConnell said just the other day (I paraphrase) "Hey man, I don't even know the guy ok? What he does is his bidnez, I'm just trying to run a Senate here'. To which Chuck Schumer replied "Thanks bro".

I keep telling myself Reagan ran into the same establishment crap but that's not really true. Yes indeed Reagan was hated by the Rockefeller wing of the party. Yes they tried to undermine him and yes they sometimes colluded with the Democrats to derail his agenda. That's all true. But it's a different world now. There can be policy differences and there always are. You may be opposed to this and I may be opposed to that. Thoughtful disagreement is understood, we all accept that. But what I'm seeing is not thoughtful, respectful or reasonable disagreement. This is not about policy, this is about expunging "the other".

For example the media doesn't even bother to deny their bias, in fact they write stories defending it. Did I say bias? I meant their open hostility. According to the NY Times if we support real border security we are xenophobic white nationalists no better than NAZIs. If we want to repeal Obamacare we are engaging in genocide against the poor and needy. If we oppose the wanton slaughter of the unborn we are no better than the Taliban wishing to brutally subjugate women. If we think denying grown men, with intact male genitalia, the 'right' to choose whatever bathroom suits their whim, then we are homophobic bigots. The advancement of these kinds of narratives are not designed to persuade, but to immediately intimidate and ultimately destroy.

This is the world we live in as created by progressives and their browbeaten, Stockholm Syndrome suffering GOPe chumps. It is not THEIR world however. Their world is different. In establishment-world they have the master key to all the locks, the teacher's edition textbook and a backstage pass to everything under the sun. They and only they are in control and they and only they dole out the goodies. They manipulate, lie, cheat and steal with impunity. They are a shadow system of parasites controlling our society like a 50's alien body-snatcher sci-fi-film. The law, the Constitution, everything our founders tried to create is just a show, the 'public face' of our democratic republic which every insider knows is total bullshit. For the chosen rules don't apply. The admission ticket to their world is money, power and loyalty. Not everybody gets in and the most dangerous (and pathetic) among us are the aspirants. But if one does manage acceptance, they are henceforth deemed made-men (in the mafia sense) and that's that. Members never want for anything...ever. Once in, to be ejected one must do something extraordinarily bad. The reality is what we have witnessed for the past 18 months is the black-balling of a member, Donald Trump. Take a wild guess as to what his transgression might be.

I say this here and now, regardless of how successful Trump's Presidency may be, he is an enemy of the powers-that-be and they will not rest until he is destroyed. This is war and there can be only one winner, the American Republic or the elites who control it. It is literally us vs. them.  I do not wish to be overly dramatic but we must all choose a side. We stand with either those who believe in freedom and democracy or those who wish to live off the facade of freedom and democracy to keep us forever divided, afraid and dispossessed. Look around you. Look at what they've done to us. Look at how they've treated us. Look at how they live and how they demand we live. Now is the time, you're either in or out, for us or against us. There is no middle ground.

“Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”  Frédéric Bastiat

The Australian Affair

Solid reporting out this morning about a testy phone call between President Trump and Australian Prime Minister Turnbull. Jake Tapper and his team have a report about it here. A couple of things:

1) The agreement to vet 1250 people and potentially admit them to the United States was made by the previous administration. It is important in foreign relations that we can be seen as trustworthy. President Trump's election--contrary to what may be felt by his supporters--was not a blank check to walk away from previous deals.

2) The agreement in question is with an steadfast ally, a nation who has been there with the US in every major conflict in recent memory, and who will serve as a great anchor of our policy to ensure China does not achieve its goal of dominating East Asia. This isn't the Iran Deal, made with a regime openly hostile to us.

3) I am hopeful that President Trump will leverage his deal-making skills to the benefit of American foreign policy. But leveraging a roofing contractor and dealing with the head of a sovereign state are two very different undertakings. Trump has made it clear that he intends to deal more directly with China in the Far East, and doing so will require steadfast friends and allies. Hopefully, his phone call is taken next time he rings.

Trump Picks a Winner

President Trump nominated Federal Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court today. I made many statements during the campaign in which I openly doubted that Trump would follow through with his pledge to nominate conservative judges. I was wrong. Very wrong.

Spend some time listening to this Speech from Gorsuch. Seems a great choice.

