theamericanconservative--2020-07-03--Honduras is a Bonafide Narco State, Yet Trump Praises Its Useful Leader

Welcome to your Drug War : Corrupt Latin American governments favored by Washington get tons of aid and yes , U.S. troops .
A woman and other relatives of a bus driver who was killed by alleged gang members for refusing to pay them a `` war tax '' , cry in Tegucigalpa on October 5 , 2016 .
Honduras has one of the highest homicide rates in the world .
Officials blame gangs and drug-traffickers .
( Photo credit : ORLANDO SIERRA/AFP via Getty Images ) There ’ s no need to read John Bolton ’ s memoir to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be “ cool ” to invade Venezuela .
In April , Trump ordered the U.S. Navy to conduct anti-drug surveillance off the coastline of Venezuela .
One week earlier , the DOJ indicted Nicolas Maduro and 14 other Venezuelan officials for “ narcoterrorism.
” The Venezuelan first lady , Cilia Flores , may also face drug charges .
Venezuela is overrun with corruption , but it ’ s clear that the drug war is America ’ s Trojan horse of foreign policy when examining a few U.S. allies ’ track records .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimates that 123 senior-level officials in Venezuela are involved in crime .
Many of them are part of the “ Cartel of the Suns , ” an informal name for the laundry list of military officials tied to the drug trade .
Nonetheless , the U.S. government hasn ’ t released evidence directly linking Nicolas Maduro to drug trafficking .
Just a formality .
On the other hand , corruption is even more flagrant in Honduras .
In multiple cases , U.S. prosecutors have convicted major drug traffickers based upon evidence of protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Juan Orlando Hernandez , including a $ 1 million payment from notorious kingpin El Chapo .
Honduras is , without a doubt , a narco-state .
The Honduran Minister of Investment was convicted for money laundering in 2017 .
Last September , U.S. officials charged Juan Orlando Hernandez ’ s cousin , a high-ranking police official accused of protecting multi-ton cocaine shipments .
In the following month , the President ’ s brother , Tony , was convicted in Manhattan federal court for drug trafficking .
Tony ’ s initials , TH , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Juan Orlando Hernandez was an unidentified co-conspirator in his brother ’ s trial , but U.S. prosecutors haven ’ t pressed charges against the Honduran President .
Two of Tony Hernandez ’ s accomplices had their ledgers confiscated and that evidence helped convict him .
Both of those men were murdered in Honduran prison just a week later in an apparent act of retribution .
An additional mafia-style hit tied up loose ends by killing the head of that prison in December .
Nonetheless , in the same month , President Trump somehow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the short term , Trump was likely trying to finalize an agreement signed one month later that allows the U.S. to deport migrants seeking asylum at the US-Mexico border back to Honduras .
However , the evidence against the Honduran President has continued to mount .
In April , the U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of New York indicted the National Federal Police Chief , Juan Carlos Bonilla , “ El Tigre.
” He allegedly worked on behalf of the President and his brother to protect cocaine shipments and to kill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. State Department publicly praised the Hernandez administration last month for signing a bill authorizing Honduran police to shoot down “ narco jets , ” with a narrative implying that most of those flights originate from Venezuela .
That ’ s the same government agency that offered a $ 15 million reward for evidence leading to Nicolas Maduro ’ s arrest .
U.S. Navy ships aren ’ t lurking off of the shores of Honduras because the D.C. establishment doesn ’ t want to lose a strong ally .
Soto Cano Air Base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. military operations in Central America .
That ’ s partially why when a 2009 Honduran military coup ousted a moderate leftist , Manuel Zelaya , the State Department led by Hillary Clinton conducted backchannel communications with one of the narco-linked orchestrators of the coup .
The situation in Colombia further illustrates the unstated goals of America ’ s foreign drug policy .
Our country has spent over $ 10 billion since the year 2000 via “ Plan Colombia ” providing military aid for counter-narcotic operations , but Colombia remains the world ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the country ’ s coca production is at a record level .
Corruption is systemic and beyond reform .
Colombia ’ s Ambassador to Ecuador resigned recently after a cocaine lab was discovered on his property that could produce 1.8 tons of cocaine per month .
Another recent scandal revealed that the Colombian military used U.S. equipment to spy on opposition journalists , judges , and politicians .
Some of those journalists linked the current Colombian President , Ivan Duque , with drug traffickers and election fraud .
Not to mention , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former paramilitary cocaine trafficker , “ Memo Fantasma.
” For decades , U.S. officials overlooked evidence connecting thousands of Colombian officials with right-wing paramilitary groups funded primarily by cocaine trafficking , including the AUC , a U.S. designated terrorist group .
The “ para-politics ” scandal reached the highest levels , including the former President Alvaro Uribe .
The AUC officially disbanded in 2006 , but splinter paramilitary groups continue to operate with impunity .
Since the 2016 peace deal , paramilitary groups have been the main culprits tied to over 500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now the deadliest place in the world for social activists .
Rather than focus on the narcoterrorism committed by right-wing paramilitary groups propped up by Colombian officials , our government directs its ire at the Venezuelan government .
In fairness , several corrupt Venezuelan officials source their cocaine from a U.S. designated terrorist organization , the Colombian communist rebel group , FARC .
Most members of FARC laid down their arms in 2016 after signing a peace deal , but roughly 2,300 dissident FARC never agreed to the peace process and are actively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political party in 2016 after 52 years of civil war , but America ’ s drug war has undermined a peaceful solution .
The DOJ alleged in 2018 that a FARC leader , Jesus Santrich , conspired to sell 10,000 kilos of cocaine .
The charges were questionable as the undercover DEA agent lured him to the meeting to discuss reintegration projects for demobilized FARC guerrillas .
Other officials are also under investigation for allegedly using illegal means to conduct this investigation .
Regardless , those charges blocked Santrich from taking a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled that there wasn ’ t enough evidence to proceed with a trial and the Colombian Supreme Court refused to extradite him to the U.S. based upon the limited evidence .
Ultimately , Santrich fled the country , presumably due to fear of persecution , and promised to resume the war effort .
Plan Colombia is essentially a Post-Cold War counter-insurgency strategy that has selectively targeted left-wing guerrillas .
It wasn ’ t quite the 5,000 soldiers that John Bolton envisioned in January of 2019 , but Trump ordered 800 troops to Colombia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to conduct anti-drug operations in five areas abandoned by FARC , two of which border Venezuela .
The order has colonial markings as the Colombian Congress didn ’ t authorize U.S. troops to enter the country .
Colombia ’ s opposition party openly asserts that it was a move to intimidate Maduro , not a genuine effort to eradicate cocaine production .
America ’ s underhanded ambitions are also apparent in Bolivia .
A recent coup was by some accounts led by a US-trained general at the School of the Americas , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a PR gesture , that program was renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation .
But that doesn ’ t scrub the record in Latin America where it is known as the “ School of the Coup ” because graduates of this program have orchestrated numerous military juntas .
The coup helped to remove leftist Evo Morales , and installed a right-wing de facto regime led by Jeanine Añez , after a disputed election .
Morales is well-known for his support for the legal coca market , which is popular in Bolivian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , many skeptics reasonably believe that he , to some extent , turned a blind eye to illegal cocaine production .
Morales had expelled the DEA in 2008 , alleging that the agency was spying on his administration .
That may sound outlandish , but a former DEA special agent Finn Selander once offered remarkable candor on this subject .
“ DEA is actually one of the biggest spy operations there is .
Our mandate is not just drugs .
We collect intelligence , ” says Selander .
Mike Pompeo , then-Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon assuming power as interim president .
The Trump administration is also considering restoring foreign aid to the Bolivian government , which has used military forces to suppress political protests and committed multiple massacres on its behalf .
The Trump administration even claimed that the new Bolivian government has improved counternarcotics operations .
However , as InSight Crime ’ s Parker Asmann notes , illegal drug seizures have decreased under the Añez regime .
In fact , one of her administration ’ s nominees is under sanctions by the U.S. Treasury Department for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To sum up , the American public needs to know that there ’ s much more to the war on drugs than what meets the eye .
There ’ s a tremendous double standard with the enforcement of these laws and the drug war enables the type of hawkish aggression that many people thought was part of our Cold War past .
Brian Saady is the author the series , Rackets , which chronicles the legalization of drugs and gambling , and the decriminalization of prostitution .
You can check out his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter .

There’s no need to read John Bolton’s memoir to know that President Trump thought it would be “cool” to invade Venezuela.
In April, Trump ordered the U.S. Navy to conduct anti-drug surveillance off the coastline of Venezuela. One week earlier, the DOJ indicted Nicolas Maduro and 14 other Venezuelan officials for “narcoterrorism.” The Venezuelan first lady, Cilia Flores, may also face drug charges. Venezuela is overrun with corruption, but it’s clear that the drug war is America’s Trojan horse of foreign policy when examining a few U.S. allies’ track records.
The non-partisan think tank, Insight Crime, estimates that 123 senior-level officials in Venezuela are involved in crime. Many of them are part of the “Cartel of the Suns,” an informal name for the laundry list of military officials tied to the drug trade. Nonetheless, the U.S. government hasn’t released evidence directly linking Nicolas Maduro to drug trafficking. Just a formality.
On the other hand, corruption is even more flagrant in Honduras. In multiple cases, U.S. prosecutors have convicted major drug traffickers based upon evidence of protection money paid to the Honduran President, Juan Orlando Hernandez, including a $1 million payment from notorious kingpin El Chapo.
Honduras is, without a doubt, a narco-state. The Honduran Minister of Investment was convicted for money laundering in 2017. Last September, U.S. officials charged Juan Orlando Hernandez’s cousin, a high-ranking police official accused of protecting multi-ton cocaine shipments. In the following month, the President’s brother, Tony, was convicted in Manhattan federal court for drug trafficking. Tony’s initials, TH, were literally marked on the packages. Juan Orlando Hernandez was an unidentified co-conspirator in his brother’s trial, but U.S. prosecutors haven’t pressed charges against the Honduran President.
Two of Tony Hernandez’s accomplices had their ledgers confiscated and that evidence helped convict him. Both of those men were murdered in Honduran prison just a week later in an apparent act of retribution. An additional mafia-style hit tied up loose ends by killing the head of that prison in December. Nonetheless, in the same month, President Trump somehow praised Hernandez’s anti-narcotics efforts.
In the short term, Trump was likely trying to finalize an agreement signed one month later that allows the U.S. to deport migrants seeking asylum at the US-Mexico border back to Honduras. However, the evidence against the Honduran President has continued to mount. In April, the U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of New York indicted the National Federal Police Chief, Juan Carlos Bonilla, “El Tigre.” He allegedly worked on behalf of the President and his brother to protect cocaine shipments and to kill rival drug dealers.
Notwithstanding, the U.S. State Department publicly praised the Hernandez administration last month for signing a bill authorizing Honduran police to shoot down “narco jets,” with a narrative implying that most of those flights originate from Venezuela. That’s the same government agency that offered a $15 million reward for evidence leading to Nicolas Maduro’s arrest.
U.S. Navy ships aren’t lurking off of the shores of Honduras because the D.C. establishment doesn’t want to lose a strong ally. Soto Cano Air Base in Honduras remains a key hub of U.S. military operations in Central America. That’s partially why when a 2009 Honduran military coup ousted a moderate leftist, Manuel Zelaya, the State Department led by Hillary Clinton conducted backchannel communications with one of the narco-linked orchestrators of the coup.
The situation in Colombia further illustrates the unstated goals of America’s foreign drug policy. Our country has spent over $10 billion since the year 2000 via “Plan Colombia” providing military aid for counter-narcotic operations, but Colombia remains the world’s largest producer of cocaine. Furthermore, the country’s coca production is at a record level.
Corruption is systemic and beyond reform. Colombia’s Ambassador to Ecuador resigned recently after a cocaine lab was discovered on his property that could produce 1.8 tons of cocaine per month. Another recent scandal revealed that the Colombian military used U.S. equipment to spy on opposition journalists, judges, and politicians. Some of those journalists linked the current Colombian President, Ivan Duque, with drug traffickers and election fraud. Not to mention, the Vice President has financial links with a former paramilitary cocaine trafficker, “Memo Fantasma.”
For decades, U.S. officials overlooked evidence connecting thousands of Colombian officials with right-wing paramilitary groups funded primarily by cocaine trafficking, including the AUC, a U.S. designated terrorist group. The “para-politics” scandal reached the highest levels, including the former President Alvaro Uribe. The AUC officially disbanded in 2006, but splinter paramilitary groups continue to operate with impunity. Since the 2016 peace deal, paramilitary groups have been the main culprits tied to over 500 community leaders’ murders. Colombia is now the deadliest place in the world for social activists.
Rather than focus on the narcoterrorism committed by right-wing paramilitary groups propped up by Colombian officials, our government directs its ire at the Venezuelan government. In fairness, several corrupt Venezuelan officials source their cocaine from a U.S. designated terrorist organization, the Colombian communist rebel group, FARC. Most members of FARC laid down their arms in 2016 after signing a peace deal, but roughly 2,300 dissident FARC never agreed to the peace process and are actively involved in organized crime.
FARC became a political party in 2016 after 52 years of civil war, but America’s drug war has undermined a peaceful solution. The DOJ alleged in 2018 that a FARC leader, Jesus Santrich, conspired to sell 10,000 kilos of cocaine. The charges were questionable as the undercover DEA agent lured him to the meeting to discuss reintegration projects for demobilized FARC guerrillas. Other officials are also under investigation for allegedly using illegal means to conduct this investigation.
Regardless, those charges blocked Santrich from taking a congressional seat. A special tribunal later ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence to proceed with a trial and the Colombian Supreme Court refused to extradite him to the U.S. based upon the limited evidence. Ultimately, Santrich fled the country, presumably due to fear of persecution, and promised to resume the war effort.
Plan Colombia is essentially a Post-Cold War counter-insurgency strategy that has selectively targeted left-wing guerrillas. It wasn’t quite the 5,000 soldiers that John Bolton envisioned in January of 2019, but Trump ordered 800 troops to Colombia last month. They’re supposed to conduct anti-drug operations in five areas abandoned by FARC, two of which border Venezuela. The order has colonial markings as the Colombian Congress didn’t authorize U.S. troops to enter the country. Colombia’s opposition party openly asserts that it was a move to intimidate Maduro, not a genuine effort to eradicate cocaine production.
America’s underhanded ambitions are also apparent in Bolivia. A recent coup was by some accounts led by a US-trained general at the School of the Americas, which focuses heavily on counternarcotics training. As a PR gesture, that program was renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. But that doesn’t scrub the record in Latin America where it is known as the “School of the Coup” because graduates of this program have orchestrated numerous military juntas.
The coup helped to remove leftist Evo Morales, and installed a right-wing de facto regime led by Jeanine Añez, after a disputed election. Morales is well-known for his support for the legal coca market, which is popular in Bolivian culture for chewing and medicinal purposes. However, many skeptics reasonably believe that he, to some extent, turned a blind eye to illegal cocaine production.
Morales had expelled the DEA in 2008, alleging that the agency was spying on his administration. That may sound outlandish, but a former DEA special agent Finn Selander once offered remarkable candor on this subject. “DEA is actually one of the biggest spy operations there is. Our mandate is not just drugs. We collect intelligence,” says Selander.
Mike Pompeo, then-Secretary of State, congratulated Jeanine Añez immediately upon assuming power as interim president. The Trump administration is also considering restoring foreign aid to the Bolivian government, which has used military forces to suppress political protests and committed multiple massacres on its behalf.
The Trump administration even claimed that the new Bolivian government has improved counternarcotics operations. However, as InSight Crime’s Parker Asmann notes, illegal drug seizures have decreased under the Añez regime. In fact, one of her administration’s nominees is under sanctions by the U.S. Treasury Department for links with a Mexican drug trafficking organization.
To sum up, the American public needs to know that there’s much more to the war on drugs than what meets the eye. There’s a tremendous double standard with the enforcement of these laws and the drug war enables the type of hawkish aggression that many people thought was part of our Cold War past.
Brian Saady is the author the series, Rackets, which chronicles the legalization of drugs and gambling, and the decriminalization of prostitution. You can check out his podcast and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-03--The Little Pink House, 15 Years Later

