Why I Worry

In May of 2017, after the bombing of the concert in Manchester, UK, where teen girls were killed and maimed by an Islamic terrorist, I wrote a post Our Children (https://commonsense-mark.blogspot.com/2017/05/our-children.html).  That post was my most read post on my blog.  In it, I asserted that a civilization that lacks the will to protect and nurture its children is in deep trouble.

My fears have not been allayed, and rather have gotten much worse.  The very institutions that have been set up to protect children have either been hijacked to exploit them, or have enabled their exploitation.  

First, in a stunning decision, a Detroit judge ruled that a federal law under which Muslim doctors were performing female genital mutilations were prosecuted was unconstitutional, stating “as laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be, it does not further the goal of protecting children on a nondiscriminatory basis.”  Of course, the defense attorneys in that case argued their position on 1^st amendment grounds --- freedom of religion.  In Judge Friedman’s eyes, not discriminating against a barbaric religious practice trumps the protection of these girls.  The judge relied on the commerce clause to throw out the charges, reasoning that their practice did not involve interstate commerce that could be regulated by the federal government.  But some of the girls were brought in from Minnesota, and if growing wheat on your own land that you sell in state (Wicker v. Filburn) is interstate commerce, how can your business of disfiguring girls from another state not be?  This decision is yet another instance of our legal system bending over backwards to accommodate this most barbaric and medieval procedure practiced in some corners of Islam.  Ironically, the ACLU teamed up with Maine Democrats to defeat a measure which would have made female genital mutilation illegal in Maine, arguing that it was already covered by federal law.  So much for that.  This most misogynist practice must be driven from our land, utterly, entirely and without question and citizens who engage in its practice need to be jailed and noncitizens deported. 

Also this week, former Michigan State president Lou Anna Simon was charged with 2 felonies and 2 misdemeanors for lying to investigators in the Larry Nassar abuse case.  It will be recalled that Nasser sexually abused dozens of young female athletes at MSU while serving as a team physician.  Last May, the university reached a $500 million settlement with the 332 victims (the Wall Street Journal reported that a bankruptcy filing was considered to deal with the claims).  Simon knew.  Other people working in the athletic department knew (including a gymnastics coach that was also charged.  Many of those are still working at MSU. 

The primary purpose of a university is to educate and shape young people so they can flourish in adult life.   The entire structure at MSU failed to protect these young female athletes from this monster, who will now carry the scars of Nassar’s abuse for the rest of their lives.   Most infuriating about this whole sick episode in higher education is that it was a female leader of an institution that enabled the exploitation of young women.

Finally, the Vatican is at it again.  Months after Cardinal McCarrick resigned amidst the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church and the grand jury report concerning the Pittsburgh Archdiocese was released, the Vatican blocked an effort by U.S. bishops to put forward a plan to curb abuse, ordering them to wait.  Wait for what, exactly?  A better plan by a Vatican that honored Cardinal Law?

Worse, in Chicago, Cardinal Cupich downplayed the furor by arrogantly dismissing it, “We have a bigger agenda than to be distracted by all of this.”   Again, what bigger agenda?  What could possibly be more important and urgent than protecting our children?

I do not wish to take on the role of Chicken Little, but you can see that our societal structures whose MOST IMPORTANT PURPOSE is to protect young people are failing them miserably, and indeed have become vehicles through which they are being exploited and abused.

If this corruption is not addressed, it does not bode well for us.

Home and Abroad

I had an interesting couple of days back to back last week as I attended small gatherings to hear former Obama economic advisor Austan Goolsbee and Middle East scholar Dr. Daniel Pipes speak.

I first came across Daniel Pipes as an undergraduate at The University of Chicago.  Pipes taught World History with the great William H. McNeill (who recently passed away) and is the son of Richard Pipes (also recently deceased), Soviet expert and former Reagan advisor.  Daniel Pipes gained notoriety after 9/11 as he had been sounding the alarm bell over radical Islam long before.  Indeed, the person that introduced Pipes opined, “If the world had listened to Dr. Pipes, there may not have been a 9/11.”

Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum, an “activist” think tank, devoted largely to Middle East politics and social developments and Islamism.  Soft spoken, understated, and very academic, Pipes contrasts sharply with Goolsbee and probably gets less media attention as a result.  His quiet voice forces one to listen carefully and in our case, was even sometimes a little hard to hear over the clatter of the servers serving lunch.  