On Trump's Immigration and National Security Orders

Having spent all of 2016 riding a sinusoidal wave of emotion as I allowed myself to be alternately enraged by things Donald Trump said and did, and then buoyed by the poor reactions I read thereto, I have decided to try and be far more measured in my responses to his actions as President. After all, he was duly elected, and if I actually continue to believe in Constitutionally mandated separation of powers, the system should be able to check the President where he exceeds his powers.

Which brings us to a couple of Executive Orders that were promulgated by the White House on Friday--one of which lays out restrictions on immigration to the United States, and one that directs some changes in the national security establishment, specficially designating the members of the National Security Council. In the spirit of my new "Measured in '17" approach, I have a few thoughts to share.

1.  Donald Trump won the election. As our inaugurated President, he occupies the world's most powerful office. That power is not unbounded, but it is immense. In fact, he occupies an office whose power was somewhat broadened by his predecessor, who used Executive Orders promiscuously thoughout his two terms to work around a deadlocked and feckless legislature. Until the other branches of government begin to exercise their Constitutional authority, we will likely contine to have Presidents who push the boundaries of executive power.

2.  On immigration, he is doing what he said he would do. It is somewhat suprising that anyone is surprised by his EO on immigration. He made no bones about what he wanted to do during the campaign, and he was elected anyway (see #1). There has been a great deal of hypeventilating going on about Trump's order, but I found David French of National Review (no friend of Trump) to be particularly enlightening on the facts surrounding the order. There can be no mistaking that whole classes of people have been excluded from entry into the United States in the past 40 years, including at least twice by order of Democratic Presidents. Put another way, what Trump has done is not without precedent. You may not like what he's done, but his authority to do it is broad, and he certainly telegraphed it for quite a while.

3. The immigration EO was poorly vetted and implemented. This is not a bug, but a feature, of the new Administration. And it is directly attributable to its determination to devalue those with experience and wisdom while raising the value of loyalty and zeal.  The plain truth of the matter is that either by omission or commission, the consequences of the EO as written were not subject to rigorous review by competent authority. That is because such competent authority does not currently exist in the nascent National Security Council staff, the Justice Department, the State Department, or the Department of Homeland Security. Slow to staff up and surprised by its own victory, the Administration is further hampered by opposition from many experienced national security experts and by its own political choice to exclude them from service.

4.  National Security Council membership is largely the President's prerogative. One of EO's on Friday laid out who would be the members of the Principals Committeee of the National Security Council.  Excluded (from the Obama version) are the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Director of National Intelligence; included is the President's political strategy czar Steve Bannon. Both of these moves have a number of critics. I think it is a bad idea to remove the Chairman and the DNI--and I honestly cannot understand the logic behind it. Again though--this is BY DEFINITION a choice of the Executive, and there is little to be done about it. Inclusion of Steve Bannon is something entirely different--and merits some discussion. I don't know Steve Bannon. I know what I've seen in interviews and public appearances, and he and I do not share a common ideology. In fact, I have little regard for his brand of nationalist populism.

That said, his boss seems to value his input--and I refer you again to #1. Trump won an election--in no small part because of the political advice he received from people like Bannon. While I may not agree with them, a great number of people across the country did--and that's how they won an election. Much of the kvetching about Bannon stems first of all, from the fact that he is a political figure--and for some reason, there is a sense that the NSC should be free from political considerations. The second source of discomfort is the straight up dislike Bannon has engendered because of his politics and ideology. Let's take the first part first. I have absolutely no problem with the President inserting his chief politcal strategist an the Principals Committee, because issues of war and peace are -- here it comes -- political matters. What did Clausewitz tell us? "War is the continuation of policy by other means". We have a civilian, elected Commander in Chief of our military--a Consitutional designation, by the way. The presence of a chief political adviser on the body that serves to debate the great questions of national security is not only sensible, but I believe essential. Whether you like it of not--that person, in this DULY ELECTED ADMINISTRATION is Steve Bannon.

