More on thought and action (and Trump, of course)

The New Neo Posted on by

Without any thought at all, “action” can be spinning your wheels. Unless one is reacting quickly in an emergency, thought is (or should be) the engine for action, particularly political action.

But when you call someone a “man of action” (as I did in a previous post) you don’t mean the person literally doesn’t think, has no thoughts at all. It’s about the person’s primary mode of conceptualizing him/herself and presenting him/herself to the world.

For political action, it helps to have a coherent conceptual philosophy and to be able to articulate it well. Ronald Reagan, for example, was very good at that and it was one of his tremendous strengths, although he was no slouch at action either. Donald Trump path to action doesn’t seem to come from that sort of coherently expressed political philosophy, although his supporters don’t care and don’t expect it of him.

That lack in Trump does not mean, however, that he can’t be effective as president. And it doesn’t mean that he acts completely without thought or reason. But it makes him hard to predict and hard to understand for a great many people—even people in the GOP—and it certainly feeds the fear of those who oppose him. It has the advantage, however, of making it difficult for those who want to fight him to predict what he’ll do (although so far he’s pretty much been doing exactly what he promised). There is also the fear of those who genuinely think he’s a loose cannon or crazy and capable of doing just about anything.

A political philosophy and the ability to express it matters when people (on either side) are trying to evaluate someone, particularly someone lacking a record of action in public office, as Trump did prior to his inauguration. All we had from Trump was our perception of his words, and his actions as a private individual. Evaluating those words was especially hard with Trump, who during his campaign (and previously, as well) was fond of over-the-top utterances, nasty tweets, jokes, and statements that contradicted other statements he’d made. All politicians are sometimes given to hyperbole, but if we know their basic political orientation and conceptual framework from their political record, we are less likely to get confused by that fact, or even by promises they can’t keep.

Understanding more clearly where a politician or officeholder is coming from also helps to predict what he or she will do in the future, particularly with new events or issues. It helps the person’s opponents plan a strategy, too, so there’s something to be said for not knowing. But it helps voters decide whether they support that person, and I think Trump’s lack of this ability during the campaign confused and put off some people who otherwise might have voted for him.

Now we’ve had a flurry of rapid-fire action. Now we know more of what Trump is likely to do and to be as president. So far, he’s not only a man of action, he’s a man of conservative action. This is driving the left crazy, and it’s even upsetting some more moderate Republicans. But it’s important information, and tonight when he names his pick for SCOTUS, we’ll get even more information.

Chimp violence

The New Neo Posted on by

Anyone who has read Jane Goodall’s books knows that chimpanzees can be very very violent to others of their species. It came as a shock to Goodall, who had lived with the animals for years before she observed the violence:

The outbreak of the war came as a disturbing shock to Goodall, who had previously considered chimpanzees to be, although similar to human beings, “rather ‘nicer'” in their behavior. Coupled with the observation in 1975 of cannibalistic infanticide by a high-ranking female in the community, the violence of the Gombe war first revealed to Goodall the “dark side” of chimpanzee behavior. She was profoundly disturbed by this revelation…

To Goodall’s credit, she reported on the violence and didn’t try to hide it, at a time when she was pretty much the only one doing this sort of research. The question arose, however, whether the violence was partly an artifact of human disturbance of the natural habitat and social interactions of the chimps who were being observed. Recent research indicates this is usually not the case.

Which brings us to this story of the murder of a former alpha leader by his previous followers. The tale doesn’t just illustrate violence among the chimps, however. It touches on other issues that I find greatly interesting. One is whether chimps are aware of death. The other is loyalty among chimps; even when the chimp who was subsequently killed had become chimp non grata in the group, one of his former allies remained loyal to him. Another issue raised by the story is competition for females when females are scarce, and how it might lead to violence among the males. And it seems that the shortage of females in the area where this occurred might indeed have been the result of human intervention: poachers.

The unremarkable firing of Sally Yates

The New Neo Posted on by

Donald Trump fired acting AG Sally Yates after she refused to defend his recent executive order on immigration. Why do I call the firing “unremarkable,” when it’s the news du jour? Because any president in his position would have done so.