Here is a brief summary of Dr. Pipes’s insights:

• ·        The furor over the murder of journalist Khashoggi will die down and will have minimal effect on U.S. Saudi relations.  Saudi Arabia is a totalitarian regime and MBS is instituting reforms that will take time to implement.
• ·        Turkey is lost.   Pipes called it Iran 2.0 and said that he can travel to Iran without fear but if he traveled to Turkey, he would be immediately arrested.   Erdogan made some good decisions over the first 7 years of his tenure but has made mistake after mistake over the last 7.  He has completely shut down all freedom of speech in that country and schools have now become Islamist.
• ·       “No one is paying attention, but South Korea is falling apart, but that is a topic for another day.” Pipes dropped that bomb but did not elaborate.
• ·     While they need to improve, the former Eastern Bloc countries are “generally moving in the right direction.”  While the MSM has criticized those governments as anti-democratic and far right, Pipes refers to them as “civilizationist,” protecting their sovereignty and culture.
• ·       As to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Pipes asserts that the Islamic world is fractured in their approach to Israel.  As to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, he believes Israel should adopt a “Israel wins, they lose” approach.  Wars end when one side stops the fighting, and not before.  He blames the Israeli security establishment for the current state of affairs as they are not willing to take the aggressive steps needed to end the conflict and win.  “They supply their enemies with food, electricity and fuel [during the fighting].  Who does that for an enemy?”
• ·        Pipes also noted that the left in America has become pro-Palestine while the right is pro-Israel.  This is causing problems among American Jews since they vote 80% Democratic.  Indeed the new Muslim congresswoman, celebrated by the MSM waived a Palestinian flag at her victory party and announced that she was representing the Palestinians.
• ·      The Middle East Forum has been attempting to bring Tommy Robinson to the U.S. to speak, and assisted in gaining his release from prison.  Robinson, it will be recalled, was jailed for speaking out in front of a British courtroom regarding the Muslim “grooming gang” members that were on trial.

As if on cue, just a couple of days later, the MSM criticized the Polish Independence Day parade as being too right wing and too nationalist and rockets began raining down on Israel from Gaza.

Goolsbee is almost a mirror image of Pipes, less scholarly, more flamboyant, and funny ----his timing is perfect.  Goolsbee was Obama’s economic advisor and is a regular on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox.  He is a perfect foil for Hannity and Hannity even lets him talk from time to time.

Goolbee is no fan of Trump’s but admitted that his forecast for growth was off.  He believes the growth spurt is temporary as the stimulative effect of the business tax cut and deficits run their course.

On politics, he believes that it is possible that Trump and the new Democratic House can work together to get an infrastructure bill done, but if the Democrats start to lawyer up and commence lawsuits and subpoenas, nothing will get done for two years.  The House also has the power to drag Trump’s agency heads in for endless hearings.

Perhaps Goolbee’s most interesting insights related to the Federal Reserve, the labor market and local conditions.  He said that the unwinding of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet in addition to the rate increases will, at some point, become too much for the economy to handle.  Most recessions are caused by overly aggressive Federal Reserve rate increases and that the Fed unwinding adds 35 to 50 basis points to the already increasing rates.

As to the labor market, Goolsbee believes that the unemployment rate is outmoded and artificially low.  During the recession, record numbers of people simply exited the labor market and went on disability.  With a 3.7% unemployment rate, we should have started to see wage increases but we haven’t yet.  He posits that it is because workers are still “coming off the bench” back into the labor market.

Finally, on the local level, Goolsbee said that despite our debt, he did not believe that the U.S. has become Greece.   However, he said that “while the U.S. is not Greece, Illinois might be.” 

So, I had a fascinating view of the economy and the world, compacted into 24 hours from two excellent commentators that come from different ends of the political spectrum.  It was most gratifying to reconnect in person with Dr. Pipes after sitting in his class so long ago.

Words and Phrases- Language of Postmodernists

One of the skills that the Left has acquired (and which Donald Trump is equally or more adept at) is branding and framing via the use of a short word or phrase.   That technique is useful because with a single vacuous utterance, you are able to destroy a more analytical evaluation and you put your adversary on the defensive.  Trump demonstrated his acumen at this during the 2016 campaign with “Crooked” Hillary, “Lyin’ Ted Cruz” and “Low Energy” Jeb.   And it is one of the reasons liberals despise him.

