Internecine squabbles among the identity-politics jackboots

Spoiled-bratism is beginning to fray the fabric of the Freedom-Hater fraternity (oops, I committed a major gender-bias faux pas in the service of alliteration):

Don’t you just hate it when you invite the new folks next door to dinner so they can meet the neighbours, and then they arrive an hour late, after which they trash your cooking skills and demand better wine?

Pride Toronto knows that feeling. Members of the Toronto chapter of Black Lives Matter (BLM), “honoured guests” at Sunday’s Pride parade, staged an unscheduled sit-in, halting the parade for 30 minutes until Pride Toronto’s executive director signed off on their demands, including assurance there will be no police float next year and affirmative action for black transgender women and indigenous people on Pride Toronto’s staff.

The demands were accompanied by the clenched-fist belligerence we now associate with BLM, and the usual identity-politics jargon about “inclusive and safe” spaces, “marginalized communities” and the like. Since Pride is amongst the most politically correct organizations on the planet, it was pretty weird to hear Alexandra Williams, BLM Toronto’s co-founder, accusing Pride Toronto of “anti-blackness.” Evidence, Ms Williams? Anyone? But precisely because Pride is so politically correct, arguing with black activists simply wasn’t on. So Pride caved almost immediately, instead of, justifiable in the circumstances, asking the police to escort Ms Williams and her extortionate friends off the premises.

This is all quite silly, of course, but, of course, it's more than that. These are the tone-setters for all of post-American society. What starts in situations such as this soon permeates academia, the media and the workplace.

How fractured do you want society to be, jackboots?

The grim juncture to which post-America has come

So Hillionaire gets to skate.

Comey was supposed to be the standup guy, the straight arrow. Alas, consider his reasoning in deciding not to recommend indictment: Just because there's no proof that Hillionaire intended to harm the United States, it's okay to give her a pass on violating section 793(f) of the Espionage Act, along with 18 USC 1924, 18 USC 798, and 18 USC 2071.

Also consider the sequence of events of the past few days: the Phoenix tarmac meeting between Billy Jeff the Zipper and AG Lynch, Huma's testimony about daily schedules in burn bags, and now Hillionaire flying on Air Force One with the Most Equal Comrade to campaign appearances - in other words, politicking on our dime.

As I said yesterday in my post about the burn bag, the Clintons reserve the right to operate according to an entirely different set of rules than the legal code the rest of us observe.

We are observing the breakdown of our societal fabric, of the rule of law, in real time.

And the presumptive presidential nominee of the other major post-American party bestirs himself two and a half hours after Comey's announcement to offer a lame tweet. No press release, no announcement of his own that would indicate that he understands the gravity of the moment, the damage being done to the foundation of this country.

I keep hoping that someday I'll wake up to a news landscape of developments that will move me to consider that this blog's name is obsolete. Alas, the array of events which I do encounter confirms for me that it grows more apt all the time.

She wasn't supposed to do that

Dispose of personal documents in burn bags, that is:

Huma Abedin, a top aide to presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, says that the former secretary of state routinely used burn bags to dispose of personal documents during her time at the State Department.

Abedin’s revelation came when she was deposed by watchdog group Judicial Watch on June 30

“If there was a schedule that was created, that was her Secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, then that certainly happened,” Abedin stated. “On more than one occasion.”

Abedin also admitted to being “aware of [her] obligation not to delete federal records or destroy federal records.”

nks by

The State Department has clear regulations pertaining to the use of “burn bags,” and while government officials are directed to use them to dispose of both “paper” and “hardrives,” the government strictly prohibits several items — including “personal documents” — from being destroyed in burn bags.

 

The New York Post notes that Clinton’s use of burn bags to destroy personal documents is “unprecedented” among public officials, and several experts also believe this behavior “will likely come under intense scrutiny.”

But, of course - and it's actually somewhat trite to say so at this point - if you're a Clinton, you operate under a different set of rules, a set of your own making.