Trump is famous for saying, “You’re fired!” to people on a well-known TV reality show. But this is no reality show; it’s reality. And in real life an AG advises a president on the law, but if that AG refuses to enforce an order that has been “approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel,” then any president would fire him or her.

The proper remedy, if Yates simply could not in good conscience enforce that order, would have been to resign. But Yates apparently wanted to force the issue and get herself fired, and my suspicion is that she knew the visuals would be better that way and she’d be more likely to become a hero to the liberal/left. Most people had never heard of Yates before. But nearly everyone has heard of her now, and she will be feted for quite a while by Democrats for this action.

The Times reports Yates’ motivation this way:

Ms. Yates, like other senior government officials, was caught by surprise by the executive order and agonized over the weekend about how to respond, two Justice Department officials involved in the weekend deliberations said. Ms. Yates considered resigning but she told colleagues she did not want to leave it to her successor to face the same dilemma.

The Times has a certain amount of contempt for its readers if it thinks they will buy that, because it makes no sense on the face of it. Surely Ms. Yates knew she’d be fired as a result of this action; it’s merely common sense. And surely she understood that her successor would almost certainly face the same dilemma as she, whether she resigned or was fired.

Speaking of our friends at the Times, I am often in awe of the delicate nuances of their writing, designed to sway the reader without the reader understanding the mechanisms by which that’s happening. Consider, for example, the very first paragraph of their Yates-firing story:

President Trump fired his acting attorney general on Monday night, removing her as the nation’s top law enforcement officer after she defiantly refused to defend his executive order closing the nation’s borders to refugees and people from predominantly Muslim countries.

Sounds rather straightforward, doesn’t it, if you’re just reading it and taking it in passively. But let’s take it phrase by phrase. It’s only a single sentence, and not an especially long one at that, but there’s a lot packed into it.

“his acting attorney general”—This is certainly technically true, if “his” means “acting under him.” But Yates is an Obama appointee, acting as AG only until Jeff Sessions is confirmed, and hearings on that very confirmation are going on even as I write this. In other words, Obama-appointee Yates only became acting AG on January 20, 2017, when Trump was inaugurated. She is being fired 10 days later, shortly before her more permanent successor is appointed, a person you can really say is “his” (i.e. Trump’s) AG. However, you can read that entire lengthy Times article without learning from them that Yates is an Obama appointee until the very last paragraph [CORRECTION: I just noticed that the Times does mention early on that Yates “served under Obama”]. Touché, NY Times!

“she defiantly refused”—This is certainly true as well. It’s an interesting phrase, though, because it is both unnecessary (of course it was defiant) and can be interpreted in several ways. “Defiance” can be considered insubordination by those who disagree with it, but the liberal/left will certainly consider Yates’ defiance not only laudable but the proper position they all should take, a sort of guide to future defiant action in the name of righteousness (or self-righteousness).

“his executive order closing the nation’s borders to refugees and people from predominantly Muslim countries”—The purposely misleading nature of that statement is obvious. Any “closing” of the borders is temporary, a fact unmentioned in the article. Even more importantly, Trump’s immigration EO’s temporary “closing” does not apply to many many “refugees and people from predominantly Muslim countries.” In fact, it does not apply to the countries with the largest number of Muslims—Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and Turkey—as well as many other countries with very large Muslim populations.

Yes, the countries targeted by the Trump EO are indeed “predominantly Muslim.” But their predominantly Muslim nature is not the reason they were chosen, since far larger numbers of Muslims are being allowed in as long as they are from countries not presently designated as being at high risk for terror. The countries involved in the EO were chosen (by the Obama administration, I might add, although the Times leaves that fact out as well) because terrorism is very active in them, and because the current vetting system for people from those countries is being evaluated and fine-tuned.

But the Times is very effective in misinforming its readers in the manner it thinks is best for them. In fact, I have already had conversations with friends who seem to lack any real notion of what the Trump EO is and what it does, except that they are convinced that it is a step along the road to Hitlerian awfulness.