The Left has developed a series of these monikers that are highly effective  and, like barnacles, they stick for awhile and it takes some effort to scrape them off.  “Privilege,” especially “white privilege” is the most prevalent.  Never mind that many of us know lots of white people that hardly had privileged lives.  They are all swabbed with the same mop.   “Toxic masculinity” is another.  Never mind that good old fashioned raw physical masculinity comes in real handy in real desperate straights as wonderfully depicted in the film The 15:17 to Paris, when a group of toxically masculine young men thwarted an armed terrorist.   In less extreme cases, toxic, undeterred masculinity is useful when you get a flat in -below zero weather on a dark highway and the grizzled guy from the service station shows up with his jack.

But no other vacuous phrase is quite as insidious as “of color,”  which is used to categorize any person of non-caucasian ancestry.   To the Leftist postmodernists, the term “of color” automatically connotes someone who, through their heritage, has been oppressed and is at a structural disadvantage in our society, and therefore, those individuals deserve special treatment to level the playing field.  It lumps together Hispanics and African Americans on the opposite side of whites and is the companion phrase to “white privilege.”  It obliterates the old descriptive terms- “White,” “Hispanic,” “Black” or “African American,”  “Asian,” “Native American,”  which were perfectly functional when necessary and instead puts whites on one side and lumps African American and Hispanics on the other.

The term “Person of Color” is a sneaky, divisive term concocted by the Left to further identity politics and should be wholly rejected.  It adds nothing to our society and culture and unnecessarily builds walls between us.

The underhanded appearance of this term became clear to me after I heard Kenneth B. Morris, the descendant of the great Frederick Douglass speak last summer.  Morris spun out stories and his family connection to Douglass, told anecdotes of his escape, reminded us that African slaves were inhumanly beaten, abused, and hunted down like animals.  Mr. Morris reminded us that the existence of black slavery was not that long ago, really.  Those were his people.  That was his heritage.  It was awful and remains a dark spot on American history.

But the working class neighborhood I grew up in consisted largely of Eastern European and Mexican.  And many of the parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts of my peers were Poles and Lithuanians that escaped from the Stalinist Eastern Bloc.   The best friend of my best friend’s father was shot in the head in front of him at age 17.  He himself escaped by hiding in sewers and ditches for weeks.  Another friend’s parents escaped one of Stalin’s concentration camps in Lithuania and were hunted by Russian thugs with guard dogs.  My neighborhood was replete with those first hand stories of Communist oppression, and are most vividly captured in Ruta Sepetys’s novel Between Shades of Gray. Those were my people.  And that is my heritage.  Mr. Morris and I have more in common than at first appears.

The Lithuanian and Polish immigrants share a great deal more with African American than with Hispanics.  To be sure, they were oppressed at different times by different people.  But if you are suffering the terror of chased through the woods by people with guns, truncheons, and dogs with your heart racing, those experiences are quite the same whether it is a plantation owner or a Stalinist thug..  None of the Hispanics suffered oppression of that nature at all.  They simply migrated up here and took blue collar jobs and scratched out a living like the rest of the neighborhood.

That is why I utterly reject “Persons of Color” as an artificial, unhelpful and damaging construct.  It gets the categories completely wrong, unless you want to have a discussion of skin pigmentation. But if you wish it to connote the actual experiences of a peoples, it is meaningless and misleading.

The photo above is of a Soviet work camp.   Looks pretty similar to a 1850’s Georgia plantation, doesn’t it?

Projection

As we head into the midterms this week, another phenomena has me puzzled and disturbed—the blatant racism and antiSemitism manifested by the Left.   And this is not just an isolated incident.  It is occurring across all fronts—in academia, the MSM, social media and among politicians.   It is as if the Left has been granted a license to engage openly in this kind of thing.  And all the while accusing Trump and anyone that voted for him racist and bigoted.

I first raised this issue last fall when the New York Times published a repulsive op-ed by Ekow Yankah entitled “Can My Children Be Friends With White People?”  In it, Yankah says he’s going to teach his children not to trust white people.  Breathtaking in its blatant racism, the essay was utterly contrary to all of the messages of the great Martin Luther King.

But fast forward less than a year, and the same New York Times hired Sarah Jeong as an editor, whose social media posts included such as “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men” and “#cancelwhitepeople.”

Just a few weeks ago, Georgetown law professor Christine Fair tweeted out that “white GOP senators deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine. Yes.”

Last week, Don Lemon of CNN claimed that, “the biggest terror threat is white men.”

It’s pretty clear that the Left believes it has a license to demonize and categorize white men in ways that we have never seen before and in ways that would not be permissible to do to other segments of our society.

