Was the Revolutionary War Fought Over Slavery?

According to the New York Times Magazine's 1619 Project, the reason that America broke away from Great Britain was that the British government was going to outlaw slavery. This is so stupid it hurts.

Great Britain didn't outlaw the slave trade until 1807 and they didn't outlaw slavery itself until 1833 and it did not become fully effective until 1840. Granted there was an abolitionist movement in England in the 1770s, but there was also one in the colonies.

Under English law, slavery was legal in every colony in 1776. Once independence was declared, various colonies began outlawing it. Six states outlawed it by 1790 and all of the northern states had abolished it or were working to eliminate it by 1804. Slavery was never allowed in the Northwest Territory which meant that free states outnumbered slave states through the Civil War.

Given all of that and how long it took England to outlaw slavery throughout Great Britain, it's offensive to claim that the Revolution was inspired by a desire to keep slaves.

The Objection to Universal Background Check Explained

It's a knee-jerk reaction: there's a mass shooting and immediately the call is renewed for Universal Background Checks, AKA the Gunshow Loophole. This would require a background check for any transfer of a gun. Some proposed versions would even require it for lending a gun to a member of the family. The problem with this as a solution to gun violence is that there has yet to be a single mass shooting where either the shooter(s) passed a background check or the gun existing law was broken for the shooter to obtain the gun. In Columbine, the grandfather of school shootings, a cousin bought the guns and was charged for it. In the recent Dayton shooting, the gunman was legally able to buy guns but a friend made the purchases so his parents wouldn't know. It should be pointed out that the guns used in the vast majority of drug and gang related crimes were obtained illegally.

It should also be pointed out that during the Obama administration the ATF tried to exploit "gunshow loophole" and the "dark web" to buy guns. They were unable to make any purchases while posing as someone who would not pass a background check.

 

So right off the bat you have a disconnect between gun owners and people who want "common sense gun legislation". If universal background checks won't stop mass shootings then why are people pushing so hard for them?

Many of the people pushing for this are doing it reflexively. They've been told that this is needed all of their adult lives going back to Bill Clinton in the 1990s. They never stopped to examine the effectiveness of background checks because people they trust have already told them that these work.

But some people have to know how ineffective these would be. Why are they still pushing for it? What will they gain from them?

The most charitable motive is that they hope to slow the number of gun purchases by making it difficult enough that people give up on the purchase or don't bother in the first place. Opposition to this is the same as opposition to obstacles to abortion. The advocates worry that allowing any anti-gun legislation to pass will make it easier for stricter legislation. Once a background check is mandated then it's fairly simple to extend the time needed for it. In California and other places where local law enforcement has to sign off on concealed carry permits, some authorities have refused to ok a single application turning a formality into a roadblock. That could well happen to background checks.

The real scare for gun owners is that when a background check has to be performed on all transfers, that gives the government a list of gun owners that could be used for confiscation. While this is unlikely in the US, it is how England was able to disarm its population. In England, every gun had to be registered. That made it easy for the government to ask every registered gun owner for their gun.

At its heart, this is an emotion vs reason argument. People who want background checks are not acting rationally and are unwilling to listen to reasons why this would be ineffective. Rather than listening to gun-owners' objections, they see the gun-owners as either tools of the NRA or "being willing to sacrifice childrens' lives". Beign talked down to like that just makes the gun owners dig in deeper with their opostition.

 

The Problems with Joe

Joe Biden tops the polls of contenders for the Democratic nomination for president. The first two debates didn't budge him. His biggest challenger, Bernie Sanders, has slid a bit and is now fighting it out with Elizabeth Warren for second place. This is typical. Biden is a former Vice-President and when one of them runs he gets to be his party's candidate (the one exception to this was Hubert Humphrey who narrowly failed to get nominated for a second time in 1972 following his loss in 1968). Biden has a glow about him from residual warmth for President Obama and he projects the image of a father or grandfather. There are some warning flags that Biden is not up to being president.

Biden has a reputation as a "gaff machine". He often says things wrong. Recently he told a group of children that " Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kid". He caught his mistake and added " wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids." It's possible that he slipped and said "white" when he meant "wealthy" or it could be a Freudian slip. It's also easy to write off him getting the locations of last week's shootings wrong. Trump made a similar mistake. But some of Biden's other slips are much harder to ignore.

Recently he also said, " those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president". The shooting happened in 2018, more than a year after he left office. His campaign says that he was thinking of the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 but that raises more questions.Sandy Hook involved very young children while Parkland was young adults, some of them months away from graduating high school and the two shootings were more than five years apart. That is more significant than substituting one "w" word for another.

This is nothing new. In 2008 he talked about how FDR went on TV to address the nation after the stock market crash of 1929. Again, this was more than a slip of the tongue. FDR wasn't elected until 1932 and no one was on TV in 1929.