One more thing—the Times reports that its two DOJ informants say that Yates and others at the DOJ were “caught by surprise by the executive order.” I grant that they may have been surprised by its speed, but if they were surprised by the order itself, than they are either stupid or have not been paying attention.

Details yet to emerge in Quebec mosque shooting that killed six

The New Neo Posted on by

We don’t know much yet about the perpetrators in a horrific and deadly attack on a Quebec mosque that left six dead and many wounded. Reports are that there were two and perhaps three shooters, but we know that such reports can be erroneous. At first it was said there were two in custody, one with a French name and one Moroccan, but the latest reports are that it’s only the man with the French name who is the suspect, and the other man was a witness.

Reports at the moment also indicate that the one perpetrator they have in custody is somewhat of a Dylan Roof type of hater, but even that is subject to revision. Who the other or others might be is completely unknown. But since the alleged perp is in custody, it shouldn’t be long before we learn more.

Oh, and already lots of people are blaming it on Trump, of course.

Just ten days out…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and Obama can’t refrain from praising the protests against his successor.

No surprise there. He does it through a “spokesman,” of course, rather than directly. Here’s the text of the statement:

“President Obama is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country. In his final official speech as President, he spoke about the important role of citizen and how all Americans have a responsibility to be the guardians of our democracy–not just during an election but every day,” Kevin Lewis, Obama’s spokesman, said.

“Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.”…

“With regard to comparisons to President Obama’s foreign policy decisions, as we’ve heard before, the President fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion,” Lewis added.

Of course, no one discriminated against anyone because of that person’s faith or religion, but this is pure MSM-type obfuscation of the actual issue.

Obama himself has said:

“As an American citizen who cares deeply about our country, if there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal or battle, but go to core questions about our values and our ideals, and if I think that it’s necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, then I’ll examine it when it comes,” Obama said.

And of course, it’s so often “necessary or helpful” for Obama to mouth off, even though previous presidents have respected their successors and/or the office of the presidency itself enough to have desisted. Not Obama.

So, would the press have done this to any Republican president?

The New Neo Posted on by

All answers are speculative, of course, but my answer is a resounding “yes.”

Commenter Yancey Ward writes:

One of the issues some on the Right keep bringing up here is paraphrased this way: “Trump should have better explained this EO, or should have executed it better.”

This is delusional at best. It didn’t matter how Trump worded or explained this EO. The reaction from the media would have been exactly the same. The reaction would have been exactly the same if the EO hadn’t put a temporary halt to the entry of people from these 7 countries, but had instead just announced the same terms Obama had already put into place.

This has been a long-running problem for Republicans at all levels of government- thinking they can placate the media by any actions whatsoever.

I agree with Yancey. And yet I also disagree.

I agree that the MSM would twist his/her words, lie, and use a double standard towards any GOP president. But some charges stick more than others, and some GOP leaders are more susceptible to criticism than others. Each has his/her strengths and weaknesses. It behooves each and every one of them to be as clear as possible—and as loud as possible, in the sense of reaching the public directly and explaining him/herself—in an attempt to get ahead of the news. That’s true of the politician and it’s true for his/her aides and spokespeople. The more they pre-empt the media’s message and make their own crystal clear, the better.

Trump sometimes is good at that and sometimes isn’t. His use of Twitter, for example, is his attempt to do that. Someone like Kellyanne Conway, who ordinarily is extremely sharp and extremely clear and articulate, is another. Sometimes, though, the communications are murky or non-existent, such as on the signing of the EO on immigration. A chance to explain and get ahead of the inevitable distortions was missed, to the administration’s detriment.

However, Trump has two general advantages that previous GOP presidents have not had (maybe Reagan was an exception; I’m not sure about that). The first is that he has a lot of supporters who will forgive him anything, almost literally anything. The media has been trying to get him for a long time and they really haven’t drawn serious blood yet. The second is that Trump has explicitly framed his campaign and now his presidency as a fight against a mendacious media. So, any time he’s vague about something and they either misunderstand it or lie about it (or both), and are later proven to have been wrong or mendacious, that feeds the Trump narrative and makes more people suspicious of the media itself. Which is a win for Trump.

