Trump’s tariffs

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday Trump announced that he plans to impose a 25% tariff on all goods from Mexico and Canada, and increase the tariff on goods from China 10%. Most of the coverage (including the article I just linked) assumes that it would raise prices here. That may indeed be a valid assumption. Most of the articles don’t emphasize the other part of the equation – which is that he says he will do it until the border countries do something to curtail the importation of fentanyl, and to stem the tide of illegal aliens crossing their respective borders.

Trump claimed:

This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country! …

I have had many talks with China about the massive amounts of drugs, in particular Fentanyl, being sent into the United States — But to no avail. Until such time as they stop, we will be charging China an additional 10% Tariff, above any additional Tariffs, on all of their many products coming into the United States of America.

So the way I see it is that this is Trump’s opening bid in a complex negotiation – let’s make a deal. Whether Trump will get what he wants from those countries, or whether this will be economically disastrous or at least difficult for US consumers, remains to be seen.

Will the costs be passed on to US buyers and cause inflation? Will companies absorb them? Will the costs be offset by other de-inflationary policies such as lowered energy costs or tax cuts? If we become more energy independent, will we not need to import much oil from Canada? And will Mexico and/or Canada and/or China blink and actually do something about fentanyl and/or about the border traffic?

The assumption by the left is that of course this will be inflationary and that Trump is a stupid dodohead Nazi whatever. But at this point I would’t underestimate Trump.

Why doesn’t Trump explain his strategy better, so that the American people can understand all the thinking behind this?

(1) Maybe he really is a stupid dodohead.
(2) Maybe he doesn’t want to tip his hand and reveal too much to the other sides in the negotiations.
(3) Maybe he will explain better later.
(4) Maybe he wants to make all his enemies and opponents predict something dire that doesn’t happen, and be wrong again.

Israel agrees to ceasefire in Lebanon [see UPDATE]

The New Neo Posted on by

I think that this might be an accurate summary:

There is no question that this is a better deal and that Israel has better leverage than in 2006; there is also no question that the formula for the next war is present in today’s ceasefire.

The ceasefire takes effect tomorrow:

A ceasefire in Lebanon was announced by the Israeli cabinet at 10:30 p.m. by a vote of 10 to 1, according to a statement by the Prime Minister’s Office.

Presidents Biden and Macron will announce the deal during the night, with the agreement set to take effect at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

This comes after several days of strained last-minute negotiation, in which Israel pushed for the removal of France as guarantor of the security situation in Lebanon, citing current diplomatic tensions between France and Israel. …

An Israeli official told Maariv that the ceasefire was not the end of the war and that Israel maintained its right to respond to any threat.

The source also said that the severing of the connection between the Gazan and Lebanese fronts would leave Hamas isolated, something also highlighted by Netanyahu in his speech.

Sources told Saudi channel Al Hadath that there would be no buffer zone in South Lebanon according to the agreement.

I don’t quite understand what this is all about. Perhaps it’s a temporary pause in a war that might resume when a new and more cooperative US administration comes into office and Biden is gone. Maybe the IDF needs to rest and regroup – although this allows Hezbollah to rest and regroup, too. It certainly doesn’t solve the problem of Hezbollah, although the terror group is weakened. The pause may have something to do with focusing on Iran instead. It doesn’t seem to be a situation that would allow the evacuated northern Israelis to return to their homes, either.

UPDATE 4:50 PM

THis may shed some light on the subject:

“We will act,” the official promises, noting that Israel is accepting a ceasefire, not an end to the war.

“We don’t know how long [the ceasefire] will last,” the official says. “It could be a month, it could be a year.”

Netanyahu decided Israel had no choice but to accept a ceasefire out of a fear that the Biden administration could punish Israel with a United Nations Security Council resolution in its final weeks, asserts the official, though the US has not given any indication that it would do so.

Israel is also missing capabilities it needs from the US, including 130 D9 bulldozers, says the official.

You may recall that in its lame duck months (December 2016), the Obama administration did just that: punished Israel in the UN. Perhaps some of the same “advisors” are involved in the Biden/Harris administration. Back then:

The United States … abstained as the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution — vigorously opposed by President-elect Donald Trump and the government of Israel — that criticizes Israeli settlement construction in land claimed by the Palestinians for a future state.

The measure, though largely symbolic, was the first the Security Council has adopted on Israel and Palestine in roughly eight years, and it prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to lash out against those who voted for it as well as President Barack Obama, a man with whom he’s long had chilly relations.

“The Obama administration not only failed to protect Israel against this gang-up at the U.N., it colluded with it behind the scenes,” the Israeli leader said in a statement, according to Reuters. “Israel looks forward to working with President-elect Trump and with all our friends in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution.”

Remember, that was in 2016. There may be a parallel situation now, or fear of one.