There is also Biden's temperament. He has a temper and often resorts to violent imagery. When the Access Hollywood tape came out with Donald Trump's comments on touching women. When asked about it, Biden said  "The press always ask me, don't I wish I were debating him. No, I wish we were in high school, I could take him behind the gym. That's what I wish."

A year or two later, when asked about debating Trump he referenced Trump looming behind Clinton and said if it was him, he'd have turned around and slugged him (note, Trump never left his podium. Clinton repeatedly crossed the stage and stood between Trump and the camera in a practiced move to make Trump appear to loom over her.)

In a different interview Biden said, "The idea that I'd be intimidated by Donald Trump? ... He's the bully that I've always stood up to. He's the bully that used to make fun when I was a kid that I stutter, and I'd smack him in the mouth." 

Recently when asked about debating Trump, Biden said he was looking forward to it and raised his fists in a boxing stance.

It's not only Trump that causes Biden to lose his temper. Recently a teenage girl asked him how many sexes there are. He said "three". She asked him to name them and he accused her of playing games. She started to walk away and he grabbed her arm and said he was the first to support (gay) marriage. This was a very minor incident although it left the girl upset but it shows Biden's temper.

He also (with a smile on his face) challenged Trump to a pushup contest.

If I was a Democrat I would be very worried that this man was my front-runner and the face of moderation.

If Trump's a racist then why is it so hard to find proof?

We're constantly told that President Trump is an irredeemable racist but I have yet to see an accurate quote taken in context that proves this. Why is this so hard?

The quote most often used "good people on both sides" was butchered. In the same breath he condemned the white supremacists and then went on to say that some of the people protesting the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee were acting in good faith and speculated on statues of Washington and Jefferson being next (surprise, he was right). There's no racism there.

After some ISIS-inspired attacks in the US including the Pulse Nightclub shooting and during a wave of refugees from ISIS-infested territories, Trump suggested a temporary freeze on accepting people from these countries until we could put stronger vetting in place. This is still being referred to as a ban on all Muslims.

At least three times Trump has made statements about the violent drug-gang MS-13 that were rephrased to claim that he was talking about all Latinos.

Just a few days after people insisted that it was not racist for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to respond to attacks from the Squad, the same people insisted that it was racist for Trump to respond to their attacks. His tweet suggested that the three of them who were from different countries/territories or whose parents were should clean them up before telling us how to change the US. He did not tell them to "go back where they came from" which is how his tweet was reported. The same was true when he responded to attacks from Rep. Elijah Cummings by pointing out how little he's done for his district and how bad things are in Baltimore. Suddenly it's racist to point out reality.

In the run-up to the 2016 election, the Washington Post had at least a dozen reporters investigating Trump and the worst example of racism they could find was his father's company being fined for discrimination in the 1970s.

So, again, if Trump is so racist then why do they have to manufacture all of the evidence of it, something like saying that "poor kids can be as smart as white kids?"

Why Trump's Supporters Still Support Him

Trump haters keep asking this question, "Why to people still support him?" This is usually accompanied by a list of heinous acts Trump has done and sometimes a list of virtues that the Obamas embodied.

There are some interrelated reasons. It starts back in the early 1990s with Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton. During his confirmation hearings in 1991, Thomas was attacked as unfit for the court because of accusations of sexual harassment. But then, the following year the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton. Clinton has has multiple extra-marital affairs, before, during and after his presidency. Some of these were clearly worse than anything Clarence Thomas was accused of. His supporters made it clear that they didn't care what his personal life was like as long as he supported the proper policies in the White House (starting with abortion). There was no question that George H. W. Bush was the more upright person but Clinton supporters didn't care. In fact, when his affair with Monica came out, Clinton supporters outright admitted that their outrage to Thomas had all been an act to keep him off of the court.

Once you've admitted that your moral outrage depends on the policies of candidate it's hard to be taken seriously. And this wasn't ancient history. We almost had Bill back in the White House again as First Gentlemen.

And it's not like Hillary Clinton was a spotless candidate, either. The choice wasn't between Trump and Obama. It was between Trump and a Clinton. The list of scandals she has been involved in is far longer than I want to devote space to here. It was bad enough that, on Inauguration Night, 2001, SNL did a sketch about all of the last-minute Clinton scandals with the punch-line "What do you expect, we're the Clintons?"

In addition to having an unsteady moral compass, the Democrats also showed that no one was virtuous enough to escape attack as a racist. McCain was going to roll back civil rights to the 1950s. Romney was going to roll them back to the 1950s and bring back slavery. The two primary attack against Trump, moral superiority and racism, were blunted by overuse.