It's because of infantile dweebs like this that jihadists feel emboldened

The identity-politics jackboots are so enamored of their fantasy narrative that they have not a world to say about what actually went down at Pulse:

Three professors have blamed the Orlando mass shooting on “toxic masculinity,” “ultranationalist” discourse, and “wide availability (and fetishization) of weapons.”

Their essays, collected on Ohio State University’s Mujeres Talk blog, appeared in a post titled “Countering Hate with Knowledge, Fury, and Protest: Three Latina/o Studies Scholars Respond to Orlando Massacre.”

“To say ‘We are all Orlando,’ is to risk being thought a queer, a fag, a freak, unnatural,” wrote Mariana Ortega, a philosophy professor at John Carroll University. “It is to lose the honorable shield of hetero-love.”

Well, Professor Ortega, there is indeed a very real sense in which "we are all Orlando," but it's not in the sense in which you would have us all believe that it is.

They smell weakness - today's edition

Russia sends strong signals in a post-American world:

Ah, the Obama-wrought era of American weakness.

From CNN.com:

For the second time in two weeks, a Russian warship in the eastern Mediterranean has approached U.S. Navy ships in what American military officials said was an unsafe manner, raising concerns about Russian intentions.

The latest incident took place Thursday when the Russian frigate Neustrashimyy came within 150 yards of the USS San Jacinto, according to U.S. military officials.

Could anyone have imagined Russia pulling off such a move 10 years ago? What’s changed? How did America become the schoolyard dweeb, subject to having our ears flicked until they turn red or having our books slapped out of our hands on the way to class?

"San Jacinto was never threatened by the erratic maneuvers, as San Jacinto maintained course and speed, but the closing distance by (the Neustrashimyy) before the ship turned away from San Jacinto is considered a high risk maneuver, highly unprofessional, and contrary to international maritime regulations," the Navy said in a statement.

"Conducting aggressive, erratic maneuvers and moving unnecessarily close to another ship in open ocean is inconsistent with prudent seamanship," the statement added. "We are concerned every time an unprofessional ship maneuvers occurs. These actions can unnecessarily escalate tensions between countries, and could result in dangerous miscalculations or accidents."

Leading from behind, believing that if we open our hands to show we have nothing and offering up our soft underbelly, that somehow the world will take pity and leave us be isn’t working.

Reports note that the Russian frigate had been engaged in “shadowing” operations of another U.S. ship, the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, as it was conducting flight operations. During that time, the frigate engaged in more than one maneuver that was deemed “erratic.”

This is also the same frigate that approached the USS Gravely several weeks ago, close enough for U.S. Navy sailors to photograph the uncovered weapons on the ship.

A somewhat different definition of reset from that of Hillionaire.

Jihad never sleeps - today's edition

The Jayvee team strikes again, this time not too far from the boundary of its own caliphate:

A suicide car bombing claimed by the Islamic State group ripped through a busy Baghdad shopping district Sunday, killing at least 119 people in the deadliest attack this year in Iraq's capital.

The blast hit the Karrada district early in the day as the area was packed with shoppers ahead of this week's holiday marking the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.

It came a week after Iraqi security forces recaptured Fallujah from IS, leaving Mosul as the only Iraqi city under the jihadist group's control.

The bombing also wounded more than 180 people, security officials said.

Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi visited the site of the attack and vowed "punishment" for the perpetrators, his office said.

Abadi's office later announced three days of mourning for the victims.

The blast set buildings ablaze, and firemen were still working to extinguish them some 12 hours later.

Men carried the bodies of two victims out of one burned building and a crowd of people looked on from the rubble-filled street as emergency personnel worked at the site.

This violent extremism stuff is getting nearly as bad as climate change.

It would behoove us to take them seriously

Their appetite whetted by recent successes in Orlando, Mogadishu, Istanbul and Dhaka, the ISIS jihadists are cooking up a big one for the holiday weekend:

Islamists claiming allegiance to Islamic State have issued a threat against Heathrow, LAX and JFK airports, warning that one of them would be targeted over the July 4th weekend.