To conclude: Do I personally agree with the President's EO on immigration? No. Of course I don't. I didn't agree with it when he promised to do so in the campaign, and I am not in favor of it today. I believe the legal and policy review process to which it was subjected was botched, which is why portions of it are going to face difficulty in the courts (see earlier faith in separation of powers). I don't believe it represents an effective tool to achieve the goal (make us safer, exclude terrorists), and I believe its chief value was as a political instrument designed to provide his electoral supporters with a "victory." But--it is wholly within his power to do what he has done, and he appears to be doing exactly what he told us he would do.  As for the Steve Bannon's place on the NSC, I'm far more worked up about the CJCS and DNI not being on it, than I am the President's political czar being on it.

Week One

Here we are, a week after the inauguration of President Trump, and much of Washington is in high dudgeon over Trump doing much of what he has said he would do and acting exactly like he has all along. Those who thought he would somehow be changed by the office didn't pay much attention during the campaign, and for those who enthusiastically supported him, there is no desire for him to change.

It is hard for me to get terribly excited, at least in a negative way. I've been largely impressed with Trump's cabinet picks, and most of his Executive Orders have been positive (although I continue to believe pulling out of TPP -- while initially a political benefit to the Trump base, will ultimately be a liability as it creates a giant vacuum into which China will pour). I continue to support a physical barrier between the US and Mexico, and it appears that Congress is coming to the realization that the American people are going to have to fund it, as is the actual process for such things in this country.

The place I inhabit politically is an interesting one. Because I haven't taken to the barricade in anti-Trumpism, his political supporters kvetch that I am disloyal and have not climbed aboard the train, and because I was vocally against him in the election, his detractors complain that I have been co-opted. I--on the other hand--think I am right where I want to be. The system worked, we had an election, we have a new President. I will (as I've written here) be happy to applaud the things I agree with and I will--with civility and specificity--point out differences.

Big Fat Friday Free For All

What's the matter, Chumley? Can't seem to find one of them pretty pink hats you want so badly? Wifey interrupting your pleasant retirement with not-so-subtle-urgings to go back to work?

Let it all out, friend. This is a SAFE SPACE!

What Would Cause Me to Protest?

I'm watching the events in Washington over the course of the last two days, as great crowds gather there to participate in public demonstration. Many were there to welcome the new President, and many were there to protest his ascension to the office. It is this latter group that I concern myself with here.

Clearly, something has moved them to this act--the act of public protest. There is the investment of their time and whatever money it cost to be there, so there is also a question of logistics for many. Those who protest without violence have my consistent approval. Knock yourselves out. That's what we do here---we bitch, we march, we get on TV. I don't necessarily get it right now, because my temperament leads me to believe someone should actually DO something worth protesting, rather than protesting on the basis of what they might do or what they have said they might do. But that's just me.

This process has however, led me to wonder what kinds of things might bring me to the act of public protest. I am an ideological conservative. Public protest is just not what we do. I certainly do not protest in anticipation of societal ills, and I doubt very seriously whether I could be brought to the point of marching and sign waving by the jot and tittle of our political process--meaning that when my side loses a legislative debate--I will raise noise here and on other social media, but I won't hop in my car, drive to the metro, pack myself like a sardine among others similarly moved by the political loss, and march. Put another way, I don't think you'll see a "Million Brooks Brothers March" any time soon.

No, for me to be moved to march, bright lines would have to be crossed. And so, in an effort to figure out what might drive me to the barricades, here is a framework for what would cause me to consider it:

1. The government is in some way actively and purposefully abridging the Constitutional rights of the citizenry. Short of the kind of thing Lincoln did in the Civil War, the Bill of Rights MUST mean something. It makes no difference if the action comes as the result of legislative majority. The Greeks told us long ago that the people can be a tyrant. An example? The internment of American citizens of Japanese descent in WWII. This would have brought me to the streets.

2. The government is in some way actively and purposefully enforcing the law in a manner that selectively targets groups based on their group affinity, as a matter of public policy. Had the Obama Administration been more convincingly shown to have (from the very top) targeted conservative groups for IRS intimidation, I could see myself carrying a sign in front of the IRS building. As it turned out, it looks to me that lazy (but still ideologically motivated) IRS officials DID go after conservative groups, but the lack of a direct tie to the White House seems important. That said, if it were shown that the Trump Administration was in some way punishing its enemies using the apparatus of the State selectively, this would trip my "protest" logic. But this logic applies to any administration.