Many of the attacks on Trump were exaggerations or outright lies and his supporters know it. He did not call the neo-klansmen good people. He did not follow Hillary around the stage. He did not collude with the Russians. It's not racist if Speaker Pelosi attacks the Squad but if Trump does it's a top news item for days (complete with a twisted version of what he actually said). Never-Trumpers seem to believe that the louder they say these things the more effective they are but instead Trump supporters just tune them out.

There's also a matter of policies. Obama's policies hurt a lot of the middle class. He presided over the slowest recovery in history. Obamacare caused a dramatic rise in insurance costs for people who had been buying catastrophic insurance. His middle-east policies were a disaster. He inherited a stable Iraq and, through mismanagement, allowed the rise of ISIS. He allowed Russia to expand. He signed the Paris Accords which would have hurt American industry in exchange for a rounding error in CO2 reductions. Clinton promised to continue or expand on these policies. The current crop of candidates has moved far to the left of candidate Obama.

The Democrats have become the party of heavily urban areas. They openly disdain people who live in the suburbs and rural areas.

So, the question really becomes, "Why don't Trump supporters abandon him and embrace a candidate who despises them and who's policies will hurt them but who is a certified member of the ruling elite?" To ask it that way is to answer it.

A final note on the Obamas: The image we have of them as the ideal couple is a media creation. She hated being First Lady. He didn't like working with people and preferred to go over briefing papers alone at night. Foreign leaders hated meeting with him because it always came with a lecture. He was ultra-competitive, a poor loser and a worse winner. He also had a poor opinion of rural voters, describing the people who preferred Hillary in 2008 as bitter, clinging to guns, religion and racism.

Why Conservatives Mock PolitiFact

Several days ago Representative AOC posted a picture of herself during a visit to an immigrant detention center last year when she was still a candidate. She was nearly doubled-over in grief in front of a chain-link fence giving the impression that seeing children in cages was to much for her to bare. A few days later conservative sites posted photos takes from a different angle. These showed that there was nothing on the other side of the fence but an access road with some parked cars and a nondescript building in the distance. There was not a child to be seen. This gave rise to an Internet meme about AOC crying in front of a parking lot.

Enter the "nonpartisan" fact-checking site PolitFact. They decided to do a fact-check on this but they didn't fact-check AOC's original picture which implied she was crying over children, nor did they fact-check the conservative sites which accurately described the pictures. Instead they fact-checked the Internet meme's use of the word "parking lot". They carefully showed pictures documenting that what was in the background was cars parked on a road rather than on a parking lot. Based on this, they rated the meme false.Left unrated was the fact that AOC was weeping in front of a mass of pavement and parked cars.

This is a perfect example of why conservatives mock PolitiFact. Any real fact-checking would have made AOC look bad. They managed to phrase the question in such a way as to ignore the whole AOC question and concentrate on the work "parking lot". Even then, a fair site would have rated the meme mostly true. After all, she was in front of cars on pavement. But they managed to ignore the context of the picture in such a way to give the impression that AOC did not fake her histrionics. More people will see the false rating and not bother to read the details so by framing it this way they covered for AOC.

Why I Couldn't Care Less About the Women's Soccer Team Win

The American Woman's Soccer Team won the World Cup. Big Whoop. I'm sick of hearing about it. I've never been much of a sports fan and even less a soccer fan. But there are several other reasons that I'm less than thrilled about the team.

They got off to a bad start by showing poor sportsmanship (shortspersonship?). They were always the favorite team. They made a big show of celebrating each score against a team that never stood a chance against them.

Then there's the politics. Star player Megan Rapinoe made a show of not standing for the national anthem and saying ahead of time that she'd never accept an invitation to the White House from President Trump. This isn't a regular pro team playing in an American league. She's a member of a team representing the USA but her actions show that she does not represent all Americans. She doubled down on this in a post-win interview when she said that she'd be willing to meet with Nancy Pelosi, AOC and anyone else who she agrees with. But she won't meet with any politicians she disagrees with. Again, she's supposed to be on a team representing all Americans. And she's a soccer player, not an elected official.

And, finally, there's the pay issue. The team's been very vocal about wanting pay equity with the men's team. But the issue is a LOT more complicated than they are making it out to be. In the World's Cup, the men's tournament makes a lot more money than the women's does. Both teams are paid a proportion of the earnings. The women get a bigger share of a smaller pot. In the US, the woman's team's pay is figured very differently. They are on a salary with benefits. The men are only paid when they play and have to pay their own benefits.

When a team representing the USA wins a championship then it should be a cause for a national celebration. This isn't. It's become multiple reasons to browbeat the country instead of uniting it.

Trump, Kim and the Editorial Staff

I saw an editorial recently that was written after President Trump became the first American President to enter North Korea. Naturally, the editorial downplayed that historic event and said that he should leave the negotiations with North Korea to normal diplomatic channels. This is an excellent example of an editor who reflexively hates anything that Trump does without bothering to use any sort of historic perspective.