A transport minister has said that government is taking “all steps necessary to keep the public safe,” but advised continual vigilance by travellers.

The threat, made by a “pro-Islamic State Twitter account,” was picked up by non-governmental counter-terrorism organisation SITE Intelligence Group on Friday, who issued an alert, the Telegraph has reported.

The alert advised that the account had issued threats against planes “flying from Heathrow to the US” during the 4 July US Independence Day holiday weekend, and warned “there will be a device placed in either Heathrow, LAX [Los Angeles] or JFK [New York] airports”.

As they say, we have to be vigilant all the time; they only have to be lucky once.

How advanced is the rot? - today's edition

This advanced:

ChristianMingle.com, an online dating service for Christian singles, must start allowing people to seek out same-sex relationships under a judge-approved settlement.

ChristianMingle only required new users to specify whether they’re a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man. Two gay men filed class-actions claims against the site’s owner, California-based Spark Networks Inc., claiming that the site’s limited options violated California’s anti-discrimination law, The Wall Street Journal reported.

State law requires businesses to offer “full and equal” accommodations and services to people regardless of their sexual orientation.

For now, ChristianMingle will only ask a user whether he or she is a man or woman. Spark Networks agreed that within two years, it would adjust other features to give gay singles a more tailored experience, the Journal reported.

The terms approved by a state judge Monday also applied to other Spark-owned sites that had operated in the same fashion, including CatholicMingle.com, AdventistSinglesConnection.com and BlackSingles.com, the Journal reported.

Spark agreed to pay both men $9,000 each and $450,000 in attorneys’ fees. The company didn’t admit any wrongdoing as part of the agreement, the Journal reported.

The family that owns Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia, Washington have likewise experienced the tyranny of post-American judges whose mission is to eradicate Christianity:

The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a case challenging a Washington state law that forces a family-owned pharmacy to dispense emergency contraceptives is an “ominous sign” for those who value religious freedom, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said.

“If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern,” Alito said Tuesday in a critical dissent.

Alito was joined in his dissent by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas, falling one justice short of the four needed for the court to accept a case.

The case involves the Storman family, owners of Ralph’s Thriftway, a small, family-run grocery store and pharmacy in Olympia, Wash. In 2007, after Washington state passed a law that requires all pharmacies to dispense “all lawfully prescribed drugs or devices” in a timely manner to all customers, the Stormans found themselves in the cultural crosshairs.

Because of their Christian belief that life begins at conception, the Stormans objected to dispensing drugs such as Plan B that they believe aid in the destruction of human life.

 

Under the state law, denying Plan B could result in the Stormans losing their pharmacy license.

The Stormans then entered a long legal battle. In February 2012, a federal court struck down the law as unconstitutional. The court found “abundant evidence” that the law was designed to force religious pharmacists and pharmacy owners to violate their faith.

But last July, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, upholding the law mandating pharmacists to dispense legal drugs and devices. The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case today allows the 9th Circuit’s ruling—and the law—to stand.

If a customer at Ralph’s Thriftway requests a drug such as Plan B, employees refer customers to other local pharmacies that do carry the drug. According to court documents, over 30 pharmacies and drug stores within five miles of Ralph’s carry Plan B, and none of Ralph’s customers has ever been denied timely access to Plan B or other emergency contraceptives.

Alito, in his dissent, suggested the 2007 law, which is unique to Washington state, was designed specifically to target Christian believers.

“There are strong reasons to doubt whether the regulations were adopted for—or that they actually serve—any legitimate purpose,” Alito wrote, adding:

And there is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the State. Yet the 9th Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment, and this court does not deem the case worthy of our time.

Kristen Waggoner, a senior attorney at Alliance Defending Freedom who has defended the Stormans for a decade, expressed disappointment that the high court opted not to take the case.