The Little Pink House, 15 Years Later

Susette Kelo stands outside her home , which has been condemned by the state of Connecticut , June 27 , 2005 in the Fort Trumbull area of New London , Connecticut .
( Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images ) In 1781 , a force of British troops under the command of the turncoat Benedict Arnold landed in the city of New London , Connecticut .
New London for decades had been a haven for privateers , and for much of the Revolution had been the lone American-held deepwater port between British-controlled New York and Newport .
Arnold and his men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New London , then burned most of the city to the ground .
Across the Thames River at Fort Griswold , another British force met stiff resistance , though they eventually massacred most of the Americans there .
A month later , at the Battle of Yorktown , Lafayette would exhort the American troops under his command to “ remember New London.
” Today , you ’ re more likely to hear that from a lawyer than you are a general .
Once a great martyr of the Revolution , Fort Trumbull has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most hated Supreme Court rulings in history .
Fifteen years ago this month , the infamous Kelo v. New London decision was handed down , which affirmed the city ’ s right to seize private property and hand it to a developer .
The case opened the door for the nearly unlimited use of eminent domain and attracted bipartisan outrage that endures to this day .
The story begins in the late 1990s , in Connecticut ’ s capital of Hartford , where a young and ambitious Republican governor named John Rowland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deep blue state .
To that end , he looked southeast to New London , where the recent closure of a major submarine research lab had left the city economically listless .
Reluctant to collaborate with local Democrats , he decided instead to work through the New London Development Corporation ( NLDC ) to revive the area .
The NLDC , with Rowland ’ s blessing , went hunting for developers .
It wasn ’ t long before they had a bite : Pfizer , the pharmaceutical giant , agreed to build @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trumbull neighborhood .
At the groundbreaking ceremony in 1998 , Rowland portentously declared , “ Years from now , this will be a case study in how to revive a community.
” There was just one problem : Pfizer wanted a lot of space .
That meant the NLDC needed to acquire the property of about 90 owners in Fort Trumbull .
It quickly set about doing just that , offering them more than their land would otherwise be worth , overhung by the silent threat of property seizure if they didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holders refused to move .
Among them was Susette Kelo , the owner of a riverside cottage that she ’ d bought , fixed up , and painted pink .
Unable to badger Kelo , New London authorities turned instead to eminent domain , which is when the government , acting under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution , acquires “ private property ” for “ public use ” after providing “ just compensation.
” Generally uncontroversial when employed for public projects like roads and power lines , using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private owner to another is a different story entirely .
Kelo was served with an eviction notice—during Thanksgiving week , no less—that ordered her out of her home .
Rather than comply , she and some of the holdouts decided to sue the city .
For help , they called upon the Institute for Justice ( IJ ) , a libertarian law firm in Washington ( full disclosure : my wife works at IJ ) .
IJ agreed to represent them pro bono and launched a legal and public relations offensive , handling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her story .
The case went first to a Connecticut trial court , which in 2002 struck down most though not all of the takings .
Both sides then appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court , which upheld all the seizures in a contentious four-to-three decision .
Yet the dissenting opinion was strong enough that IJ thought they might have a glimmer of a chance at another appeal .
Sure enough , in a move that stunned both sides , the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Kelo ’ s case .
Arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was handed down four months later .
It was a five-to-four split in favor of New London .
Ruth Bader Ginsburg , that celebrated social justice warrior , sided with the majority to throw a working-class woman out of her home .
So did Justice John Paul Stevens , who wrote the opinion .
Kelo and the other plaintiffs had exhausted their options ; lacking other means of redress , they were forced to move out .
Stevens ’ opinion was underpinned by two pillars : federalism and precedent .
On the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a light touch in applying the Takings Clause , deferring instead to state and local legislatures to enact eminent domain restrictions .
On the second , he cited two prior Supreme Court decisions that upheld the use of eminent domain for private development .
In Berman v. Parker , the Court unanimously approved of Washington , D.C. ’ s seizing of property in a deeply blighted neighborhood , while in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff , it allowed Hawaii to take land on Oahu that was concentrated in the hands of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seizures amounted to “ public use ” under the Fifth Amendment , and thus New London ’ s did too .
He quoted from Berman : “ The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive .
…The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical , aesthetic as well as monetary.
” Contrast such Anthony Kennedyesque gibberish—Kennedy sided with the majority in Kelo—with the clear reasoning of Justice Sandra Day O ’ Connor ’ s dissent .
O ’ Connor doesn ’ t challenge Berman or Midkiff ( though a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But she does note that in Berman , the intent was to control blight that was feeding poverty and dysfunction , while in Midkiff , it was to break up a land oligopoly .
These constituted extraordinary public harms , as opposed to in New London , where Kelo ’ s home wasn ’ t hurting anybody .
Take that to an extreme and you get a dystopia where any private property can be seized and handed to any developer , where the benign hand of the state can assign you a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone deemed to rate higher , homo economicus gone mad .
How else to describe what New London wanted to do ?
They were trying to rotate out Fort Trumbull ’ s working class in favor of a better type of citizen , one employed in pharmaceuticals with more money to spend—and tax .
Government thus gets to featherbed its favorite constituents , big corporations , while taking in more revenue for itself .
This is what really happens when you negate property rights , not the egalitarian fantasies of tweenage Marxists .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment is to nullify the Takings Clause entirely .
In spite of the Court ’ s confusion , the story of Kelo ends with poetic justice of a kind .
The ruling touched off national outrage , as 44 states took Stevens at his word and tightened their eminent domain laws in favor of private property rights .
One of the Connecticut Supreme Court justices who ruled against Susette Kelo later approached her and said he regretted his decision .
Stevens in his memoir called Kelo “ the most unpopular opinion that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Supreme Court.
” A book was published , Little Pink House by Jeff Benedict , that chronicled the Fort Trumbull homeowners ; it was made into an award-winning movie .
Governor John Rowland resigned from office , was convicted of corruption charges , went to prison for a year , got out , became a radio host , was convicted of more corruption charges , and went back to prison ( welcome to Connecticut ! )
.
Pfizer moved into New London , then in 2009 moved back out , its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s enlightened arbiters of the public good had miscalculated .
Today the site where the Fort Trumbull homes once stood is a barren field .
The city is still trying to develop it .
Local wags plant fruit trees on it .
As for Susette Kelo ’ s little pink house , it was ultimately saved from destruction , disassembled and moved to another street .
There it stands today , a monument to the incredible neighbors who , like the patriots of 220 years before , took on despotism and very @ @ @

In 1781, a force of British troops under the command of the turncoat Benedict Arnold landed in the city of New London, Connecticut. New London for decades had been a haven for privateers, and for much of the Revolution had been the lone American-held deepwater port between British-controlled New York and Newport. Arnold and his men easily overran Fort Trumbull, which defended New London, then burned most of the city to the ground. Across the Thames River at Fort Griswold, another British force met stiff resistance, though they eventually massacred most of the Americans there.
A month later, at the Battle of Yorktown, Lafayette would exhort the American troops under his command to “remember New London.” Today, you’re more likely to hear that from a lawyer than you are a general. Once a great martyr of the Revolution, Fort Trumbull has since become the site of one of the most hated Supreme Court rulings in history. Fifteen years ago this month, the infamous Kelo v. New London decision was handed down, which affirmed the city’s right to seize private property and hand it to a developer. The case opened the door for the nearly unlimited use of eminent domain and attracted bipartisan outrage that endures to this day.
The story begins in the late 1990s, in Connecticut’s capital of Hartford, where a young and ambitious Republican governor named John Rowland was eager for a success story in a deep blue state. To that end, he looked southeast to New London, where the recent closure of a major submarine research lab had left the city economically listless. Reluctant to collaborate with local Democrats, he decided instead to work through the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) to revive the area. The NLDC, with Rowland’s blessing, went hunting for developers. It wasn’t long before they had a bite: Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant, agreed to build a massive new headquarters in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. At the groundbreaking ceremony in 1998, Rowland portentously declared, “Years from now, this will be a case study in how to revive a community.”
There was just one problem: Pfizer wanted a lot of space. That meant the NLDC needed to acquire the property of about 90 owners in Fort Trumbull. It quickly set about doing just that, offering them more than their land would otherwise be worth, overhung by the silent threat of property seizure if they didn’t sell. Yet seven of the holders refused to move. Among them was Susette Kelo, the owner of a riverside cottage that she’d bought, fixed up, and painted pink. Unable to badger Kelo, New London authorities turned instead to eminent domain, which is when the government, acting under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, acquires “private property” for “public use” after providing “just compensation.” Generally uncontroversial when employed for public projects like roads and power lines, using eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another is a different story entirely.
Kelo was served with an eviction notice—during Thanksgiving week, no less—that ordered her out of her home. Rather than comply, she and some of the holdouts decided to sue the city. For help, they called upon the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian law firm in Washington (full disclosure: my wife works at IJ). IJ agreed to represent them pro bono and launched a legal and public relations offensive, handling Kelo’s suit while also publicizing her story. The case went first to a Connecticut trial court, which in 2002 struck down most though not all of the takings. Both sides then appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which upheld all the seizures in a contentious four-to-three decision. Yet the dissenting opinion was strong enough that IJ thought they might have a glimmer of a chance at another appeal. Sure enough, in a move that stunned both sides, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Kelo’s case.
Arguments were in early 2005 and the decision was handed down four months later. It was a five-to-four split in favor of New London. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that celebrated social justice warrior, sided with the majority to throw a working-class woman out of her home. So did Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the opinion. Kelo and the other plaintiffs had exhausted their options; lacking other means of redress, they were forced to move out.
Stevens’ opinion was underpinned by two pillars: federalism and precedent. On the first, he argued that the Court should have a light touch in applying the Takings Clause, deferring instead to state and local legislatures to enact eminent domain restrictions. On the second, he cited two prior Supreme Court decisions that upheld the use of eminent domain for private development. In Berman v. Parker, the Court unanimously approved of Washington, D.C.’s seizing of property in a deeply blighted neighborhood, while in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, it allowed Hawaii to take land on Oahu that was concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few. Stevens argued that such seizures amounted to “public use” under the Fifth Amendment, and thus New London’s did too. He quoted from Berman: “The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. …The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary.”
Contrast such Anthony Kennedyesque gibberish—Kennedy sided with the majority in Kelo—with the clear reasoning of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissent. O’Connor doesn’t challenge Berman or Midkiff (though a separate dissent by Clarence Thomas does). But she does note that in Berman, the intent was to control blight that was feeding poverty and dysfunction, while in Midkiff, it was to break up a land oligopoly. These constituted extraordinary public harms, as opposed to in New London, where Kelo’s home wasn’t hurting anybody.
O’Connor writes:
In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use. It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public—such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public.
Take that to an extreme and you get a dystopia where any private property can be seized and handed to any developer, where the benign hand of the state can assign you a value and then swap you away for anyone deemed to rate higher, homo economicus gone mad. How else to describe what New London wanted to do? They were trying to rotate out Fort Trumbull’s working class in favor of a better type of citizen, one employed in pharmaceuticals with more money to spend—and tax. Government thus gets to featherbed its favorite constituents, big corporations, while taking in more revenue for itself. This is what really happens when you negate property rights, not the egalitarian fantasies of tweenage Marxists. To justify all this under the Fifth Amendment is to nullify the Takings Clause entirely.
In spite of the Court’s confusion, the story of Kelo ends with poetic justice of a kind. The ruling touched off national outrage, as 44 states took Stevens at his word and tightened their eminent domain laws in favor of private property rights. One of the Connecticut Supreme Court justices who ruled against Susette Kelo later approached her and said he regretted his decision. Stevens in his memoir called Kelo “the most unpopular opinion that I wrote during my more than thirty-four years on the Supreme Court.” A book was published, Little Pink House by Jeff Benedict, that chronicled the Fort Trumbull homeowners; it was made into an award-winning movie.
Governor John Rowland resigned from office, was convicted of corruption charges, went to prison for a year, got out, became a radio host, was convicted of more corruption charges, and went back to prison (welcome to Connecticut!). Pfizer moved into New London, then in 2009 moved back out, its development having never been finished. Government’s enlightened arbiters of the public good had miscalculated. Today the site where the Fort Trumbull homes once stood is a barren field. The city is still trying to develop it. Local wags plant fruit trees on it.
As for Susette Kelo’s little pink house, it was ultimately saved from destruction, disassembled and moved to another street. There it stands today, a monument to the incredible neighbors who, like the patriots of 220 years before, took on despotism and very nearly won.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-03--Lawmakers’ Military Earmarks Are Exploding Like Fireworks