3.  The nation engages in an armed conflict I consider antithetical to our interests. This is a tough one and full of interpretation. But that my friends, is what deciding whether to protest is all about. I have a rather wide "bucket" into which I place our national interests. Some are economic. Some are security. Some are reputational. And I can easily get to the point of not supporting a whole range of interventions. But one that brings me to the streets would likely have to be waged for reasons largely disconnected from even a loose interpretation of what I consider to be in the nation's interests.

Any suggestions for other criteria? I guess what it boils down to for me is the difference between how I react to a policy setback, and how I react to essential Constitutional questions.

On the Inaugural Protests

I had a snappy little exchange with a liberal friend of mine last night on Twitter. At some point in the evening when the protests began to turn violent, I tweeted something along the lines of not remembering there being violent conservative protests when Obama was inaugurated. My liberal friend then tweeted (without reference to me--so I cannot be sure that I was his target) these words "Fun watching GOPsters who were bitterly denouncing Trump several months ago, now with the vapors about the possibility of protests."

Apparently this fellow believed that because some of us strenuously objected to the possibilty of a Trump Presidency, we must therefore believe that violent protest was warranted (or should at the very least, be accepted) now that he had been elected. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The country conducted an election, there was a clear winner by the clearly stated rules of the game, it is time to get on with things.

That there are people protesting in the streets does not bother me. Only when they turn violent do I take issue. And seeing that the man had not even yet been inaugurated, that he had not yet made a single decision as President--there simply isn't a rational excuse for violent protest.

There seems to be an expectation among those on the left that those of us who were vocally anti-Trump during the election would then turn into take-to-the-barricades radicals when he was elected. That's just not the way it works, at least not with someone possessed of a classically conservative mind.

Inaugural Balls

As political as I am, I have attended only one inaugural ball in my life. In January 1993, I was the Flag Aide to a Three Star in Washington, and one of the senior civilians in our office was a genuine, Medal-of-Honor Recipient War Hero---Tom Kelley.  Tom and I became quite close (we shared a solid Irish sense of humor), and when Clinton won the election, Tom was able to get me two tickets to the Medal of Honor Ball, which as it turns out, would be the only one Clinton and Gore attended together.

My wife and I got all gussied up (she in ball gown, me in Dinner Dress Blues) and we had a blast.

Eighteen days later, we decided to separate.

Ten months later, we were divorced.

Haven't been to an inaugural ball since.

Trump Team Getting Out the Budget Knife

Here's a story to warm the cockles of a conservative's heart. This story from The Hill lays out the broad strokes of the developing Trump Administration budget proposal, which cuts $10T in spending over 10 years, including privatizing "public" broadcasting, and eliminating funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. This is change I can get behind.

More Navy!!!!

Some of you know that I've been engaged in an American Seapower Speaking Tour. I had a recent event videotaped, and below you can find a lightly edited version. Enjoy!

The Lowdown on the Showdown

War is upon us. So far it is an uncivil, loud and vicious war, and I think will continue to be. There will be casualties on both sides; ruined careers, ruined fortunes and ruined lives. The American political establishment has declared this war on behalf of the globalist elites. This war is waged by their foot soldiers in the 'bought and paid for' media, the academy and the federal bureaucracy against the middle-class of America. What instigated this war (their Archduke Ferdinand moment) was the presidential election of which the outcome was completely unacceptable. The elites (I make no party distinction) are full of anger, outrage and self-pity. They feel blindsided. They have convinced themselves outside influences are at least partly responsible for the result. They are beside themselves with angst believing the world is in peril without their enlightened leadership all the while knowing they could have affected the outcome, numerous times, had they just taken Donald Trump seriously. They are determined to fix their mistake.

What we are witnessing in Washington and New York is panic. In one short week a man they do not and cannot control, will take the reins of power. This situation is incomprehensible for a ruling class who think themselves the best and brightest, with not only an obligation but the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to rule America (and much of the world). For them the notion some pleb, without their validation and approval, without a clear 'understanding' as to what the new administration's policies will be vis-a-vis their positions and power, the idea some guy like Trump could take their Presidency and expose them to the 'will of the people', well the whole thought just leaves them speechless. Trump is a festering, open wound even BEFORE he takes office, and he has to go, there is no alternative. The political establishment, and even more so the 'wanna be' establishment, hates Donald Trump like no other. The American left hated Reagan, they hated Nixon, they hated the Bushes, but that was just business. This is different. This is bi-partisan and visceral. This is FEAR!