But it doesn’t end with white men.  Last week, in a flippant attempt at a “joke,” when an interviewer confused Eric Holder and Cory Booker, exclaimed, “they all look alike.”  As Freud asserted, “There are no jokes.”  Such a statement would get any other person banished from the airwaves.

And when Kanye West showed signs of getting too cozy with Trump, CNN commentator Bakari Sellers said, “Kanye West is what happens when negroes don’t read.”

Most insidious and dangerous is the antiSemitism that has crept into our culture under the cloak of the “free Palestine” movement, and has been embraced by the Democratic party.

Just a few months ago, Democratic icon Bill Clinton appeared on the same stage with antiSemite Louis Farrakhan.  Photos have emerged of the grinning jackass Farrakhan with Eric Holder and Barack Obama.  Farrakhan recently referred to Jews as “termites” and has a long history of making vicious antiSemitic statements.  Yet no Democrat has condemned him and while Twitter suspended more benign commenters such as James Woods and former Reagan assistant secretary Paul Craig Roberts, Farrakhan is able to send his sick messages out with impunity.

But the license to engage in racism and antiSemitism is not limited to politicians and media. In a shocking and grotesque product rollout, Ben & Jerry’s introduced a new flavor of ice cream, “Pecan Resistance” and featured none other than Sharia-touting anti-Semite hate monger (and Farrakhan pal) Linda Sarsour.  The Ben & Jerry’s product announcement came just days after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting that massacred 11 Jews.  Ben & Jerry’s then immediately chose to associate Linda Sarsour with its brand. 

Comments and acts like these would have been met with repercussions a decade ago, but apparently are fine now.  And that’s a very dangerous thing.  

The Meltdown- A Decade Later

9/11 exposed our defense vulnerability.  The housing crisis exposed the fragility of our financial system.  This week, the shooting in the Pittsburgh synagogue and the sending of bombs to Democratic leaders highlighted the frailty of our social fabric.  It’s hard to feel solid and secure at this particular moment in history.

Last week I attended a program put on by the Becker Friedman Institute at which former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and former Senator Chris Dodd spoke about the financial crisis as we are now a decade past the crash (although still feeling economic and political ripples from it).  Paulson and Dodd were two principal architects of the stabilization and recovery efforts undertaken by the government to pull us back from the edge of the abyss.   While there was a great deal of pain suffered in the U.S., and some may never fully recover, the efforts of people like Hank Paulson, Chris Dodd, Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner undoubtedly rescued us from something much, much worse.  And both agree that the regulatory scheme put into place makes it less likely that we will have another fire like the one we had in ’08 following the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Paulson admitted he had a lot of sleepless nights with visions of breadlines throughout the crisis, with the worst moment coming when he knew that Lehman would fail.   He asserted that panics by definition are unpredictable and both he and Ben Bernanke underestimated how badly this one undermined the financial system.  Never before had the U.S. experienced a general decline in home mortgages.  Ben Bernanke missed the level of contagion that the crisis caused.

He bemoaned the lack of authority that he had to manage the crisis, but credits the fact that he had built relationships on both sides of the aisle before the crisis hit.  He also was able to stabilize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before Lehman failed as they were the only source of mortgage credit at the time. He said that they were able to use the authority they had imaginatively by guaranteeing funding for Fannie and Freddie rather than injecting capital directly.  In the U.S., putting public money in a private company is a “red line.”

The TARP program, while unpopular, was sophisticated and successful.  They were able to persuade 700 banks to take TARP money, thereby avoiding singling out the weaker banks which would have exacerbated the crisis.

Interestingly, both Paulson and Dodd defended their actions during the crisis.  Paulson said, “Even if I were omniscient, I don’t know what I would have done differently. I didn’t have all the authority I needed.”  Likewise, Chris Dodd asserted that, “I will go to my grave believing we did the right thing at that moment.”  Both are probably correct.

Paulson in particular made two comments that leave large unanswered questions.  First, Paulson said that he would rather have a lot of authority and a high bar for using it rather than have to go back to Congress.   Secondly, he regretted that they were not able to communicate to the public and create a better understanding of why it was critical to save the financial system.  Indeed, the presentation itself was interrupted by a single protester (that was escorted quickly out of the room) who screamed at Paulson for not doing enough for “the people” and that they had bailed out the banks.