It ’ s that time of year again , when lawmakers , Pentagon officials , and observers on the sidelines quibble over what should—and should not—be in the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ) .
Two weeks after the Senate Armed Services Committee advanced their version of the 2021 NDAA , the House Armed Services Committee advanced their own NDAA .
Passions have been high and policymakers have tried inserting everything from base naming requirements and stricter “ Buy American ” provisions to ( much-needed ) transparency changes .
But regardless of how the House and Senate reconcile their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lingering inevitability of hundreds of earmarks worth billions of dollars being added as the legislation moves from authorization to appropriation .
Typically , the earmarks range from $ 100,000 for research projects to billions of dollars for unrequested weapons systems .
If lawmakers are serious about fixing waste , fraud , and abuse at the Department of Defense ( DoD ) , they ’ ll need to keep earmarks out of the budget .
It won ’ t be easy for Congress , but taxpayers deserve better than pet projects and endless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports DoD spending figures , it ’ s tempting for them to focus on the topline numbers such as the fiscal year ( FY ) 2020 budget of $ 738 billion , which amounts to nearly $ 6,000 for each American household .
Annual DoD spending has increased roughly $ 200 billion over the past five years , and easily matches ( or exceeds ) what the U.S. was spending on Defense during the Iraq War 10-15 years ago .
But in the grand scheme of things , the media often neglects the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Pentagon that were never requested by DoD .
Last year , for example , the Taxpayers Protection Alliance found the FY 2020 Defense bill contained an astounding 785 earmarks totaling $ 16.1 billion ( click here for the full list ) .
Unsurprisingly , the top two slots on the list were taken by the F-35 program , which has an estimated lifetime cost of $ 1.5 trillion .
Despite well-documented dysfunctions with the F-35 , lawmakers threw an extra $ 2 billion in taxpayer money toward the ailing program .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sea search mode is only capable of examining a small sliver of sea surface while pilots have been complaining about barotrauma and sinus pains while onboard .
Even the supply chain for procuring parts is out-of-whack .
The Government Accountability Office notes , “ to keep aircraft flying despite parts shortages , from May through November 2018 F-35 squadrons cannibalized ( that is , took ) parts from other aircraft at rates that were more than six times greater than the services ’ objective…personnel at F-35 squadrons are pulling parts off of other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of waiting for new parts to be delivered through the supply chain.
” Despite these well-documented problems , lawmakers are all-but-certain to request more for the program than Pentagon officials say they will need .
And if the past is any guide , the volume of earmarks will continue to increase .
FY 2020 ’ s total of 785 earmarks represented a 15.6 increase from FY 2019 ’ s total of 679 earmarks .
This doesn ’ t seem possible , since there ’ s supposedly been a ban in place on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignored the ban and just gotten sneakier , cobbling vague language into bills that doesn ’ t ( strictly speaking ) benefit their districts .
But when situations arise such as Rep. Betty McCollum ( D-Minn. ) securing hundreds of millions of dollars for body armor production , taxpayers can ’ t help but wonder if the funding serves the country , 3M ( which is based in Saint Paul , Minnesota ) , or Rep. McCollum ’ s reelection bid .
Body armor is undoubtedly important , but a competitive grants process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best way to ensure money is spent wisely .
Clearly , a ban on earmarks hasn ’ t been enough to deter the self-serving behavior that sows mistrust of Washington , D.C .
So , it ’ s up to lawmakers , taxpayers , and advocacy organizations to call out this behavior and hold members of Congress accountable for wasteful spending .
And with the 2020 federal deficit approaching $ 4 trillion , it ’ s more important than ever to end these shenanigans .
Policymakers shouldn ’ t let all the intrigue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of discipline and accountability .
Ross Marchand is the Vice President of Policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance .

It’s that time of year again, when lawmakers, Pentagon officials, and observers on the sidelines quibble over what should—and should not—be in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Two weeks after the Senate Armed Services Committee advanced their version of the 2021 NDAA, the House Armed Services Committee advanced their own NDAA. Passions have been high and policymakers have tried inserting everything from base naming requirements and stricter “Buy American” provisions to (much-needed) transparency changes.
But regardless of how the House and Senate reconcile their respective NDAA versions, there’s the lingering inevitability of hundreds of earmarks worth billions of dollars being added as the legislation moves from authorization to appropriation. Typically, the earmarks range from $100,000 for research projects to billions of dollars for unrequested weapons systems. If lawmakers are serious about fixing waste, fraud, and abuse at the Department of Defense (DoD), they’ll need to keep earmarks out of the budget. It won’t be easy for Congress, but taxpayers deserve better than pet projects and endless deficits and debt.
When the media reports DoD spending figures, it’s tempting for them to focus on the topline numbers such as the fiscal year (FY) 2020 budget of $738 billion, which amounts to nearly $6,000 for each American household. Annual DoD spending has increased roughly $200 billion over the past five years, and easily matches (or exceeds) what the U.S. was spending on Defense during the Iraq War 10-15 years ago. But in the grand scheme of things, the media often neglects the disturbing trend of Congress lavishing earmarks onto the Pentagon that were never requested by DoD. Last year, for example, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance found the FY 2020 Defense bill contained an astounding 785 earmarks totaling $16.1 billion (click here for the full list).
Unsurprisingly, the top two slots on the list were taken by the F-35 program, which has an estimated lifetime cost of $1.5 trillion. Despite well-documented dysfunctions with the F-35, lawmakers threw an extra $2 billion in taxpayer money toward the ailing program. For example, the fighter jet’s sea search mode is only capable of examining a small sliver of sea surface while pilots have been complaining about barotrauma and sinus pains while onboard.
Even the supply chain for procuring parts is out-of-whack. The Government Accountability Office notes, “to keep aircraft flying despite parts shortages, from May through November 2018 F-35 squadrons cannibalized (that is, took) parts from other aircraft at rates that were more than six times greater than the services’ objective…personnel at F-35 squadrons are pulling parts off of other aircraft that are already unable to fly instead of waiting for new parts to be delivered through the supply chain.”
Despite these well-documented problems, lawmakers are all-but-certain to request more for the program than Pentagon officials say they will need.
And if the past is any guide, the volume of earmarks will continue to increase. FY 2020’s total of 785 earmarks represented a 15.6 increase from FY 2019’s total of 679 earmarks. This doesn’t seem possible, since there’s supposedly been a ban in place on earmarks since 2011. But lawmakers have ignored the ban and just gotten sneakier, cobbling vague language into bills that doesn’t (strictly speaking) benefit their districts.
But when situations arise such as Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) securing hundreds of millions of dollars for body armor production, taxpayers can’t help but wonder if the funding serves the country, 3M (which is based in Saint Paul, Minnesota), or Rep. McCollum’s reelection bid. Body armor is undoubtedly important, but a competitive grants process (not earmarks) would be the best way to ensure money is spent wisely.
Clearly, a ban on earmarks hasn’t been enough to deter the self-serving behavior that sows mistrust of Washington, D.C. So, it’s up to lawmakers, taxpayers, and advocacy organizations to call out this behavior and hold members of Congress accountable for wasteful spending. And with the 2020 federal deficit approaching $4 trillion, it’s more important than ever to end these shenanigans. Policymakers shouldn’t let all the intrigue on Capitol Hill get in the way of discipline and accountability.
Ross Marchand is the Vice President of Policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-03--Is the Summer of Seattle Love Over?

Is the Summer of Seattle Love Over?

Or maybe the mob won after all .
The Seattle Commune is no more .
Declared three weeks ago by radical leftists as CHAZ , the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone , rechristened CHOP , the Capitol Hill Occupation Protest , the six-block enclave inside Seattle ceased to exist July 1 .
The cops shut it down .
As Marx said , history repeats itself , first as tragedy then as farce .
If the Paris Commune of 1871 is the archetype , that mass uprising and swift slaughter of the communards who rose against the regime , what happened in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carmen Best , who opposed Mayor Jenny Durkan ’ s surrender of one of her precinct stations to the mob , explained in exasperation why her cops finally acted : “ Enough is enough .
The CHOP ( had ) become lawless and brutal .
Four shootings — two fatal — robberies , assaults , violence and countless property crimes have occurred in this several block area.
” The shooting death of a 16-year-old and critical wounding of a 14-year-old on Monday finally forced the mayor ’ s hand .
Some journalists touring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steffens on his first trip to Lenin ’ s Russia , “ I have been over into the future and it works !
” They wrote of “ peaceful ” meetings , “ documentary screenings ” and “ concerts.
” Best was more hardheaded about what she found after recapturing the CHOP : “ After walking through the area I was stunned by the amount of graffiti , garbage , and property destruction.
” Apparently , however , Mayor Durkan does not want posterity to forget the glory days of what she had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ love.
” “ Durkan called for charges to be dismissed against those who were arrested for alleged misdemeanors … The mayor also said that Seattle arts and parks departments would preserve a community garden and artwork and murals that protesters created within the zone.
” Hard to believe .
Statues of Washington , Jefferson , Jackson , Lincoln , Grant and Theodore Roosevelt are dragged down , while the murals and graffiti of misfits who trashed downtown Seattle are to be preserved .
Have the six weeks of protests since the death of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looting and trashing of city centers , desecration of monuments from Columbus to the Founding Fathers , presidents and Confederate generals , proven to be a cultural and political victory for the radical left ?
More precisely , is the mob winning ?
The case can be made that the mob has won already .
People have gotten away with massive demonstrations blocking roads , highways and parks .
Shopping areas in elite and working-class sections of scores of cities have been torched and looted .
Police have been insulted , taunted and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demands to “ Defund the Police ” have been met by political concessions and capitulations .
Minneapolis is moving to abolish its police force .
New York Mayor Bill De Blasio has slashed $ 1 billion from the NYPD budget .
Protesters camping out at city hall are demanding more .
Joe Biden , who began his campaign by telling us how well he had gotten on with the old segregationist senators like Jim Eastland and Strom Thurmond , has been scrambling as swiftly as he can in that basement .
“ ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and monuments , like the Jefferson Memorial , there ’ s an obligation that the government protect those monuments because they ’ re different .
That ’ s a remembrance , it ’ s not dealing with revering somebody who had that view .
… They may have had things in their past that were now and then distasteful , but that ’ s a judgment.
” This mush comes from a senator who probably can not remember how many Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners he has attended and addressed .
Consider what else the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have made mass civil disobedience an acceptable and even praiseworthy form of protest , if you are justifiably outraged .
They have won near-immunity for burning and looting stores .
Blanket amnesties at the state and city level appear to be in the cards .
With the collaboration of an allied and indulgent media , the radicals have turned public opinion against the cops .
They have forced the issue of defunding the police onto the national agenda .
They have pulled the center of gravity of politics sharply to the left .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ into headlong retreat , with how Xi Jinping ’ s Chinese Communist Party handled its year of protests in Hong Kong — protests aimed at attaining the democratic rights that the American protesters are abusing .
The Chinese made a calculated decision : They would not use the methods they had employed in Tiananmen Square in 1989 .
But bottom line , they would also not lose Hong Kong to the democratic camp .
Beijing has now taken over Hong Kong , stifled the protests and begun a roundup of those who initiated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West has done nothing .
As the world observes how the world ’ s greatest democracy handles disorders arising from left-wing radicals , and how China is handling an anti-Communist uprising in its city of Hong Kong , which appears to be more in command and control of its nation ’ s destiny ?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .

The Seattle Commune is no more.
Declared three weeks ago by radical leftists as CHAZ, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, rechristened CHOP, the Capitol Hill Occupation Protest, the six-block enclave inside Seattle ceased to exist July 1. The cops shut it down.
As Marx said, history repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce.
If the Paris Commune of 1871 is the archetype, that mass uprising and swift slaughter of the communards who rose against the regime, what happened in Seattle is the farce.
Police Chief Carmen Best, who opposed Mayor Jenny Durkan’s surrender of one of her precinct stations to the mob, explained in exasperation why her cops finally acted:
“Enough is enough. The CHOP (had) become lawless and brutal. Four shootings — two fatal — robberies, assaults, violence and countless property crimes have occurred in this several block area.”
The shooting death of a 16-year-old and critical wounding of a 14-year-old on Monday finally forced the mayor’s hand.
Some journalists touring the CHOP had burbled on like Lincoln Steffens on his first trip to Lenin’s Russia, “I have been over into the future and it works!”
They wrote of “peaceful” meetings, “documentary screenings” and “concerts.” Best was more hardheaded about what she found after recapturing the CHOP: “After walking through the area I was stunned by the amount of graffiti, garbage, and property destruction.”
Apparently, however, Mayor Durkan does not want posterity to forget the glory days of what she had predicted would be a “summer of love.”
Writes The Washington Post:
“Durkan called for charges to be dismissed against those who were arrested for alleged misdemeanors … The mayor also said that Seattle arts and parks departments would preserve a community garden and artwork and murals that protesters created within the zone.”
Hard to believe. Statues of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant and Theodore Roosevelt are dragged down, while the murals and graffiti of misfits who trashed downtown Seattle are to be preserved.
This raises a larger question.
Have the six weeks of protests since the death of George Floyd — weeks featuring riots, looting and trashing of city centers, desecration of monuments from Columbus to the Founding Fathers, presidents and Confederate generals, proven to be a cultural and political victory for the radical left?
More precisely, is the mob winning?
The case can be made that the mob has won already. People have gotten away with massive demonstrations blocking roads, highways and parks. Shopping areas in elite and working-class sections of scores of cities have been torched and looted. Police have been insulted, taunted and showered with debris.
Result: Mob demands to “Defund the Police” have been met by political concessions and capitulations. Minneapolis is moving to abolish its police force. New York Mayor Bill De Blasio has slashed $1 billion from the NYPD budget. Protesters camping out at city hall are demanding more.
Joe Biden, who began his campaign by telling us how well he had gotten on with the old segregationist senators like Jim Eastland and Strom Thurmond, has been scrambling as swiftly as he can in that basement.
Said Biden this week:
“(W)ith regard to those statues and monuments, like the Jefferson Memorial, there’s an obligation that the government protect those monuments because they’re different. That’s a remembrance, it’s not dealing with revering somebody who had that view. … They may have had things in their past that were now and then distasteful, but that’s a judgment.”
This mush comes from a senator who probably cannot remember how many Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners he has attended and addressed.
Consider what else the radicals and rioters have accomplished.
They have made mass civil disobedience an acceptable and even praiseworthy form of protest, if you are justifiably outraged. They have won near-immunity for burning and looting stores. Blanket amnesties at the state and city level appear to be in the cards.
With the collaboration of an allied and indulgent media, the radicals have turned public opinion against the cops. They have forced the issue of defunding the police onto the national agenda. They have pulled the center of gravity of politics sharply to the left.
Contrast how our establishment has been panicked into headlong retreat, with how Xi Jinping’s Chinese Communist Party handled its year of protests in Hong Kong — protests aimed at attaining the democratic rights that the American protesters are abusing.
The Chinese made a calculated decision: They would not use the methods they had employed in Tiananmen Square in 1989. But bottom line, they would also not lose Hong Kong to the democratic camp.
Beijing has now taken over Hong Kong, stifled the protests and begun a roundup of those who initiated and led the disorders.
And the West has done nothing.
As the world observes how the world’s greatest democracy handles disorders arising from left-wing radicals, and how China is handling an anti-Communist uprising in its city of Hong Kong, which appears to be more in command and control of its nation’s destiny?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-04--Rod Serling Couldn’t Have Predicted This Twilight Zone

Portrait of Rod Serling , host of the The Twilight Zone CBS television series .
August 1 , 1963 .
Los Angeles , CA .
( Photo by CBS via Getty Images ) Screenwriter and Twilight Zone creator Rod Serling , who died 45 years ago on June 28 , was a shrewd appraiser of human behavior and of the American cultural milieu .
But could he really have predicted what the country is going through right now ?
Maybe , maybe not .
But it ’ s doubly disappointing that SyFy Channel has decided to forgo it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year—we could really use the fun house mirror turned on ourselves , to remind us of ourselves , during this strange time of both social isolation and civil strife .
It ’ s somehow comforting to settle in for a TZ episode and sense the continuity : while many of our fellow human beings are craven , crass , untrustworthy and downright unsavory , there is always hope and transcendence , of speaking one ’ s mind , of seeking the truth .
Of good people doing the right thing .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted are especially prescient .
One , “ The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street , ” ( 1960 ) is about a pleasantville neighborhood , the kind Donald Fagan sings about in “ I.G.Y ” …the future looks bright…on his seminal album The Nightfly .
Dads washing cars , moms cooking , kids buying ice cream from a man in white pressed pants on the corner .
A bright light—and then—all the streetlights and appliances go dead .
Then a teenager touches it all off with a comic book kernel of fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And they may be among us .
He might as well be the alien himself , because his words spark such dissembling , neighbors turning on neighbors , glass breaking , a man shot .
It ’ s savage .
One mild-tempered character pleads , “ let ’ s not be a mob !
” but the mob takes off without him .
Two aliens sit far up on a ridge by their spaceship .
When deprived of power , says one , “ ( humans ) pick the most dangerous enemy they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All we need do is sit back—and watch.
” The old divide and conquer .
Serling , who wrote the episode , was particularly pessimistic , but we can see today how much this kind of scapegoat hysteria works : neighbors literally turning on neighbors over not wearing masks , demanding that people wear masks , so-called Karens who call the cops , Karen-hunters stalking middle-aged women with cell phone cameras , Nextdoor posts that snitch on teenagers congregating in the park , runners breathing hard without masks on the bike path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very worst is the shopkeepers and workers harangued , assaulted and harassed while doing their jobs during COVID , or beaten and looted during recent violence in our cities .
We can also sense familiarity in “ The Obsolete Man , ” ( 1961 ) in which a future fascist state arbitrarily decides who is essential or not , and if the latter , liquidation .
“ Like every one of the super states that preceded it , it has one iron rule : logic is an enemy and truth is a menace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening narration .
Romney Wordsworth is a librarian in this state .
The chancellor is in charge of pending “ obsolescence.
” “ Since there are no more books , Mr. Wordsworth , there are no more libraries .
The field investigators in your sector have classified you as obsolete , ” announces the chancellor from a high perch , judge and jury .
He goes on : “ Lie !
No man is obsolete !
” Wordsworth roars back .
“ I am nothing more than a reminder to you that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” The chancellor gets his comeuppance in the end , as the little librarian , played by the always capable Burgess Meredith , cleverly shows that the state , like all tyrannies , is brittle , and will eat its own to survive .
The chancellor is later attacked by the rabid brown-shirted mob after he himself is declared , “ obsolete.
” For Serling , it is simple , “ any state , any entity , any ideology that fails to recognize the worth , the dignity , the rights of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy to make the connections to today ’ s “ burning ” of history , of statues set aflame , flung down , disappeared .
An ever growing mob-like organism fueled by the backlash against police violence , erupting racial fury and toxic self-righteousness , seems to think that by vanquishing symbols of the past , pushing them down the “ memory hole , ” we will erase the injustices of their time , but as Wordsworth said , “ if i speak one thought aloud that thought lives , even after I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Pinkerton noted in these pages this week , that the stories of the men whose visages in the form of Congressional portraits or statues are being tossed away , will indeed live on .
Yes , but in the endeavoring to vanish them all , we risk making it too difficult to remember , for our children to learn from the mistakes of the past .
If the mob is strong enough it will be successful in supplanting the old and creating a new society that is more fragile , more authoritarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populace .
Just look at Communist China today , a mere half-century after the cultural revolution set out to “ destroy ” that country ’ s history .
There is a reason that George Orwell ’ s Nineteen Eighty Four is not banned there , but any review or analysis comparing it to modern China , is .
But to a young Rod Serling in 1959 , he could not have conceived that it would be the progeny of the counterculture that was just awakening with the dawn of the New Frontier that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in “ Monsters Are Due On Maple Street , ” “ Obsolete Man ” and a handful of other Orwell-inspired episodes .
While conservatives see the counterculture as the beginning of the end of American civilization , what Patrick Deneen has called the failure of liberalism , in TZ ’ s time ( 1959-64 ) it meant something quite different .
There was a growing appreciation afoot for independent thinking , of imagination over conformity and the stifling conventions of American middle class life ( authors like Ray Bradbury were opening up fissures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , which included the dumbing down and homogeneity of society spurred on by mass consumption and technology .
It also meant pushing back on suburban malaise , industrial pollution , and racial segregation .
It especially eschewed Big Brother and the previous decades of snitches , spooks , and black lists .
They had enough of war .
Things were happening and seeping into the prime time line-up .
Serling was far from “ alternative , ” but TZ was reflecting some exciting things happening at the margins , and the series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family to embrace .
It ’ s cliche to say things were simpler then—they weren ’ t .
There were just different monsters under the bed and enemies outside the garden door .
As we know , things got carried away , and social movements that were supposed to make people more free and equal seem to be ceding control to the extremes , which focus more on control , retribution , payback .
Instead of “ coming together ” as The Beatles implored , we got more tribal .
Today , instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate , news organizations are caving to the prevailing winds and deciding what is and what isn ’ t in the “ sphere of consensus ” or “ legitimate ” topics of conversation .
In other words , deciding what we read , watch , and how we are supposed to think .
A “ cancel culture ” has made sure that those who do not conform , even on their own side , are liquidated .
One thinks it would be difficult for the Serling of 1960 to have anticipated any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burgeoning societal shift was rooted in the values of the Declaration of Independence : the dignity of the human being , liberty , and equality .
Maybe when he died in 1975 he was already seeing the project going in an unanticipated direction , what conservatives would say , “ off the rails.
” Decades later , the landscape is unrecognizable , and it really feels like we are on a precipice , between the America we knew and something looking like Orwell ’ s Animal Farm .
Maybe at last , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entering into…the Twilight Zone .