"FEAR IS THE ONLY TRUE ENEMY, BORN OF IGNORANCE AND THE PARENT OF ANGER AND HATE".    

The question is can Trump beat the establishment and what does this all mean for us? The answer is yes he can and everything.  We all know Trump doesn't fear the establishment. He's been fighting these kinds of people all his life. Plus he has at least one significant advantage. You see the guy on the bottom knows the guy on top all too well, but the guy on top has to work at knowing the people beneath him (or her). The Donald's business background has prepared him well for this job. Trump broke into Manhattan real estate AGAINST the advice of his very experienced father and Trump was smart enough and tough enough to beat them at their own game. Just consider for one second how hard it was to scratch his way to the top of that hill! He dealt with cronyism in government and unions, mafiosi, predatory banks, rules, regs and bullshit like you wouldn't believe. It boggles the mind. What Trump did wasn't free enterprise as I we know it, it was dealing with the corrupted, the criminal, the connected and the incorrigible... and he WON! This man understands how to beat a rigged game, a fact the establishment knows only too well. Hence the panic.

Regardless of how you may feel about Trump, step back a second and consider. Isn't all this what we've been waiting for? How many times on this very blog have we complained about media corruption? How many times have we pointed an accusing finger at Obama's cronyism and corruption? How many times have we seen our politicians refuse to represent us "WE THE PEOPLE" or obey our laws or hold themselves and their colleagues accountable? How much of our money will they blow? How many times will they exempt themselves from the rules they impose on us? They use and abuse us and we complain, and rightly so, but that's all we do. Now, at this moment in history, we have a rare opportunity in Donald Trump. I would even say a once in a lifetime opportunity. At any other time and place the man would be a disaster, but in our present circumstance he is Heaven sent being absolutely perfect for the job at hand. A guy with his skill-set, his mind-set, his toughness and determination showing up when we as a nation sit precariously close to the precipice, Good Grief it's almost biblical. All we have to do is hope and pray the left continues their reckless attacks, watch his back and let the guy be himself. Mark my words, if we stick by Trump he will break the back of the left, and we will get our country back.

So, if you think as I do the elites are ruining the country and destroying the greatest, most productive middle-class in the history of mankind and therefore MUST be taken to task and/or rendered powerless, that we need an AMERICAN cultural revolution to preserve our values and the rights and priviledges enunciated so well by the Founders, that the days of 'by and for the elites' and their failed globalist economics are OVER, then let's all commit to this Presidency. We owe it to ourselves, our children and our children's children to preserve, protect and defend American culture and the Judio-Christian values we hold dear. We owe it to the World as well. No other country can do what we do and still be a force for good. No one apart from we Americans can do it or will do it.

The establishment elites have a vastly different view, a view of entitlement and privilege and world governance. The believe the nation-state is obsolete. They are neither for nor against American interests, and they are standing in our way, but they will not go quietly. A war is not only necessary and inevitable, but desirable. If we want our country back we must take it and Trump is the best chance we've had in a generation. Now is the time. There is no alternative.

CW Does Some of that Navy Magic

Doing my annual thing at the Surface Navy Association Symposium. Vago Muradian of Defense and Aerospace Report did an interview with me that may be of interest to those tiring of politics....

From Russia With Love

Can you believe all the whining, pissing and moaning going on these days? Of course you can, we all knew the Dems would take the election hard, forgetabout the #nevertrump idiots. I personally am eating it up, their pain is my pleasure. It's wonderful to see the left thrashing about hoping someway, somehow they will find themselves back in power. I almost feel sorry for them, even though they did it to themselves and their efforts have no basis whatsoever in reality, but WTF, neither does their ideology. At this stage I am absolutely convinced they would resort to violence ON A GRAND SCALE if they thought; #1 there was any hope at all for success and #2 they could direct things from afar with no possibility of putting their own asses in harm's way. As I've said many times in the past, liberals are many, hardcore leftists few. Liberals are the storefront clerks, leftists are the shop owners in the back who rarely show their face. Liberals are do-gooder pussies, leftists are killers and thugs not the least bit shy about (how do they describe it?) cracking a few eggs to get their subjugated and compliant omelette they can eat off of for at least a generation. But before you buy into all this stuff about Russia "weaponizing" DNC emails (which apparently CW has) let's keep a few things in mind. It could all be 100% bullshit.