Regular diplomatic channels were used by the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. The result of that was that North Korea is now a nuclear power with intercontinental missiles capable of reaching Washington DC (although it's doubtful they can get anywhere near as far with a nuclear payload and their guidance systems are iffy). They also celebrated their chairman's birthdays by releasing videos of their missiles destroying American cities. Regular diplomatic channels were so ineffective that the Obama administration gave up and adopted a policy of "strategic patience" which was a euphemism for kicking the can down the road. So, after 24 years of letting diplomats handle the negotiations we were left with a country that is more dangerous than nuclear powers like Pakistan and India (neither of them has tested intercontinental missiles).

Our dealings with other countries made a deal with North Korea even less likely. The Bush administration toppled two governments. Afghanistan was understandable since they were sheltering the perpetrators of 9/11 but Iraq had given up its nuclear program and we overthrew it on suspicion that they had restarted it.

The Obama administration doubled down on this. First they helped overthrow Libya, a country that had voluntarily given up its nuclear program. Then they ratified Iran's program and sent them billions on condition that they simply slow their nuclear program down a bit. We even let them keep their missile program.

The clear message to the North Koreans was that the US is more likely to overthrow a country that gave up its nuclear program and to reward one that refuses to give it up.

Following the tradition of leaving advice for one's successor, Obama warned Trump that North Korea would be his first challenge.

So Trump took a completely different approach. He realized that North Korea will never give up its nuclear program without the consent of Kim Jong-un but if Kim agrees to disarm then it will happen. He also employed a carrot and stick approach. He used Viet Nam as an example of a country that went from being at war with the US to being a prosperous trading partner. At the same time he tightened sanctions. His message is that North Korea can be like South Korea or Viet Nam and become peaceful and prosperous but first they have to give up their nuclear program.

So far North Korea has refused to disarm but, and this is important, they also stopped testing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. This may be the best that can be accomplished but it's still a major improvement over the state of affairs when Trump took office.

And that is why Trump is pursuing the proper course and the editorials are wrong.

A Few Final Thoughts on Colin Kaepernick and Independence Day

First Nike announced that it was recalling a new line of shoes because Colin Kaepernick objected to the Betsy Ross flag on them. Then Colin himself out out a tweet on the 4th of July quoting from Frederick Douglass saying " This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn."

This is all very childish and ignorant. The American Revolution was not about slavery. Slavery existed world-wide before and after the revolution. It did not completely end in the United States until the Civil War but this was the beginning of its end. Massachusetts incorporated language from the Declaration in it's state constitution in 1780 and by 1783 this was used in court cases to outlaw slavery in that state. By 1804 every state in the north had abolished slavery. The middle states were slower to abolish it with the last two, New Jersey and New Hampshire being the last in 1865. While new southern states were allowed slavery, it was always outlawed in the Northwest Territory.

Great Britain freed it's slaves with an act in 1833 that required slaves to remain apprentices until 1840. Mexico outlawed it in 1829. France alternated abolishing slavery and allowing it again in its colonies until it was outlawed for the final time in 1848.

The point here is that slavery was not "America's original sin" and unique to the US but rather something practiced by all of the European powers. I won't get into what the Indians did to each other because it's irrelevant to people enslaved and transported from Africa. Anyway, claiming that the flag Washington fought under is tainted is quite a stretch.

As for Kaepernick's 4th of July tweet, that was excerpted from Douglass's " The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro" speech which was given in 1852, well before the Civil War, and was give by someone who was born a slave and was calling for the abolition of slavery. Was Kaepernick who is part of the 0.01% comparing himself to a slave? Seriously? Or did he just find a pithy quote without looking up the context?

Save the Flag

Nike just cancelled a new line of shoes with a small Betsy Ross flag on them because of protests from Colin Kaepernick. Depending on who you listen to, the flag is either offensive because it was used when slavery was legal or because it's been adopted as a symbol by white supremacists

Addressing the second reason first, no, this flag is not on anyone's list of hate symbols.

"Most white supremacists would not know what the Betsy Ross flag was if you asked them about it, compared to all the other symbols that they constantly use," Mark Pitcavage, senior research fellow with the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, said.

So that's just a lame excuse someone thought up to excuse the cancellation.

The first excuse is equally lame. The 13-star flag was used from the 1770s to the 1790s when two new states were added. Yes, slavery was legal in the US during that period in some of the states but not in the majority and slavery was also legal in most of the rest of the world at the time. It was not used by the Confederacy or any other uses beyond patriotism. So it's only a "symbol" of slavery because it's from the 18th century. 

Despite what Nike said, the real reason for Kaepernik's objection is probably a general dislike for the United States and its history. This is in contrast to when he first began sitting and then kneeling for the National Anthem. It was claimed then that he was objecting to the treatment of contemporary blacks and not showing disrespect for his country.