Screenwriter and Twilight Zone creator Rod Serling, who died 45 years ago on June 28, was a shrewd appraiser of human behavior and of the American cultural milieu. But could he really have predicted what the country is going through right now? Maybe, maybe not.
But it’s doubly disappointing that SyFy Channel has decided to forgo it’s annual Independence Day Twilight Zone marathon this year—we could really use the fun house mirror turned on ourselves, to remind us of ourselves, during this strange time of both social isolation and civil strife. It’s somehow comforting to settle in for a TZ episode and sense the continuity: while many of our fellow human beings are craven, crass, untrustworthy and downright unsavory, there is always hope and transcendence, of speaking one’s mind, of seeking the truth. Of good people doing the right thing.
There are a number of episodes that writers have noted are especially prescient. One, “The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street,” (1960) is about a pleasantville neighborhood, the kind Donald Fagan sings about in “I.G.Y”…the future looks bright…on his seminal album The Nightfly. Dads washing cars, moms cooking, kids buying ice cream from a man in white pressed pants on the corner. A bright light—and then—all the streetlights and appliances go dead.
Then a teenager touches it all off with a comic book kernel of fear: it’s the aliens. And they may be among us. He might as well be the alien himself, because his words spark such dissembling, neighbors turning on neighbors, glass breaking, a man shot. It’s savage. One mild-tempered character pleads, “let’s not be a mob!” but the mob takes off without him.
Two aliens sit far up on a ridge by their spaceship. When deprived of power, says one, “(humans) pick the most dangerous enemy they can find and it’s themselves. All we need do is sit back—and watch.”
The old divide and conquer. Serling, who wrote the episode, was particularly pessimistic, but we can see today how much this kind of scapegoat hysteria works: neighbors literally turning on neighbors over not wearing masks, demanding that people wear masks, so-called Karens who call the cops, Karen-hunters stalking middle-aged women with cell phone cameras, Nextdoor posts that snitch on teenagers congregating in the park, runners breathing hard without masks on the bike path, chalk-writing in the street. The very worst is the shopkeepers and workers harangued, assaulted and harassed while doing their jobs during COVID, or beaten and looted during recent violence in our cities.
We can also sense familiarity in “The Obsolete Man,” (1961) in which a future fascist state arbitrarily decides who is essential or not, and if the latter, liquidation. “Like every one of the super states that preceded it, it has one iron rule: logic is an enemy and truth is a menace,” Serling informs us in the opening narration.
Romney Wordsworth is a librarian in this state. The chancellor is in charge of pending “obsolescence.”
“Since there are no more books, Mr. Wordsworth, there are no more libraries. The field investigators in your sector have classified you as obsolete,” announces the chancellor from a high perch, judge and jury.
He goes on:
“And of course it follows that there is very little call for the services of a librarian. Case in point: A minister. A minister would tell us that his function is that of preaching the word of God. And, of course, it follows that since the State has proven that there is no God, that would make the function of a minister somewhat academic, as well.”
“Lie! No man is obsolete!” Wordsworth roars back. “I am nothing more than a reminder to you that you cannot destroy truth by burning pages!”
The chancellor gets his comeuppance in the end, as the little librarian, played by the always capable Burgess Meredith, cleverly shows that the state, like all tyrannies, is brittle, and will eat its own to survive. The chancellor is later attacked by the rabid brown-shirted mob after he himself is declared, “obsolete.”
For Serling, it is simple, “any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man—that state is obsolete.”
It is easy to make the connections to today’s “burning” of history, of statues set aflame, flung down, disappeared. An ever growing mob-like organism fueled by the backlash against police violence, erupting racial fury and toxic self-righteousness, seems to think that by vanquishing symbols of the past, pushing them down the “memory hole,” we will erase the injustices of their time, but as Wordsworth said, “if i speak one thought aloud that thought lives, even after I am shoveled into my grave!”
James Pinkerton noted in these pages this week, that the stories of the men whose visages in the form of Congressional portraits or statues are being tossed away, will indeed live on. Yes, but in the endeavoring to vanish them all, we risk making it too difficult to remember, for our children to learn from the mistakes of the past. If the mob is strong enough it will be successful in supplanting the old and creating a new society that is more fragile, more authoritarian, prevailing over a spoon-fed, infantile populace. Just look at Communist China today, a mere half-century after the cultural revolution set out to “destroy” that country’s history. There is a reason that George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four is not banned there, but any review or analysis comparing it to modern China, is.
But to a young Rod Serling in 1959, he could not have conceived that it would be the progeny of the counterculture that was just awakening with the dawn of the New Frontier that would be the very thing he prophesied in “Monsters Are Due On Maple Street,” “Obsolete Man” and a handful of other Orwell-inspired episodes.
While conservatives see the counterculture as the beginning of the end of American civilization, what Patrick Deneen has called the failure of liberalism, in TZ’s time (1959-64) it meant something quite different. There was a growing appreciation afoot for independent thinking, of imagination over conformity and the stifling conventions of American middle class life (authors like Ray Bradbury were opening up fissures with their own work on this subject), which included the dumbing down and homogeneity of society spurred on by mass consumption and technology. It also meant pushing back on suburban malaise, industrial pollution, and racial segregation. It especially eschewed Big Brother and the previous decades of snitches, spooks, and black lists. They had enough of war.
Things were happening and seeping into the prime time line-up. Serling was far from “alternative,” but TZ was reflecting some exciting things happening at the margins, and the series mainstreamed these issues enough for the entire family to embrace.
It’s cliche to say things were simpler then—they weren’t. There were just different monsters under the bed and enemies outside the garden door. As we know, things got carried away, and social movements that were supposed to make people more free and equal seem to be ceding control to the extremes, which focus more on control, retribution, payback. Instead of “coming together” as The Beatles implored, we got more tribal. Today, instead of a marketplace of ideas and open debate, news organizations are caving to the prevailing winds and deciding what is and what isn’t in the “sphere of consensus” or “legitimate” topics of conversation. In other words, deciding what we read, watch, and how we are supposed to think. A “cancel culture” has made sure that those who do not conform, even on their own side, are liquidated.
One thinks it would be difficult for the Serling of 1960 to have anticipated any of this. In his view, the burgeoning societal shift was rooted in the values of the Declaration of Independence: the dignity of the human being, liberty, and equality. Maybe when he died in 1975 he was already seeing the project going in an unanticipated direction, what conservatives would say, “off the rails.” Decades later, the landscape is unrecognizable, and it really feels like we are on a precipice, between the America we knew and something looking like Orwell’s Animal Farm.
Maybe at last, as Serling would say, we are truly entering into…the Twilight Zone.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-05--What Happens When Politics Goes Viral?

What Happens When Politics Goes Viral?