Trump’s most fervent supporters won’t turn on him almost no matter what he does. His most fervent opponents won’t approve of anything he does no matter what it is. But there’s a vast group in the middle that could go either way. I happen to think that he’d do well to explain himself clearly and succinctly and get ahead of the news cycle as well as responding to the news attacks. The more consistently right he is, the more he can appeal to that group and override the constant anti-Trump hue and cry in the MSM.

The press gets the vapors over Trump’s executive order on immigration

The New Neo Posted on by

And when the press gets the vapors, so do its obedient readers. And yes, there are still plenty of those.

Another thing that happens is that I’m sometimes moved to violate my Never On Sunday rule and write a Sunday post. As you can see.

Every day there are certain internet sites that I check. One of them is memeorandum, which highlights a bunch of articles the memeorandum-powers-that-be have decided are the important must-reads of the day. I certainly don’t read them all, but I skim the headlines to get a rough idea of what’s being talked about, and if anything seems especially interesting I’ll read it.

Here’s memeorandum right now, as I’m writing this. You can see how very many stories there are—nearly all negative—about Donald Trump’s executive order regarding a temporary and limited halt to immigration from seven countries (countries which are not mentioned in the order; see this for a fascinating discussion of that) in which terrorism is rife. The coverage is so hysterical that one would think he had announced he would deport every Muslim in America. And in fact, quite a few of the article headlines disingenuously call it a “Muslim ban” (sometimes at least using the scare quotes, but sometimes not, as in this NY Times editorial entitled “Trump’s Muslim ban is cowardly and dangerous,” without any scare quotes at all).

Let’s see what the Times has to say:

First, reflect on the cruelty of President Trump’s decision on Friday to indefinitely suspend the resettlement of Syrian refugees and temporarily ban people from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the United States. It took just hours to begin witnessing the injury and suffering this ban inflicts on families that had every reason to believe they had outrun carnage and despotism in their homelands to arrive in a singularly hopeful nation.

The first casualties of this bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating policy were detained early Saturday at American airports just hours after the executive order, ludicrously titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” went into effect. A federal judge in Brooklyn on Saturday evening issued an emergency stay, ordering that those stuck at the airports not be returned to their home countries. But their future and the future of all the others subject to the executive order is far from settled.

It must have felt like the worst trick of fate for these refugees to hit the wall of Donald Trump’s political posturing at the very last step of a yearslong, rigorous vetting process. This ban will also disrupt the lives and careers of potentially hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have been cleared to live in America under visas or permanent residency permits.

The Times goes on to a Holocaust reference, and then on and on and on in the same vein as that beginning. Remember that his ban is about delaying entry for people from suspect nations for between 90 and 120 days until better rules are put in place. That’s it. It’s not a ban on Muslims; it’s not even a ban. But the Times is misleading, and it is purposefully so. Believe me, most of the people I know will be talking about this and thinking about this as though it’s a Muslim ban.

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I’m not a Trump fan. I also think this was a flawed presentation, especially the fact that there was not an exception for people already in transit. That had the effect of creating tailor-made visuals for the press to focus on, and undermined the policy in that way. I support the policy of introducing ideological vetting, however, and have for a long time—long before Donald Trump adopted the idea.

What’s more, I am firmly convinced that if, say, a President Cruz had announced something similar (and I believe he would have), and if he’d done it with an exception for people in transit and had also exempted those with green cards, that the press would have managed to give him equally negative coverage. That’s no reason that Trump had to play into their hands.

Actually, we can look at history to tell us that when President Obama put visa restrictions on individuals who had traveled to those countries, the reaction was crickets chirping. Or when Jimmy Carter banned travel from Iran during the hostage crisis:

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

I don’t recall a hue and cry or accusations of “Hitler” back then. And I bet there may have been people stuck in transit, too. But Carter was a Democrat, so it didn’t matter. What’s more, the country hadn’t yet lost its mind.