Regardless, this is part of a general trend in declaring American icons to be tainted. What started with Confederate statues has spread to Washington, Jefferson, Columbus, even General Grant because someone gave him a couple of slaves who he quickly sold (it was very difficult to free slaves at the time).

This also has the possibility to become another "Ok" symbol where some pranksters decided to start a rumor that it's used as a symbol of white supremacy and it spread. Now that the sainted Kaepernick has declared the Betsy Ross flag to be forbidden, trolls from the left will emerge to defend that, even if they have to make things up.

We need to take a stand and push back. We can't let the symbol of America's founding be tarnished by lies and a second-string quarterback.

The Question Not Asked

Here's a question that an unbiased moderator would have asked the candidates during the two-night Democratic debates:

You have said that you are in favor of decriminalizing immigration and giving free health care to illegal immigrants. Most of you have also signed on to the New Green Deal which promises $15+/hour jobs for everyone (presumably including immigrants). Beta even went to far as to make a statement in Spanish that seemed to promise allowing non-citizens to vote. All of this put together is guaranteed to lead to an influx of immigrants not seen since the 19th century. Do you welcome an influx of 10s of millions of new immigrants or do you have a plan for preventing this?

The First Night of the Democratic Debates

First, Elizabeth Warren lost the election last night. Even if she manages to be the candidate she came out on record as wanting to take away everyone's insurance. That's a problem for her for numerous reasons. The majority of Americans are happy with their insurance. Insurance is one of the biggest benefits to being in a union so she's piratically inviting unions to endorse Trump. And, eliminating insurance will throw at least a million people out of work and throw the stock market into a tailspin. Out of the ten candidates on stage, only one other came out in favor of Medicare for all which shows how out of step she is with even the far-left contingent of her party that was on stage.

But she won't be the candidate. Despite being given more than her share of airtime at the beginning she failed to establish a presence. The longer the debate went on the more she faded.

Booker did well, a lot better than I expected after his Spartacus moment last fall. Regardless, Trump would rip him to shreds in a real debate.

Beto's stunt of answering a question in Spanish was foolish and made him the subject of numerous hilarious memes.

Castro's insistence on "reproductive justice" was just puzzling. He didn't make it any better by talking about how trans-women need access to abortions, too News-flash, Castro, a trans-woman was born with male reproductive organs. You meant trans-men.

MSNBC came out looking terrible. The broadcast had several momentary blackouts, there were screw-ups with the microphones, one caused a long, unintended commercial break while they straightened it out. Rachel Maddow was a poor moderator, giving speeches and asking candidates to comment on them rather than asking questions. Most of the candidates were unknowns to the audience and they should have had name tags under them the entire time they were talking but the name tags came and went fast.

The set was meant to look high-tech and exciting but it had problems. The podiums were a cool blue but turned red at some point for some reason, possibly to show who was talking. This may have been nice for the live audience but TV audience only got brief glimpses of it as they pulled away after a candidate's time ended.The giant screens behind the candidates were distracting during close-ups.

All told, it made MCNBC look amateurish.

The first Democratic Debates

The first round of Democratic debates begins tonight. With 20 contenders, it was broken into two debates over two nights. Here's my quick take on the candidates:

Biden. As the front-runner he has little to gain and a lot to lose. He did poorly in his two previous runs for president. He's the front-runner now because of his association with Obama. So far he's largely stayed out of the public eye since entering the race. He runs a big risk of being the next Jeb!, a front-runner who fades as soon as he shares the stage with more dynamic candidates. His best hope is to emulate Trump. Trump got more speaking time than anyone else because all of the other candidates attacked him giving him a chance to respond. Duplicating Trump's performance will require Biden to be fast on his feet and avoid the slightest gaff.

Sanders. Four years ago Sanders entered the race to move Clinton to the left and to increase his own standing in the Senate (both worked). He knew he didn't have a chance so he could be gracious and declined from personal attacks. As the race progressed he began to think he had a real chance and he became a humorless scold. This time he's entering the race with a real shot at winning the nomination. At the same time, he has a pack of younger candidates snapping at his heels from the left. There's a real risk that voters will tire of him and turn to a younger, less grouchy candidate with similar ideals.

Warren. She's at a real disadvantage. She's the only major candidate in the first debate. Everyone else will be attacking her. She does have debate skills from her high school debate team but a presidential debate is vastly different from a high school one. Voters don't look for points. They see who connects with voters the best. Trump understood that and Clinton didn't in 2016. He spent his opening remarks saying what he would do for the voters while Clinton spent hers telling us what a bad person Trump was. Journalists gave the win to Clinton on points but Trump actually connected with the voters.  Political writers insist that Warren can be charming and authentic on the stump but the version most of us have seen was her stilted video where she announced "I'm gonna get a beer." She could be the break-out winner of the first debate, ready to take on Biden and Sanders or she could be seen as stilted and inauthentic.