I realized that the shutdown had finally gotten to me on Friday , May 23 .
Castaways on desert islands dream about food and drink .
On May 23 , when I woke abruptly at three in the morning , I was dreaming about getting my hair cut in a barbershop .
Sigmund Freud would probably have called it a tonsorial wet dream .
To me it was an annoying reminder of how easily people can be stampeded—and their lives and livelihoods disrupted—when politics literally goes viral .
The original argument for drastic shutdown measures was that , based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could prevent our hospital system from collapsing and millions of Americans dying needlessly .
The projections proved false .
But by that time the shutdown crowd had come up with an alternative rationale for cutting off oxygen to the economy .
The hard numbers showed that the overwhelming majority of those suffering serious consequences from the virus were the ( often ailing ) elderly and others with pre-existing health problems , e.g .
heart disease , respiratory conditions , diabetes , and compromised immune systems .
But instead of concentrating on protecting—and if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the population at serious risk , the mainstream media and the liberal political establishment converted a dubious short-term shutdown measure into an open-ended , economically crippling embargo on many aspects of normal human behavior .
Scare predictions dominated the headlines .
When they failed to materialize , they were replaced by new scare projections that also proved false .
Meanwhile , millions of people lost their jobs , family , community , and social life were suppressed , and many small businesses closed their doors forever .
Obviously , those who led the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vested interest in trying to discredit anyone who pointed out how wrong they were .
Ironically , they will try to exploit the very economic suffering they brought on to scapegoat their opponents .
Some of the pundits—including a few I ordinarily agree with—are predicting that , because of this , the ultimate virus victim could be the Trump presidency .
I ’ m not so sure .
This election is far from settled .
Both presumptive nominees are almost grotesquely flawed .
The outcome will hinge on which of the two seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and voter concerns this fall when ordinary Americans start focusing on the election .
The presidential debates could be a major game changer in 2020 just as they were in 2016 when a supposedly more qualified , experienced Democratic contender with overwhelming support from the mainstream media was expected to trounce Trump .
Against expectations , Trump won the debates and then the election .
Of course , Joe Biden ’ s handlers—keepers might be a better word—may decide to lock him in the basement and forego debates .
But that would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe isn ’ t up to the job of a few hours on camera with the Donald , much less four years as commander-in-chief .
Assuming there are debates , don ’ t expect many edifying moments .
We ’ re not dealing with Towering Titans here ; sad to say , it ’ s more a case of Dueling Dorks .
But Donald Trump is likely to think quicker , respond faster , and land more successful punches than Joe Biden .
Trump ’ s brash , louche , but energized Falstaff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , babbling King Lear , probably with a TKO .
Much , of course , will depend on what ’ s happening—and how the voters perceive it—this autumn .
If confidence and the economy are both trending upward and most of the country is back to work , Trump will enter the last lap of the race as successful , a president on the rebound in a country on the rebound .
Another irony : the liberal media establishment , arm-in-arm with Pelosi and company , could actually contribute to the rise in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hysterical attacks seem more and more detached from reality .
Voters are unlikely to forget—and Trump will keep reminding them—that the Donald was pushing to get America back on its feet while his opponents were demanding that we stay locked in , unemployed , and out of toilet paper .
Of course , none of this is a sure thing .
On the debit side , as some intelligent observers have pointed out , Donald Trump is now at the head of the government he ran against as an insurgent outsider four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then and now is that in 2016 he enjoyed the priceless advantage of having Hillary Clinton as his opponent .
Joe Biden , who already had a long history of lying and flip-flopping before he started losing his marbles , may be a pathetic old hack , but he isn ’ t loathed by as many voters of both parties as Hillary was .
This is another reason why so much may hinge on the debates , when voters will have a chance to see two highly flawed contenders interacting face-to-face for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but if I had to bet on the outcome today , I ’ d probably put my money on Falstaff .
Aram Bakshian Jr. is a former aide to presidents Nixon , Ford , and Reagan .
His writings on politics , history , gastronomy , and the arts have been widely published in the United States and abroad .

I realized that the shutdown had finally gotten to me on Friday, May 23. Castaways on desert islands dream about food and drink. On May 23, when I woke abruptly at three in the morning, I was dreaming about getting my hair cut in a barbershop. Sigmund Freud would probably have called it a tonsorial wet dream.
To me it was an annoying reminder of how easily people can be stampeded—and their lives and livelihoods disrupted—when politics literally goes viral. The original argument for drastic shutdown measures was that, based on purely theoretical number-crunching, only a shutdown could prevent our hospital system from collapsing and millions of Americans dying needlessly. The projections proved false. But by that time the shutdown crowd had come up with an alternative rationale for cutting off oxygen to the economy.
The hard numbers showed that the overwhelming majority of those suffering serious consequences from the virus were the (often ailing) elderly and others with pre-existing health problems, e.g. heart disease, respiratory conditions, diabetes, and compromised immune systems. But instead of concentrating on protecting—and if necessary, isolating—the relatively small segment of the population at serious risk, the mainstream media and the liberal political establishment converted a dubious short-term shutdown measure into an open-ended, economically crippling embargo on many aspects of normal human behavior. Scare predictions dominated the headlines. When they failed to materialize, they were replaced by new scare projections that also proved false. Meanwhile, millions of people lost their jobs, family, community, and social life were suppressed, and many small businesses closed their doors forever.
Obviously, those who led the charge to shut down America have a vested interest in trying to discredit anyone who pointed out how wrong they were. Ironically, they will try to exploit the very economic suffering they brought on to scapegoat their opponents. Some of the pundits—including a few I ordinarily agree with—are predicting that, because of this, the ultimate virus victim could be the Trump presidency.
I’m not so sure. This election is far from settled. Both presumptive nominees are almost grotesquely flawed. The outcome will hinge on which of the two seems most glaringly out of sync with reality and voter concerns this fall when ordinary Americans start focusing on the election. The presidential debates could be a major game changer in 2020 just as they were in 2016 when a supposedly more qualified, experienced Democratic contender with overwhelming support from the mainstream media was expected to trounce Trump.
Against expectations, Trump won the debates and then the election.
Of course, Joe Biden’s handlers—keepers might be a better word—may decide to lock him in the basement and forego debates. But that would be the ultimate acknowledgment that goofy old Uncle Joe isn’t up to the job of a few hours on camera with the Donald, much less four years as commander-in-chief. Assuming there are debates, don’t expect many edifying moments. We’re not dealing with Towering Titans here; sad to say, it’s more a case of Dueling Dorks. But Donald Trump is likely to think quicker, respond faster, and land more successful punches than Joe Biden. Trump’s brash, louche, but energized Falstaff should take out Biden’s deluded, babbling King Lear, probably with a TKO.
Much, of course, will depend on what’s happening—and how the voters perceive it—this autumn. If confidence and the economy are both trending upward and most of the country is back to work, Trump will enter the last lap of the race as successful, a president on the rebound in a country on the rebound.
Another irony: the liberal media establishment, arm-in-arm with Pelosi and company, could actually contribute to the rise in Trump’s standing as their repeated, hysterical attacks seem more and more detached from reality. Voters are unlikely to forget—and Trump will keep reminding them—that the Donald was pushing to get America back on its feet while his opponents were demanding that we stay locked in, unemployed, and out of toilet paper.
Of course, none of this is a sure thing. On the debit side, as some intelligent observers have pointed out, Donald Trump is now at the head of the government he ran against as an insurgent outsider four years ago. Another significant difference between then and now is that in 2016 he enjoyed the priceless advantage of having Hillary Clinton as his opponent. Joe Biden, who already had a long history of lying and flip-flopping before he started losing his marbles, may be a pathetic old hack, but he isn’t loathed by as many voters of both parties as Hillary was. This is another reason why so much may hinge on the debates, when voters will have a chance to see two highly flawed contenders interacting face-to-face for the first time.
Anything could happen, but if I had to bet on the outcome today, I’d probably put my money on Falstaff.
Aram Bakshian Jr. is a former aide to presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. His writings on politics, history, gastronomy, and the arts have been widely published in the United States and abroad.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-06--Does Jared Kushner Matter?

Does Jared Kushner Matter?