Some of the criticism of the executive order centers on Trump’s supposed selection of these countries and his lack of selection of countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia from whence many of the 9/11 hijackers hailed. But not only is that disingenuous because Trump didn’t name the seven countries; Obama did, but also because much has changed since 9/11. 9/11 was an event that helped to get America’s attention about terrorists’ intentions towards us, but since then terrorism’s major sites have changed somewhat and spread out.

On the question of whether the executive order applies to green card holders, it appears that it doesn’t, although early reports said it did. I’m basing that idea on this:

News reports suggested the White House overruled the Department of Homeland Security’s recommendations on excluding green-card holders from the executive orders. Preibus, on Meet the Press, denied that, then appeared to suggest that the order won’t affect permanent residents going forward, but when pressed appeared to contradict himself.

“We didn’t overrule the Department of Homeland Security, as far as green-card holders moving forward, it doesn’t affect them,” he said. But when pressed by Chuck Todd, the show’s host, on whether the order affected green-card holders, he replied: “Well, of course it does. If you’re traveling back and forth, you’re going to be subjected to further screening.”

So it seems it will “affect” them, but the mechanism will be that they will be asked some more questions during transit—not that any ban will affect them. Here’s another article about the Priebus interview:

[Priebus] also suggested the executive order could come to encompass more than the current seven countries included in the ban, and that the order focused on people coming from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen because those were identified by Congress as “being the seven most-watched countries in regard to harboring terrorists.”

“Perhaps other countries needed to be added to an executive order going forward ”” but in order to do this in a way that was expeditious, in a way that would pass muster quickly, we used the 7 countries” already identified by Congress, he said.

Priebus added that the order was rolled out quickly because “this is all done for the protection of Americans, and waiting another three days, waiting another three weeks is something that we don’t want to get wrong.”

“President Trump is not willing to get this wrong which is why he wants to move forward quickly and protect Americans,” Priebus added.

You know what would have been a good idea? As this was announced, in addition to this long, complex, and rather legalistic press release, President Trump should have given a much shorter speech highlighting and explaining exactly what the order is and what it isn’t, and why it was being done so quickly. That way at least he would have made the press’s self-appointed job of obfuscation somewhat more difficult, although they would have probably been up to the task anyway.

[ADDENDUM: By the way, the NY Times has reported on the clarification about the green cards issued by the administration. But in doing so, the paper chooses the headline, “White House Official, in Reversal, Says Green Card Holders Won’t Be Barred.” But this was not some big reversal. In fact, the original report that green card holders would be banned was based on an email sent by Gillian Christensen, acting Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman. But very quickly the matter was clarified by another spokesman (on Saturday), declaring that green card holders would merely undergo “routine rescreening.” That was somehow missed yesterday, and the whole thing is being treated by the Times as some enormous reversal announced today by Priebus.]

No, Kellyanne! Not stretch pants

The New Neo Posted on by

Kellyanne Conway got some flak for this:

Kellyanne Conway is defending the red, white and blue military-style coat she sported during the inauguration after she was ruthless mocked on social media for the patriotic look.

In defending the $3,600 Gucci color block wool coat with metal feline buttons she sported during President Donald Trump’s inauguration ceremony on Friday, Conway told The Hollywood Reporter: ‘Sorry to offend the black-stretch-pants women of America with a little color.’

Well, I’m going to criticize Kellyanne.

But not for her outfit. For her statement.

Conway is 50 years old. In fact, she turned 50 on inauguration day. That means she was born in 1967. Too late—just a little too late—to understand what stretch pants were.

Now, I know what she meant. She meant those black tights or black leggings or black yoga pants thingees that are now the obligatory dreary and (mostly) unflattering uniform for women of all ages, sizes, shapes, styles, and at all occasions.

I cannot stand them. They are exercise wear. Believe me, I’m familiar with tights; I spent much of my life in them. But not walking around in the street, unless I also had a dress on.

Oh, I know, I know. If you Google “stretch pants” it will lead you to leggings and such. But those garments are not stretch pants. There is (was) only one “stretch pants,” and they had stirrups on the bottom and created an unbroken straight line that skimmed the leg but was neither leg-hugging nor leg-outlining. Stretch pants created the illusion of legs as tubes, cylinders that were slightly wider at the top and narrower at the bottom but were sort of schematic legs without clearly defined muscles.