And the Rest. Everyone else is struggling for name recognition. Even political junkies like me can't put a name to half of their faces. This is their chance to be see on a equal footing with the front-runners. For many, possibly most of them, this is their last chance. If they don't break out of the pack now then they will have difficulty meeting the standards for the next debate. They will all be trying to explain why they are different from the 19 other Democrats with the same platform and to convince people that they have the best chance against Trump. This will be exceedingly difficult for them.

Sleepy Joe and the Segregationists

A few days ago Joe Biden was trying to make a point about working with people he disagreed with and recalled working with some prominent segregationists when he was first elected to the Senate. Naturally it went badly. Joe has real problems keeping from putting his foot in his mouth. Regardless, here's some thoughts on it:

First of all, the point he was trying to make is a good one. Even if you strongly disagree with someone on a major issue that shouldn't mean that you disagree with them on everything. That's not something the modern Democratic Party wants to hear, though. To them, it's all or nothing. As recently as the wave election of 2006, President Bush was still able to assemble a working coalition of Republicans and Democrats to pass legislation. That changed with the election of Obama and the Democrats gaining a super-majority in 2008. Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote through some legislative slight-of-hand and Republicans were not even able to offer amendments to the legislation. That happened with most other legislation during that period. When the Republicans took the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014 they treated the Democrats much the same as they had treated the Republicans. With the election of Trump in 2016, the rallying cry of the Democrats was "Resist" which means denying the president a win, even if it's in the country's best interests. Biden's goal of backing away from such partisan politics is both admirable and out of step with his party.

Biden reminded us of how different the party was when he was first elected in 1972. The segregationists he mentioned were powerful Democrats. It's an uncomfortable reminder that he was rubbing shoulders with actual white supremacists at a time when they held real power in the Democratic Party.

Biden's lack of message control ruined his point. He said that one of them called him "son" instead of "boy". It's puzzling why he would think this was relevant since "boy" is regarded as a put-down for backs rather than white. This gave Corey Booker an opening to denounce Biden's comments and make the case for the current super-partisanship. Ever tone-deaf, when asked about apologizing to Booker, Biden suggested that Booker owed him an apology instead.

Biden's lack of message control and tone-deafness are why he never got very far in his previous runs for President. Despite his status as front-runner, he still struggles with this.

AOC and Concentration Camps

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put out this tweet:

This administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants, where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying.

This is not hyperbole. It is the conclusion of expert analysis https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27813648/concentration-camps-southern-border-migrant-detention-facilities-trump/ …

The expert she's quoting is from Esquire which is not my first choice as a scientific or historic authority. Regardless, it's pushing the idea that the term "concentration camp" predates Nazi Germany. This may be true but today the term is exclusively used in relation to the Holocaust. No one uses of "concentration camp" and "Boer War" in the same sentence. AOC gave it away when she used the term "Never again" in a back and forth about her tweet. That's another term from the Holocaust.

But regardless of how you frame it, the detention facilities used for immigrants fail the definition of concentration camp several ways.

The argument that they are concentration camps comes from the fact that immigrants are being confined for long periods without having broken any laws. While this is true, it's also a voluntary confinement. They can be released if they want to go back to Mexico (since they crossed at the Mexican border) or elsewhere.

The Democrats are largely to blame for the conditions the migrants are housed in. They refused to even begin negotiations with President Trump in the name of #Resist. So no money has been allocated to expand facilities or to hire more caseworkers.

The vast majority (90+%) of these migrants will have their application as a refugee turned down and will be sent back. What AOC and other Democrats want is for anyone who presents themselves at the border to be given a green card and a court date and released into the country, possibly with a path to citizenship.  We're already seeing a surge in migrant applying at the border. We're beginning to see Africans and others trying to enter the US through the Mexican border. If we allow anyone who presents themselves at the border legal residency then the current surge will be nothing compared to the flood we'll see.

Exaggerated outrage like AOC's serves two purposes. One is yet another attack on President Trump. The other is to force open borders. She's said before that anyone from the Americas should be allowed into the US. Now she's trying to force it.

Why Biden will be 2020's version of Hillary

Watching the Biden campaign is like watching history repeating itself. Consciously or unconsciously, he's using the same strategies that Hillary Clinton used and making the same mistakes.

First a couple of little things - everyone knew that Hillary was going to run in 2016 but she kept insisting that she was still making up her mind and teasing the press for weeks before announcing with a video. Biden did the same thing. He was the last major candidate to announce and he did it with a video.

After dropping the announcement video, both candidates vanished for a while, preferring small, controlled events to large, spontaneous ones. Biden just skipped a big event in Iowa that the other 19 candidates attended. Binden's excuse was that he wanted to attend a grad-daughter's graduation. While that's noble of him, it also leads into the important similarity with Clinton...