As to the first issue, I understand that as in war, a financial national emergency requires the granting of authority to the government and flexibility to use that authority that it would not ordinarily possess in normal times.   Still, Paulson’s blanket statement leaves open many questions.  What type of authority?  To do what, exactly?  What would the triggers for granting such authority be?   How long would such authority last?   Paulson seems to argue for the ability under certain circumstances to at least dictate “curfews” if not financial “martial law.”  Exactly what would that authority look like.   As with the “red line” of putting public money into private enterprises, Americans are loath to grant blanket, unlimited, unaccountable authority to any one person or even a committee.

I am much more sympathetic to his second point concerning their failure to communicate adequately to the American public.  First, they did not want to spook the public and make a liquidity run worse.  But second, it may be that, like “Sully” landing his flight in the Potomac that same winter, we had just the right people in the right positions to deal with the emergency.  The skill set needed to fix the problem is not the same as communicating a complex idea to the public.  None of Paulson, Tim Geithner or Ben Bernanke will ever light up a room with their public speaking skills.   But all were calm, collected and focused at a time we most needed them.  In fact, Paulson commented that early in the crisis, Ben Bernanke in a meeting of treasury officials and congressmen calmly said, “If you do not act within days, the entire financial system of the United States, and much of the rest of the world will melt down.”  If I had to choose between great orators and adept problems solvers at that time, I would go with the latter.

Interestingly, having just seen Gordon Wood, Wood noted in his book, “Friends Divided” ’s recent book on Jefferson and Adams, Jefferson scorned paper money and banks.  Jefferson agreed with the French Philosopher, DeSutt de Tracy that “all paper money was a frenzy of despotism run mad.”   And Jefferson proclaimed that, “We are undone, my dear Sir, if this banking mania is not suppressed.”

How prophetic.

Back to Our Roots

At age 84, Gordon Wood is still doing book tours.  As the nation’s foremost living historian of the Revolutionary period, Mr. Wood is out lecturing on his new book, “Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.”  Wood is the winner of the Pulitzer Prize and the Medal of Honor.   He is mentioned in the same breath as Page Smith and Samuel Eliot Morison.  His writing is clear, readable and accessible.

And in these tumultuous political times, he is just the sane voice the doctor ordered.  With a swath of the country convinced that America is a colonial, dominant power that is a source of evil and discord in the world, Wood reminded me of our glorious heritage through his latest book, contrasting two of our most important Founders.   Wood’s mind is still crisp.  Although academic looking, he moves with the body of a man thirty years younger.  His presentation was organized, methodical and he steered completely clear of our modern day politics, even in the question and answer.

Gordon would could have entitled his book “Frenemies.”  Jefferson and Adams represented two polar aspects of the young nation, and their views echo to this day.  Jefferson was optimistic about human nature and confident in the future.  Adams had a much more cynical nature about the human condition.  Jefferson thought people were blank slates and were created equal.  Adams was on the opposite pole of the nature/nurture continuum.  Jefferson was a Francophile.  Adams admired the English constitution.  Wood asserted that Adams was as important to the American Revolution as Jefferson, but their political struggle (and Jefferson’s eventual victory in it) shaped the nation forever.

People took it as providential that the two men died on the same day, July 4, exactly 50 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a document that Adams lamented that he had not written.

As many other historians have, Gordon Wood found it miraculous that these intellectuals came together in one place at one time.  But Wood has noted that “clusters” of genius tend to occur.  Scotland had Adam Smith and David Hume.  Ireland has a long history of great literary genius.  Wood might also have thrown in the economics department at the University of Chicago in that crowd with its 9 Nobel Prizes.

Two things struck me about Wood’s talk and book.  First, our seemingly rancorous time is not unprecedented.  As early as 1790, there were concerns that the South might secede.   Bitter partisanship is not new.  Name calling, the partisan press, the fight over the size and reach of the federal government have been with us since our inception.  In fact, Alexander Hamilton wrote a pamphlet decrying the “eccentric tendencies” of Adams and said he had an “ungovernable temper,” “vanity without bounds,” “extreme egoism” and was “unfit for office.”

Sound familiar?

It all helped give a little perspective.

In addition to their genius and devotion to the Republic, the Founders were also known for something else—they knew when it was time to quit.  Washington retired to Mount Vernon.  Jefferson also tried to retire from public service before being pressed into service again, “No state,” he said, “had a perpetual right to the services of its citizens.”   How refreshing an attitude.  Today, it’s almost impossible to get rid of the bastards.

Up, Down, and Out

Now that we are headed into the 4^th quarter of the year, the Kavanaugh saga is behind us and the midterms are just ahead, let’s take stock to see who is up and who is down and who is out.