Like today’s leggings, stretch pants were most commonly black, and they were one of the uniforms of the early 60s—although of course you could not wear them to school, because you weren’t allowed to wear slacks to school.

Considering their ubiquity at the time, it’s surprisingly difficult to find a good photo of a person wearing them. But here’s a perfect illustration (from a sewing pattern) of exactly what I mean, in the royal blue pants on the right. Note the tubular shape of the legs. Note, also, the hairdo, which was about as popular at the time as the stretch pants. You had to set it on rollers and tease it:

Here’s the site where I found the photo, and it has a lot of other tremendously evocative photos of pattern pictures that really capture that era of the early 60s— stylistically and psychologically the tail end of the 50s, right before the explosion of change that came to define the latter decade in people’s minds. It was the calm before the storm.

I was especially found of wearing my black stretch pants with a mohair sweater. Mohair sweaters were another popular fashion of the era, and I had several—some of which I had knitted myself. Something like these (in fact, as in the photo, I had a pink one and a coral one, and the pink was the one I’d knitted myself):

The nearest thing to stretch pants that survive today are stirrup pants for skiing. But they’re not quite the same; most of them look more like tights than the stretch pants of yore, although a few come close.

More on Trump’s executive order on immigration

The New Neo Posted on by

If you want to get some clarity on what Trump’s executive order on immigration actually said and what it didn’t say, read this post by William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection. One of the many topics it elucidates is one that was discussed here in the comments section: what about dual nationals who hold passports from European countries? Here’s your answer:

Dual nationals who are U.S. citizens are not affected. The EO only applies to dual nationals from the 7 countries who travel on the passport of another (non-U.S.) country. The Wall Street Journal explains:

It also applies to people who originally hail from those countries but are traveling on a passport issued by any other nation, the statement [by the State Department] notes. That means Iraqis seeking to enter the U.S. on a British passport, for instance, will be barred, according to a U.S. official. British citizens don’t normally require a visa to enter the U.S.

Travelers who have nationality or dual nationality of one of these countries will not be permitted for 90 days to enter the United States or be issued an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa,” the statement said. “Those nationals or dual nationals holding valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visas will not be permitted to enter the United States during this period. Visa interviews will generally not be scheduled for nationals of these countries during this period.

The hysteria from the media and various showboating world leaders—Justin Trudeau comes to mind—continues. Ah, how they love this!

And Yahoo readers who may not have the interest to read anything but the headline of this article get to see the clever headline “Trump talks to world leaders amid alarm over Muslim immigrant policy.” Those who read it might be forgiven for thinking that the leaders themselves are the ones alarmed over his immigration policy. But if you actually read the story, you’ll see that what it describes is that: (a) Trump is talking to world leaders on the phone; and (b) there’s some sort of free-floating alarm in the world (or at least over at Yahoo) over Trump’s immigration policy.

Are these two things connected? Do the leaders of most countries give a rat’s patootie about Trump’s immigration policy? Well, let’s see:

In a flurry of calls that started early in the morning and rounded out an already frantically paced week, Trump spoke with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has calls planned for later in the day with French President Francois Hollande and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

The conversations gave the US president an early opportunity to explain new policies that have baffled and unnerved much of the rest of the world — particularly his order to temporarily halt all refugee arrivals and those of travelers from seven mainly Muslim countries including war-wracked Syria.

Ah, so he has an opportunity to talk about this policy. And if his immigration order has actually “baffled and unnerved much of the rest of the world”—well then, the rest of the world hasn’t been paying attention, because this was first talked about by Trump and many others on the right (including little old me) over a year ago. Perhaps the authors of the Yahoo piece are “baffled and unnerved” by the executive order. But somehow I can’t quite imagine that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe—head of a country not known for taking in Middle Eastern refugees (it had six—count ’em, six, and now the plan is to take in 150 “exchange students” over the next five years)—will do much more in response than congratulate Donald Trump for showing some sense.