Neither one took the primaries seriously enough. Hillary was the front-runner in 2008. The race was hers to lose. She assumed that she'd have the nomination seed up by Super Tuesday and didn't keep any cash reserves on hand in case the campaign lasted longer than that. In contrast, Obama planned a 50-state campaign from the beginning and seized the nomination from under her nose.

In 2016 Hillary again assumed that both the nomination and the presidency were hers. She was surprised by the strength of Bernie Sanders then surprised again by Donald Trump.

Biden seems to assume that he only needs to show up to secure the nomination. He sees himself above the fray and is trying to start his campaign against President Trump. That's a mistake. After a strong start, he's dropped in the polls. He's going to have to work for the nomination, especially since the party reduced the role of the super-delegates in enforcing party orthodoxy.

Hillary counted on the Obama coalition to turn out for her and made no effort to woo swing-voters. Her plan was to suppress Trump voters by on-stop negative advertising while appealing to the Obama coalition as his rightful successor. This was unlikely to happen. Obama was a special case. Blacks turned out for him in record numbers because he was black. Immigrants and their recent decedents saw Obama as one of them because of his African father and foreign up-bringing. Obama was a youthful candidate running on a blank slate of hope and change. Groups across the political spectrum from Progressives to Libertarians were convinced that Obama was really one of them.

Hillary failed to motivate a lot of Obama voters. She saw herself as a pioneer because of her gender but many voters simply saw an old, rich, white woman and stayed home. Trump was able to appeal to working-class voters who felt left behind by Obama and ignored by Clinton.

Biden will have a worse time trying to motivate the Obama Coalition. As a rich, old, white guy who has been in politics since before most of the electorate was born, he has nothing exciting to offer. He does have a history of working class appeal but that was with a different generation. His last Senate run was 2002 and his 2008 Presidential run folded in 2007.

Biden ha an additional problem that Hillary didn't have. He'll have to run against an incumbent. In 2016, Trump was a complete unknown. Given that he is from New York and has switched parties a few times, the best conservatives could hope for was a RHINO. Instead his administration has been the most conservative since Ronald Reagan. Voters seldom if ever turn out an incumbent president during good economic times. Trump is not the madman, ready to launch a nuclear war that some painted him as. Neither is he the totalitarian that many claimed. It's impossible to define a sitting president the way you can a candidate so there's one more tool denied to Biden.

There is one final similarity between the two - voters like the idea of them better than the candidate. Hillary always polled highest when she was out of public sight. The more she was seen the lower her poll numbers. It's too early to say for sure but Biden seems to be suffering from the same problem.

The Intolerance of the Democratic Party

A couple of days ago Democrat presidential front-runner Joe Biden expressed his continuing support for the Hyde Amendment. After heavy criticism from his party he reversed his position the following day. This is important because it shows how the Democratic Party has become intolerant of opposing opinions.

The Hyde Amendment says that federal funds cannot be used to pay for abortions. If was passed because even abortion supporters like Biden realized how unfair it is to ask people to pay for abortions (through taxes) when they believe that it's murder. That received bipartisan support because back the Democrats recognized that other people could have a different opinion without being an evil person.

That's changed in the current Democratic Party. The official position is that abortion is always the woman's choice, even when the fetus is well past the point if can survive on it's own. Bernie Sanders reflects the party line when he says "It's up to the women. I trust them to make the right choice." 

The Democrats used to brag of their Big Tent meaning that they embraced a variety of opinions. This is no longer true. There is a party line and anyone who doesn't follow it is denounced and possibly excommunicated.

Biden is an old-school Democrat with an accent on old. While he sees himself as a progressive, at one point or another he's held positions that are anti-ethical to today's Democrats. He's also from a time when politicians recognized that well-meaning people had different positions and it was permissible to make accommodations with them. He just ran smack into today's intolerant party.

Why Trump's Wall is Not the Berlin Wall

I saw a legal blog comparing President Trump's wall across the Mexican border with the Berlin Wall. This was in the Volokh Conspiracy and framed as Trump's Plan to Force the Mexicans to Lock in Their Own People. So, why is this comparison wrong?

1) The Berlin Wall separated Germans from Germans. In the wake of World War II, Germany was divided into four sections managed by the US, England, France and the USSR. The first three were merged into a single government but the USSR-controlled region was kept separate. The Berlin Wall was built 12 years after the founding of East Germany. So it was separating Germans from Germans. Mexico and the US are separate countries with very different histories and cultures. Even the parts of the US that were previously owned by Mexico have been states for over a century.