Jack Smith pulls an Emily Litella regarding the Trump J6 case (plus, Dershowitz on the anti-Trump prosecutors)

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, well, well. Fancy that:

The nation was put through a traumatic and disruptive series of court cases designed to stymie and hamstring and bankrupt and discourage – and if possible imprison, although that was a secondary goal – Donald Trump, and to convince the American people that he was an evil criminal unworthy of their votes.

It didn’t work. But not for lack of trying. And if I had a dime for every time the Harris campaign used the “convicted felon” ploy as part of their message, I’d have a tidy sum of money. And I know people who to this day are unaware of the Soviet kangaroo-court-style nature of the charges against Trump.

Now that the majority of the American people voted for his re-election, it is revealed (not that those paying attention didn’t already know) how twisted the efforts were to convict him. Of course, neither the DOJ nor Jack Smith is admitting that. On the contrary, they are taking pains to make it clear that “the Government stands fully behind” the charges. It’s only because they are not allowed to prosecute a sitting president that they are asking that these charges be dropped.

Note that this does not affect the NY state charges that were the vehicle by which the “convicted felon” appellation came to be used.

I am also convinced that among the many goals of the anti-Trump lawfare was to confuse a public that isn’t always knowledgeable about the difference between federal and state cases, and criminal and civil prosecutions. The idea was to engender a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” mentality and discourage support for Trump on the part of voters. As many have pointed out, it mostly had the opposite effect, except among those already predisposed to hate Trump.

Here Alan Dershowitz discusses whether the lawyers who prosecuted/persecuted Trump should be themselves tried or at least disbarred. His conclusion: not Jack Smith, but Fani Willis and her boyfriend, both of whom almost certainly committed perjury, and those behind the 65 Project (I wrote about the latter here).

The self-named Resistance: how’s it doing this time?

The New Neo Posted on by

At Axios they say it’s more muted:

2016 birthed The Resistance, a political movement to protest Trumpism online and in the streets. There’s still plenty of resistance to Trump across the country, but little mass mobilization.

That’s not the Resistance. That’s just the outward manifestation of dislike; and it’s true that the demonstrations aren’t what they used to be. But this time it more often takes the form of personal anger towards friends, relatives, and acquaintances who voted for Trump; I’ve seen tons of articles about this and experienced isolated instances myself.

But still, that’s not the Resistance and never was.

The real “Resistance” is leftist activism to undermine Trump: lies about him in the media and by government agencies (for example, the entire operation known as Russiagate). It’s lawfare, which is sputtering out in its current form but might well be revived either now or especially after his term is up. It’s – perish the thought – the encouragement of assassination. It’s similar operations against anyone who might have the temerity to work for him.

It’s the workings of many members of government bureaucracy, who are now especially agitated and motivated because their jobs are threatened by Trump’s promise to drain the swamp – which in many cases might mean they lose their jobs.

It’s actions by states and governors of states who have pledged to undermine and/or defy whatever Trump might want to do. It’s damaging leaks from people he hires who might betray him. And it’s surveillance of his every move.

Have I left anything out? Probably. But I very much doubt that those forces have spent their energy.

World leaders congatulate Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

Some interesting contrasts here. And if you go to YouTube and look at the comments, you’ll see a lot of funny ones about Milei of Argentina, such as, “Why president of Argentina look like he in a basement hiding from zombie apocalypse”:

And this is – well, just take a look:

On holiday fruitcake

The New Neo Posted on by

Somehow I got on the list of a whole bunch of fancy food catalogues, which are coming to me in the mail almost every day. I’m pretty sure I earned my place on that list by sending some fruit to an elderly relative every year for the past few years. The relative is, alas, no more, but the catalogues proliferate.

And of course I look at them. Chocolates galore, even though I can’t eat chocolate because it gives me migraines. Sigh and sigh again. All sorts of other delicious-looking confections, all of them mega-expensive.

And of course fruitcake. Fruitcake has become a sort of holiday joke, but somebody must like it because all these fruitcakes start at around forty dollars a pop. I can’t imagine a fruitcake worth that sort of money, but then again, that seems to be the going rate for an entree in a restaurant these days, so what do I know?

I happen to like fruitcake, too. At least, sort of. Probably more than the average person does. But it’s the neutron star of calories, and it doesn’t seem worth that price, either. So I think I’ll desist.

Criminal illegal alien? You’ve got a home in Denver

The New Neo Posted on by

The mayor of Denver isn’t the only one asserting a city or state’s “sanctuary” status, but he’s threatening armed resistance:

The Democrat Mayor of Denver, Colorado Mike Johnston has challenged Trump to try to deport any illegal migrants from his city, saying he would deploy the Denver City Police and volunteers from the local community to use force against federal forces trying to deport illegals.