One country was upset, however, and went on record about it. Iran:

Iran answered in kind by saying it would ban Americans from entering the country, calling Trump’s action insulting.

I guess that all those tourists and refugees from America who are clamoring to get into Iran will just have to wait, then.

By the way, the seven countries chosen by Trump for the temporary immigration moratorium were countries that already had been “designated by Obama as posing special risks for visa entry.”

Did the left contend that Obama was also motivated by a desire to discriminate against Muslims? Of course not. When Obama does it, it’s fine. When Trump does it, it’s this:

Extreme vetting, extreme reactions

The New Neo Posted on by

President Trump has proposed a temporary suspension of immigration from seven countries and some new rules for the admission of immigrants to the US:

Donald Trump has outlined a new screening process for would-be immigrants designed to exclude Islamic extremists that he promoted Monday as “extreme vetting.” The policy would attempt to establish whether applicants’ beliefs match US values on gay rights, gender equality and religious freedoms, among others…

Trump’s proposal starts with a ban that would “temporarily suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.” This appears to be the candidate’s latest version of his controversial blanket travel ban on all Muslims entering the US.

But is this really just “the latest version” of the same thing? The difference between a blanket travel ban on all Muslims and a temporary ban on immigrants from seven terror-ridden countries (countries that yes, happen to be Muslim, but surely that fact is not Donald Trump’s fault) is vast.

CNN authors Lauren Said-Moorhouse and Ryan Browne continue:

Secondly, upon taking office, [Trump] would ask that the State Department and Department of Homeland Security provide him with a list of countries where adequate screening “cannot take place.” Trump did not name any countries specifically, and it was not clear what he considers inadequate vetting.

Finally, he called for a more stringent immigration test to limit admission to the United State to only “those who share our values and respect our people.”

He elaborated, “In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is long overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.”

This country-by-country and ideological screening process is exactly what I proposed (and I was hardly the only one; legal expert on terrorism Andrew C. McCarthy was another) back when the subject first came up a little over a year ago.

As expected, the announcement has raised a furor (see the headlines) of negative reaction in the press and from legions of Trump opponents. But that sort of thing shows exactly why Trump was elected. People are not generally dumb; they realize that a potential immigrant who is a terrorist can indeed lie on a questionnaire or fool immigration. That fact, combined with the knowledge that there are a lot of terrorists who would dearly love to come here and wreak havoc, is the reason deep scrutiny is needed, because we know that terrorists (such as the wife of the San Bernadino terrorist) have gotten into this country.

What Trump is proposing is temporary (for the most part either 120 or 90 days), pending study and more recommendations. What is it going to do to the overall immigration system of the US? Slow it down for the moment and try to make as sure as possible that it doesn’t unduly endanger Americans (or even legal immigrants already here from around the world). That really doesn’t seem too much to ask.

The article goes on:

Trump’s proposal to screen the ideology of would-be immigrants is not completely without historical precedent.

Ya think? Let me try rephrasing that: Trump’s proposal to screen the ideology of would-be immigrants has historical precedent.

To the authors’ credit, however, at least they describe that historical precedent that they’ve just minimized:

The State Department’s DS-260 form that all prospective immigrants must currently fill out asks screening questions based on actions, like whether the applicant is a member of a terrorist organization, rather than beliefs. But during the20th Century, the US barred immigrants who believed in communism or anarchism.

After President William McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist in 1901, the US passed a law two years later banning anarchists from entry into the US, Philip E. Wolgin, managing director for immigration at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, told CNN.

Wolgin added that the US broadened the restrictions in 1952 to include those affiliated with the Communist Party and other political groups in favor of overthrowing the US government. In addition to some people being barred from coming to the US, others were deported once their affiliation with these political groups was discovered by US authorities.

These entry bans were eventually lightened or eliminated during the last years of the Cold War, and the current Immigration and Nationality Act states that no one will be barred from the US for “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States.”

But to this day, US immigration form DS-260 still asks would-be immigrants whether they are a “member of or affiliated with the Communist or other totalitarian party.”