To start with do we indeed KNOW Russia hacked the DNC? The answer is maybe. Our Director of National Intelligence (a position created after 9/11 to act as a clearinghouse because liberals had put up so many bureaucratic impediments between our intelligence agencies the right hand didn't know if the left hand was scratching its butt or picking its nose) the venerable James Clapper is of no use on the subject. He is just another of Obama's political stooges, as are all the President's appointees. He's lied before Congress and repeatedly covered up facts that don't jibe well with the Baraq Hussein Obama official world view. In short he's a hack, I know it, you know it, and anybody paying attention knows it. So his testimony before that bitter loser John McCain's committee the other day has the same level of credibility as Rachel Dolezal's Ancestry.com profile. BTW I hear she's dating fake black dude Shaun King...or maybe they're just Facebook friends.

But having said that Lord knows none of us would put something like this past the Russians, or the Chinese, Israelis, Brits, French, Italians, Latvians or the Burkinabe if they had a God-damn computer and an outlet to plug it into. The point is everybody hacks everybody, if they can. And the fact the Democratic National Committee got hacked by SOMEBODY is NOT my problem. "But Hammer, they 'weaponized' those emails for the benefit of one candidate over another. We cannot allow our elections to be hijacked by a foreign power, especially Vlad Putin. He's so SCARY!" To which I say not nearly as scary as what was in the emails: Corruption, collusion and a laundry list of RICO predicates that would keep an honest prosecutor busy for the next several decades. "But Hammer...eh....we don't want to talk about that."

To put this in perspective, this whole business is a no more than a last-ditch effort by the MSM and the left (one and the same) to delegitimize Donald Trump before he even takes office, all the while distracting from the real criminality found in the emails. If John McCain and the bachelor (hint, hint) Lindsey Graham gave a good God-damn about the United States of America and the integrity of our elections they would be going after George Soros, Jan Schakowsky and her thug husband Robert Creamer who directed much of the violence at Trump rallies (otherwise known as a blatant attempt to affect our elections). Plus the idea that many who read this blog have bought into this narrative of deceit troubles me greatly. You need to wise up and stop being used. If Putin did it, he did us a favor!

A Trump supporter being "affected".

It Appears the Wall Will Not Be Paid for by Mexico

The entering argument for national sovereignty is being able to determine who enters and who stays in one's country.

We have a porous border with Mexico that needs to be effectively closed.

I fully support a physical wall being built.

I believed that it was a national security imperative, and that as such it would be funded by the American taxpayer.

It appears that the President-Elect agrees. 

On Term Limits

Senator Ted Cruz, capitalizing on a subject that is near and dear to America's growing populist movement and one that also has some adherents in the mainstream conservative movement, has introduced in Congress an amendment to the Constitution that imposes term limits on members of the House and Senate.The amendment limits service to three two-year terms in the House and two six-year terms in the Senate.  My compliments to Senator Cruz for refamiliarizing the American people with a proper method of amending the Constitution (see Article V), but as bad as Congress is, things would be measurably worse if this amendment were to become law. Here's why:

1. Like any other job, being a competent legislator takes time. After a certain amount of time, one begins to acquire expertise. Once attained, that expertise is applied to law-making. Under the Cruz amendment, members of our legislative branch would not be in Congress long-enough to attain this experitise and put it to work. Power would move naturally then from the legislators to unelected bureaucrats in the administrative state. Additionally, if you think there is a "swamp" now, just wait until the day when the only folks with policy expertise are lowly paid staffers and highly paid lobbyists. And if you think there is a revolving door now.....

2.  While we may detest Congress, we love our own Reps and Senators. Why should Americans be denied the services of those deemed best qualified to represent a given polity simply because those outside that polity don't like them? I don't care for Chuck Schumer. Not one bit. But the voters he represents returned him to office in 2010 with 66.4% of the vote. Clearly someone likes him.

Here's a pretty good piece on the subject from The Heritage Foundation from 2009. I think it holds up well.

RINO's Talk about the Future

Jonah Goldberg and Bill Kristol talk about where we are headed. A lot to like here.