Donald Trump- Trump is definitely up.  The Trump economy is rolling.  He nudged over the 51% approval rating in the most recent Rasmussen poll.  While Trump’s mocking of Ford near the end of the process turned off several of the independent Republicans, he largely stayed out of the process. 

Michael Avenatti- Down.  Without corroboration, Ms. Ford’s only other hope of tanking Kavanaugh would have been for other women to come out of the woodwork and accuse Kavanaugh of the same thing.  What Avenatti dredged up was so unbelievable that many began to see the entire thing as a false, political ruse.  Like a contaminated piece of real estate, Julie Swetnick’s outrageous story began to leach into the whole process.   Now, even Democrats and the MSM are starting to turn on Avenatti.

Susan Collins—Major up.  Derided as a RINO by hard core conservatives, Collins delivered a reasoned, statesmanlike speech supporting her decision to support Kavanaugh.   Collins’s speech was written as carefully and thoughtfully as if it were a judicial opinion.  Most notably, she said she found Ms. Ford’s testimony to be sincere, painful, and compelling, but conspicuously omitted the word “credible.”  That told me she though about every word in her speech.   She was overtly gracious to Dianne Feinstein, and accepted Feinstein’s claim that she did not leak Ford’s letter.  We need Senators like Collins and less of them like Booker.

Pope Francis—Major down.  Francis stonewalling on the sex abuse scandal and demonizing his critics have left many of the faithful wondering whether they can even be Catholic anymore.   He speaks in the language more often used by Central and South American communists.  His deal with the Chinese that gave the Chinese government input on who can be Archbishop in that country was abhorrent.  His handpicked Cardinal Cupich in Chicago brushed off the sex abuse scandal with, “We can’t get distracted by this. We’ve got a bigger agenda.”  Francis could conceivably lead the Church into the biggest schism since Martin Luther.

Robert Mueller—Who?

Jordan Peterson—Down.  The warrior against Social Justice Warriors tweeted that Kavanaugh should withdraw, and thereby vindicate himself and preserve his reputation.  Huh?  Peterson failed to see that the attack on Kavanaugh was motivated in part by radical feminists trying to get Title IX sexual codes adopted by society writ large (burden of proof on the accused, limiting rebuttal proof, broadening the definition of “assault”).   His stance on Kavanaugh dealt him a major setback as a public intellectual.

Lindsey Graham--- Big up.  Like Collins, Graham has been derided by the right.  Mark Levin often has referred to him as “Goober” but Graham stepped up at just the right time and delivered a fiery, impromptu speech that summed up the Democratic antics and character assassination of Kavanaugh.  Graham, along with Collins, closed the deal.

David Hogg—Who?

China—Down.  Thanks in part to Trump, we are seeing what the Chinese regime is all about—theft and bullying.  Stealing intellectual property or coercing out of our companies, dumping products, hacking into government and corporate systems, manipulating their currency, spying either through our universities, or, as was disclosed last week, by planting chips in circuit boards, the Chinese regime has revealed itself.   I grew up on the religion of free trade.  But good trading partners don’t steal each others' stuff.

Nikki Haley- Out.  Her sudden departure tears a significant hole in the Trump foreign policy team.  The abruptness of it all left pro and anti-Trumpers speculating as to the real reason for her resignation.   She was one person who seemed to be able to both push Trump’s agenda and push back at him when she believed she needed to. 

MSM—Way down.  They gave Julie Swetnick and her icky lawyer plenty of airtime.   CNN’s Kaitlan Collins was discovered to have made homophobic tweets.  The New York Times hired Sarah Jeong as an editor despite her racist and anti-male tweets.  The Late Show Colbert writer Ariel Dumas tweeted out “Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”  The New York Time did a special section on the tax schemes employed by Donald Trump’s father to shelter wealth (but did no such expose on Barack Obama’s communist parents).    It’s hard to imagine the MSM falling farther in trust and esteem, but it has.

Truth—Modestly up.  “Hands up.  Don’t shoot.” became a mantra although it NEVER HAPPENED. The Left attempted the same with Christine Blasey Ford.  Ford couldn’t corroborate anything and couldn’t establish a pattern of behavior with Kavanaugh.  Similarly in Chicago, despite a vigorous defense and a “code of silence” a jury found Jason Van Dyke guilty of 2^nd degree murder of Laquon McDonald. 

In the end, facts do matter.