So for nearly the entire 20th century, such questions have been asked. With 9/11—occurring at the beginning of the 21st century—an entirely new category of dangerous and destructive ideology came to the forefront of our national consciousness. In fact, though, it was hardly a new ideology, but until 9/11 relatively little Islamic terrorism had occurred on our own shores (the first WTC attack comes to mind). We had been its target previously, but the victims had been mostly military people overseas. So the issue of terrorists emigrating to this country to do us harm simply hadn’t seemed all that pressing. Now, it’s long overdue, and people with common sense know this.

Britain and the US: together again

The New Neo Posted on by

I just posted a piece critical of Trump’s dealings with the Mexican president. But I have high praise for what’s going one with Britain:

Donald Trump has told Theresa May he believes Brexit will be a “wonderful thing” for Britain and open the door to new trade deals as the two leaders appeared to hold hands at the White House.

In a joint press conference at the White House, Mr Trump said: “Great days lie ahead for our two peoples and our two countries. “On behalf of our nation, I thank you for joining us here today as a really great honour.”

There’s not much of substance to report—exchanges of gifts and platitudes, praise and smiles. But I have little doubt that it signifies a very real change in US-British relations compared to the gloomy Obama years. I hope it will bear fruit and not just be window-dressing, because Britain has long been one of out staunchest allies. They may not be Thatcher and Reagan, but May and Trump represent two relatively right-leaning executives in a time of great crisis in the world, and they represent an opportunity for unity on a host of issues that matter.

Oh, and by the way, I really like May’s suit:

Not sure exactly what Trump’s looking at. But note the Churchill bust between them (at least, I’m assuming that’s what it is; can’t read the plaque on it).

Trump’s Mexican “diplomacy”

The New Neo Posted on by

During the campaign, one of the main fears about Donald Trump (a fear I shared) was that he would be a loose cannon in terms of foreign policy as president. Until now I’ve been reassured by most of his moves, but not his Mexican gambit:

President Trump’s Twitter broadsides against Mexico have unleashed a political backlash that has now become a diplomatic crisis with a friendly neighbour.

Mr Trump fancies himself a negotiating wizard, but in this case he is out-negotiating himself. The White House announced last weekend that Mr Trump had asked Mexican President Enrique Peé±a Nieto to Washington to talk about trade, immigration and the border. Despite Mr Trump’s many slights against Mexico during the campaign, Mr Peé±a Nieto accepted.

Mr Trump proceeded to roll out the red carpet by announcing his plan to build “the wall” on the US southern border that Mexicans of all political stripes consider an insult. On Wednesday he also rolled out press secretary Sean Spicer to aver that “one way or another, as the President has said before, Mexico will pay for it.”

That cornered the Mexican President…

On Thursday morning Mr Trump tweeted “if Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting.” Mr Peé±a Nieto cancelled.

I was hopeful about the talks with Mexico. I didn’t think that Trump would be capitulating during them. But the proper venue for laying down his opening bid, and beginning negotiations, was when Nieto was here. To begin with a broadside that practically called out for a macho face-saving move by Nieto doesn’t make sense to me.

Nor is it because I don’t understand this “alpha male” business, or the concept of a strong opening bid, or of willingness to walk away from negotiations if they don’t go well. The latter move is based on the idea that negotiations begin, after all. Trump overplayed his hand needlessly, and opened himself up to widespread condemnation, which has come not just from those who oppose him reflexively at every turn.

The article I linked to is in The Australian, but it’s taken from the Wall Street Journal, which is not a reflexively anti-Trump paper:

With a population of 128 million, Mexico is America’s second-largest export market for goods. Some six million US jobs depend on trade with Mexico. But the much larger risk is that Mexicans will sour on progress toward joining their North American neighbours as prosperous free-market democracies. This is the moment that Mexico’s left ”” dormant but not dead ”” has been waiting for as anti-American Andrés Manuel Lé³pez Obrador prepares to run for President again in 2018.

Mr Trump is a foreign-affairs neophyte, but he is already learning that nations can’t be bullied like GOP candidates or CEOs.

I hope he learns, and I hope he learns quickly.