“More than us having DPD stationed at the county line to keep them out, you would have 50,000 Denverites there. It’s like the Tiananmen Square moment with the rose and the gun… You’d have every one of those Highland moms who came out for the migrants. You don’t want to mess with them.”

High drama is being evoked, tanks mowing down mothers who are protecting innocent families. But Trump has made it clear – and I assume this will hold up – that the primary goal at this point is twofold: deport criminal aliens who are here illegally and are under already-existent deportation orders, and stop the vast influx of new illegal arrivals. Do those Highland moms of Denver really want to protect those who would traffic and/or rape their children, or at least commit fraud of various kinds?

Here’s a description of the “Highland moms,” in case you’re interested:

The “Highland moms” the mayor referred to are the group of citizens who organized donation drives for immigrants when waves of them started showing up in Denver toward the end of last year.

I wonder what the Highland moms have to say about this sort of thing (Aurora is a Denver suburb):

Chamberlain said police believe there are between 10 and 20 suspected members of the Tren de Aragua gang active in Aurora, out of roughly 1,100 members of various gangs identified in the city. At least nine Tren de Aragua members have been arrested, and a multi-agency task force is investigating the gang’s presence.

The whole question of Trump pledging to use the military is a complex one, and I may write a separate post about it sometime. But in the meantime here’s an article that goes into how it might be done. Note that Trump already declared a state of emergency in his first term regarding illegal border crossings. Here are some relevant excerpts:

“For basically the past 40 years, the military’s involvement at the border has been steadily growing,” said Joseph Nunn, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law, “And it has gone from sort of ad hoc to routine to deeply entrenched into how we approach border security and immigration.”

Members of the military stationed at the border have historically performed an array of support tasks, experts tell CBS News – from operating surveillance aircrafts and transporting U.S. Border Patrol personnel in helicopters to laying concertina wire and maintaining Customs and Border Protection vehicles.

Homan’s suggestions of using the military for some of the operational work that doesn’t involve engaging with migrants would fall under this category and would be an expansion of the duties National Guard and a small number of active-duty troops have performed at the southern border under previous administrations. As recently as last year, troops were deployed to the border to help Border Patrol with administrative tasks, like warehouse management and clerical work.

Military involvement now “is just essentially to get access to more bodies and more aircrafts,” Nunn explained, calling military mobilization a force multiplier. “Suppose you want to set up a checkpoint on a highway in Texas or Arizona. Under normal circumstances, you need five CBP agents to run a checkpoint. If you have access to military personnel, you can run a checkpoint with one CBP agent assisted by four soldiers. Then suddenly five CBP agents assisted by soldiers can run five checkpoints instead of one.”

It seems to me that a great deal of any military presence would be at the border. It also occurs to me that some of what Trump is saying is designed to discourage potential illegal entrants who are thinking of getting in while Biden is still nominally president.

I’ve got a bunch of questions

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) Will Trump’s second term be like a special edition of “The Apprentice,” with him saying over and over to government bureaucrats: “You’re fired!”?

(2) Is Musk trolling the left with the notion that he might buy MSNBC, or is he serious?

(3) Judge Merchan has postponed Trump’s sentencing till after December 9, when papers from both sides on the issue will have been submitted. My question is whether Merchan will sentence Trump, postpone the decision indefinitely, or dismiss the case?

(4) Will Trump pardon the J6ers? If so, will it for some or for all?

(5) What’s Kamala Harris’ next gig?

On Trump’s picks

The New Neo Posted on by

It occurs to me that the relief the right feels at Trump’s election victory, as well as the scope of its breadth and depth, has the consequence of leading to enormous expectations. Can they be fulfilled? Probably not. After all, Trump and even Musk and Ramaswamy are human (despite some allegations to the contrary), and the swamp also has vast breadth and depth.

As Trump announces his appointments at a fast clip, they’ve been subjected to the usual scrutiny and criticism. He’s not going to please all the people all the time. Many of the objections have to do with someone being connected in the past to something the critic doesn’t like, even if much time has passed and even if the person seems to be on the right page about many things.

I say chill. Some of the nominations will end up being duds. Past performance is important but not everyone who will do well in a new position has a squeaky clean past that would give that person the conservative stamp of approval. And vice versa.

Some pundits and some bloggers get clicks by doing that sort of critique, though. Fine. Bloggers will blog and pundits will opine. But the whole thing makes me more aware that people have been gathering four years of pent-up frustration that is quite extreme, and many are so jittery and so revved-up that they are ready to shriek if Trump doesn’t really solve everything on day one of his administration.

So although there’s nothing wrong with high expectations – I have them too – I suggest that they be tempered with realism.

Open thread 11/23/2024

The New Neo Posted on by

Chopin wrote this piece when he was eleven years old. It’s his earliest surviving work, but not the earliest he wrote. He was a child prodigy not just in playing but in composing:

I think the pianist is thirteen here.