The president is said to be giving his son-in-law the stiff arm .
But the rot in Trump ’ s campaign has spread far further than that .
Senior White House Adviser and the son-in-law of President Donald Trump Jared Kushner .
( Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images ) “ The Trump presidency that we fought for , and won , is over , ” Steve Bannon told the Weekly Standard , almost three years ago—after his August 2017 ouster from the White House .
“ We will make something of this Trump presidency .
But that presidency is over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Indeed , it has been .
President Trump has avoided the truly calamitous : he was never shown to be Russian President Vladimir Putin ’ s puppet ( though liberal America dabbles still in fan fiction ) , he was never removed from office ( though he suffered the third presidential impeachment in history ) and unlike his five most recent predecessors , he never moved the United States into a fresh war ( though in Iran , he got recklessly close ) .
Trump has pontificated like a populist but has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t think he ’ s capable , ” Fox host Tucker Carlsonsaid in 2018 , in comments that largely evaded attention .
“ I don ’ t think he ’ s capable of sustained focus .
I don ’ t think he understands the system.
” Indeed , Trump ’ s signature achievements have been retro and Reaganite : a tax cut and the appointment of Supreme Court justices ( who nonetheless have failed to shift the balance of power in the culture war ) .
Trump attempted a Ryanite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe in , telling the Australian prime minister at the time that his country has a better system ( the Aussies have socialized , not privatized medicine ) .
The president ’ s re-orientation of America toward great power competition with its only real rival—the fascists in Beijing—I believe in the long run will , at worst , rescue Trump from the cellar of presidential reputations .
But if he fails to run on that—as all early evidence suggests he will—he risks the dark .
More than anything , Trump ’ s term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transpartian optimism espoused by some in the days following the 2016 election .
That ’ s never been more clear now that the world—amidst a pandemic , a new depression and American-exported racial unease—has spun off its axis .
“ The conservatives are going to go crazy , ” Bannon , in a sign of things to come , told Michael Wolfe of the Hollywood Reporter in the days after the 2016 election .
“ I ’ m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan .
With negative interest rates throughout the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rebuild everything .
Shipyards , ironworks , get them all jacked up .
We ’ re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks .
It will be as exciting as the 1930s , greater than the Reagan revolution.
” Bannon predicted to Wolfe : “ We ’ ll get 60 percent of the white vote , and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we ’ ll govern for 50 years.
” But without Bannon ( though there are rumblings of reunion ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s clear any incumbent who failed to live up to his potential would struggle , or at the very least , to live up to the outsider energy that delivered him to power .
And first term underperformance was also a hallmark of the last three presidents and they all managed to keep the White House .
But the distinction between Mr. Trump and his predecessors—to say nothing of the condition of the country—is that the architect of his current troubles is still at the helm heading into a referendum on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s son-in-law and apparent closest consigliere—has a different vision for Trump ’ s presidency than almost anyone who voted for him .
In an interview in 2019 with Axios ’ Jonathan Swan , the senior counselor to the president ducked inquiries on birtherism and banning Muslim entry to the United States , once trademark causes for Donald Trump .
“ I wasn ’ t really involved , ” Kushner told Swan .
While Kushner ’ s dodge may seem reasonable — the “ Muslim ban ” and the questioning of Barack Obama ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ugly facets of Trump ’ s rise — it comes as part of a worldview with no record of delivering Trump power .
That ’ s fairly relevant as his boss and father-in-law putatively seeks another four years in office .
But Kushner ’ s agenda has not been what a figure like Bannon ’ s would have been .
The divorce , in retrospect , was probably inevitable , but on the campaign trail in 2016—with a unifying enemy like Hillary Clinton—the duo worked hand in glove .
But in power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade practices , infrastructure investment and possibly even foreign policy restraint has been exchanged for criminal justice reform ( and a fairly ham-handed entreaty to black America ) , tax reform , and seeming carte blanche to the Israeli right wing ( with planned annexation in the West Bank so extreme even Republicans are nervous ) .
The problem for Trump is it ’ s likely an agenda more popular on the Upper East Side ( if only the Republican brand weren ’ t toxic ) than in the Upper Midwest that made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say that Kushner doesn ’ t know what he ’ s doing .
By most credible accounts , Washington ’ s most powerful figure under forty is as wily as they come .
When it came to the Russia investigation , Paul Wood in the Spectatordescribes a man with ice in his veins—Kushner was “ preternaturally , weirdly calm , completely and utterly unperturbed.
” Some immigration hardliners in the administration report that Kushner has been most accommodating of their agenda ( as the survival of the controversial Stephen Miller attests ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kushner ’ s leadership has demonstrated his comfort with victory only on certain terms ; from urging an ill-advised trade cave to China to conceding authority to Iran hawks in the president ’ s midst , Kushner ’ s record is that of the finance-oriented Democrat that he was before his family was thrust into power .
Swan now reports that Kushner—Trump ’ s de facto campaign chief—has been benched .
Also reportedly cut down to size is Kushner ’ s lackey Brad Parscale , the official campaign manager .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But with four months to go until voting , any reasonable observer can ask if any of this matters .
Does Trump have the “ focus ” to capitalize on the dynamics in the country that gifted him the 2016 election ?
Some are beginning to conclude “ no.
” Billionaire entrepreneur Peter Thiel , who backed the president last go around , is said to be keeping his powder dry .
It hasn ’ t helped that Trump continues to make politically perplexing choices , such as knifing Thiel-favorite Senate candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engaging in a petty crusade against his former attorney general , Jeff Sessions , in Alabama .
And the renewed clamor for Carlson to eventually succeed Trump in the Republican Party speaks to an energy that has already forsaken 2020 .
If Trump does , indeed , go down in November , populists of innumerable political persuasions—remember , the Slovenian Stalinist Slavoj Zizek once endorsed Trump ( he ’ s a Biden backer now ) —may rather pathetically complain that true “ Trumpism ” has never been tried .
But they ’ d @ @ @

It’s been a long time coming.
“The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over,” Steve Bannon told the Weekly Standard, almost three years ago—after his August 2017 ouster from the White House. “We will make something of this Trump presidency. But that presidency is over. It’ll be something else.”
Indeed, it has been. President Trump has avoided the truly calamitous: he was never shown to be Russian President Vladimir Putin’s puppet (though liberal America dabbles still in fan fiction), he was never removed from office (though he suffered the third presidential impeachment in history) and unlike his five most recent predecessors, he never moved the United States into a fresh war (though in Iran, he got recklessly close). Trump has pontificated like a populist but has declined to govern like one. “I don’t think he’s capable,” Fox host Tucker Carlson said in 2018, in comments that largely evaded attention. “I don’t think he’s capable of sustained focus. I don’t think he understands the system.”
Indeed, Trump’s signature achievements have been retro and Reaganite: a tax cut and the appointment of Supreme Court justices (who nonetheless have failed to shift the balance of power in the culture war). Trump attempted a Ryanite healthcare reform he plainly didn’t believe in, telling the Australian prime minister at the time that his country has a better system (the Aussies have socialized, not privatized medicine). The president’s re-orientation of America toward great power competition with its only real rival—the fascists in Beijing—I believe in the long run will, at worst, rescue Trump from the cellar of presidential reputations. But if he fails to run on that—as all early evidence suggests he will—he risks the dark.
More than anything, Trump’s term has been a far cry from the transpartian optimism espoused by some in the days following the 2016 election. That’s never been more clear now that the world—amidst a pandemic, a new depression and American-exported racial unease—has spun off its axis. “The conservatives are going to go crazy,” Bannon, in a sign of things to come, told Michael Wolfe of the Hollywood Reporter in the days after the 2016 election. “I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, ironworks, get them all jacked up. We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution.”
Bannon predicted to Wolfe: “We’ll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we’ll govern for 50 years.” But without Bannon (though there are rumblings of reunion), Trump now attempts re-election. It’s clear any incumbent who failed to live up to his potential would struggle, or at the very least, to live up to the outsider energy that delivered him to power. And first term underperformance was also a hallmark of the last three presidents and they all managed to keep the White House. But the distinction between Mr. Trump and his predecessors—to say nothing of the condition of the country—is that the architect of his current troubles is still at the helm heading into a referendum on the whole term.
Jared Kushner—the president’s son-in-law and apparent closest consigliere—has a different vision for Trump’s presidency than almost anyone who voted for him. In an interview in 2019 with Axios’ Jonathan Swan, the senior counselor to the president ducked inquiries on birtherism and banning Muslim entry to the United States, once trademark causes for Donald Trump. “I wasn’t really involved,” Kushner told Swan. While Kushner’s dodge may seem reasonable — the “Muslim ban” and the questioning of Barack Obama’s birth certificate among the most imprudent and ugly facets of Trump’s rise — it comes as part of a worldview with no record of delivering Trump power. That’s fairly relevant as his boss and father-in-law putatively seeks another four years in office.
But Kushner’s agenda has not been what a figure like Bannon’s would have been. The divorce, in retrospect, was probably inevitable, but on the campaign trail in 2016—with a unifying enemy like Hillary Clinton—the duo worked hand in glove. But in power, an emphasis on immigration, hardline trade practices, infrastructure investment and possibly even foreign policy restraint has been exchanged for criminal justice reform (and a fairly ham-handed entreaty to black America), tax reform, and seeming carte blanche to the Israeli right wing (with planned annexation in the West Bank so extreme even Republicans are nervous). The problem for Trump is it’s likely an agenda more popular on the Upper East Side (if only the Republican brand weren’t toxic) than in the Upper Midwest that made Trump president.
This isn’t to say that Kushner doesn’t know what he’s doing. By most credible accounts, Washington’s most powerful figure under forty is as wily as they come. When it came to the Russia investigation, Paul Wood in the Spectator describes a man with ice in his veins—Kushner was “preternaturally, weirdly calm, completely and utterly unperturbed.” Some immigration hardliners in the administration report that Kushner has been most accommodating of their agenda (as the survival of the controversial Stephen Miller attests). But, at its core, Kushner’s leadership has demonstrated his comfort with victory only on certain terms; from urging an ill-advised trade cave to China to conceding authority to Iran hawks in the president’s midst, Kushner’s record is that of the finance-oriented Democrat that he was before his family was thrust into power.
Swan now reports that Kushner—Trump’s de facto campaign chief—has been benched. Also reportedly cut down to size is Kushner’s lackey Brad Parscale, the official campaign manager. It’s worth noting that neither have been fired. But with four months to go until voting, any reasonable observer can ask if any of this matters. Does Trump have the “focus” to capitalize on the dynamics in the country that gifted him the 2016 election? Some are beginning to conclude “no.” Billionaire entrepreneur Peter Thiel, who backed the president last go around, is said to be keeping his powder dry. It hasn’t helped that Trump continues to make politically perplexing choices, such as knifing Thiel-favorite Senate candidate Kris Kobach in Kansas, and wastefully engaging in a petty crusade against his former attorney general, Jeff Sessions, in Alabama. And the renewed clamor for Carlson to eventually succeed Trump in the Republican Party speaks to an energy that has already forsaken 2020.
If Trump does, indeed, go down in November, populists of innumerable political persuasions—remember, the Slovenian Stalinist Slavoj Zizek once endorsed Trump (he’s a Biden backer now)—may rather pathetically complain that true “Trumpism” has never been tried. But they’d be right.