2) The East Germans were prisoners in their own country. The Berlin Wall actually surrounded West Berlin which was deep in East Germany. Prior to the wall, Germans had escaped to the West by crossing into West Berlin then traveling to West Germany. The border between East and West Germanies was also closed. In contrast, Trump is insisting that Mexicans and South American refugees be prevented from crossing the US Mexican border but he in not insisting that Mexico's other borders or coast be closed.

3) It was death to cross the Berlin Wall. There were actually two walls with a killing ground in-between. Anyone seen in the killing ground was shot on sight. That's very different from the US/Mexican border.

This comes down to the question, does the US have the power to determine who enters it? If the answer is yes then the President is justified in taking steps to secure the border.

There is a substantial group who does not believe in borders and believes that anyone should be able to go anywhere with no attempt at assimilation. This will ultimately be self-destructive. Allowing multitudes of an-assimilated immigrants will eventually over-tax the country and destroy the institutions that made it desirable in the first place.

Talk of Impeachment Should Be Disqualifying

Despite the Mueller Report failing to find that President Trump actually committed high crimes or misdemeanors, there is still talk of impeachment. This is rather silly. Impeachment requires the the House of Representatives pass Articles of Impeachment. This takes a simple majority but to date less than 1/10th of the House has come out in favor of impeachment. But that's the easy part. The process moves on to the Senate where it takes a super majority of 67 votes to remove the President from office. Given that Republicans control the Senate and the lack of actual crimes, this is doomed to failure.

Even the Washington Post is admitting that people knew what they were voting for when they elected Trump. Simply disliking a President is not enough nor can you impeach a President for wanting to do something but not following through. It's "high crimes and misdemeanors", not "thought crimes".

Plus there's a presidential election coming. It's just a year and a half away. That's the proper way to remove a president, through the ballot box.

But there is one group that is dad-set on impeachment - Democrats running for President. I'm sure that they have to restrain themselves from promising that their first act as president would be impeaching Trump.

I can understand why these people want Trump weakened or removed from office. They expected that Trump would be so unpopular that whoever won the game of Democrat Survivor would win the White House in a landslide. But Trump's popularity is growing, he has the advantage of being an incumbent during an economic boom, and he showed in 2016 that he's a shrewd campaigner. The best chance that the passengers in the Democratic Clown Car have is eliminating Trump and running against Pence.

But every one of thee clown who are calling for impeachment should be disqualified from running for the presidency. They are unfit to hold that office.

Trump is often accused of breaking norms. There is a double or even a triple standard here since President Obama broke all sorts of norms as have Trump's detractors. Obama's Attorney General established the president for ignoring a Congressional subpoena and being found in contempt of Congress. The Nuclear Option was triggered under Obama. Both of these came back to bite the Democrats. I could give other examples but you get the idea.

There are two rationals for impeaching President Trump. One is to impeach on the grounds of obstruction of justice in the Russian investigation. This is difficult to prove since there was no collusion and Trump knew it. The other rational is to start impeachment proceedings on general principle in order to open sealed Grand Jury records in the hope that something would turn up. The satire site the Babylon Bee ran this as "Congress files Articles of Impeachment with the reasons to be filled in later".

So, let's imagine that they succeed in impeaching Trump on these grounds and get as far as passing the articles in the House before the measure fails in the Senate. This will be yet one more broken norm. Democrats are still angry about Clinton being impeached but at least there he was actually proven to have committed perjury. Nothing has been proven against Trump so imagine how angry Republicans will be.

And this will establish the new norm - from now on, any time the opposition party controls the House then it will stat impeachment proceedings against the President.

None of these presidential-wannabies have realized that if Trump is impeached and they win they will be facing impeachment themselves. It doesn't matter if they actually do anything wrong. Simply hating the President is enough to justify impeachment. They are proving that with Trump right now. And that's why none of them should be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office.

Why Rep. Rashida Tlaib needs to apologize

On a recent podcast, Rep. Tlaib said this:

There's always kind of a calming feeling, I tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people's passports. And just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, and it was forced on them.

She was quickly criticized by President Trump among others. Then House Speaker Pelosi claimed that her statement was taken out of context and that the President should be the one to apologize. Pelosi is wrong.

It's true that, taken out of context, the first part of this gives the false impression that Tlaib said that the murder of Jews gives her a calming feeling. But Trump didn't repeat the quote in part or in all. He simply referenced it.

Tlaib was engaging in Holocaust revisionism. She was claiming that the Palestinians welcomed the Jews into Israel to escape the Holocaust. Lots of groups and countries do that to escape the guilt of having done nothing. The entire world including the US stood by and did nothing to help the millions who were murdered. In fact, the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular never welcomed the Jews.

But then Tlaib goes a step further and frames it as "we invited the Jews in and they took our land, our jobs, our dignity and our existence". So Holocaust Remembrance became an excuse to vilify Israel. And that's why Tlaib needs to apologize.