“All Americans should be free to peacefully live and work consistent with their faith without fear of unjust punishment, and no one should be forced to participate in the taking of human life,” Waggoner said in a prepared statement. “We had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would take this opportunity to reaffirm these long-held principles.”

The freedom-God-and-decency-haters / death-lovers have pretty much completed their mission of fundamental transformation.

Can we please start with an all-around acknowledgement that this is an undesirable scenario?

Jonah Goldberg's G-File at NRO for this week is a must-read. It's lengthy and involved, but it is superb writing and he manages to make a few funny observations about our grim juncture.

I won't excerpt too much, because much of what he does with his piece is discuss a recent Charles Kesler's WaPo column on Squirrel-Hair , Victor Davis Hanson's NRO piece on the same subject, and what Stephen Moore has to say about it on the pages of The American Spectator (and how starkly Moore's current position is at odds with what he wrote about trade, protectionism and S-H in Investors Business Daily and NRO last year). Goldberg links to, and amply excerpts from, all of the above.

He starts out with a concept I'd not come across before: Burdian's Ass. Read it. It depicts where we are now.

But I will leave you with what I think is the essence of what he's saying:

Politically, conservatism at its core is about the importance of ideas and the importance of character. With the exception of his longstanding support for protectionism and the unalloyed importance of “strength,” Trump cares not a whit for policy or philosophy. His attachment to principles is, for the most part, a nearest-weapon-to-hand approach. As a matter of character he’s crude, boorish, dishonest, proudly promiscuous, and has launched countless businesses based on the idea that it’s morally acceptable to take advantage of people. He dodged the actual Vietnam War but claimed that avoiding the clap in the 1970s was his own personal Vietnam. 

And there is the policy level as well:

By waiving the standards we use to judge liberal politicians in order to defend an allegedly conservative one, we are waiving those standards for all time. I’m not talking about some allowances at the margins, politics should be flexible — strange bedfellows and all that. But there’s a difference between being flexible and willingly snapping your own spine to bend over for a politician who, almost certainly, has contempt for the standards you once held near and dear.

And then there is what we must do:

What I am saying is that just because we are facing a horrible choice, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t say it is horrible. That’s our job. As Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” 

I've actually been having a Facebook comment-thread conversation about the current stage of the S-H phenomenon with a blogger I've long respected, one whom I have quoted and linked to here many times. She has taken the "Our-choice-in-November-will-be-binary-so-we-will-have-to-prioritize-the-unpalatable-and-swallow-hard-and-vote-for-Trump" position. She's in honorable company. Dennis Prager and John Bolton (and Moore and Hanson) are in that camp as well. But lately she's been coming perilously close to saying there's nothing worthy of respect in the #NeverTrump position, going so far as to accompany her latest post about it with a photo of a whining baby. I'm not going to name her here or go into the details of the exchange, because I'm holding out the possibility that something - perhaps an utterance too far by S-H - will get her to change course.

There were actually several other pieces about this front-and-center matter I came across lately, but this G-File is the place to start.

 

Friday evening just-because music - today's edition

This really stinks

What's up with the State Department delaying release of Clinton Foundation emails until late 2018?

Someone might want to ask Mrs. Clinton how it is that her top aides were sending 700 emails a month to the Foundation.  In a standard work week, that's about 35 emails a day.  Didn't these people have work to do?

The Justice Department has filed a brief on behalf of the State Department asking for more time to gather together the 34,000 emails sent from Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Fuchs, and Ambassador at Large Melanne Verveer to the Foundation over the course of Clinton's tenure.  How much time?  DoJ picked a nice, round, number: 27 months.

You might recall that both Abedin and Mills were double-dipping – working for the Foundation or Taneo Corporation while drawing their full salaries from the State Department.  Were they conducting private business on the taxpayers' time?

Daily Caller:

The State Department originally estimated that 6,000 emails and other documents were exchanged by the aides with the Clinton Foundation. But a series of “errors” the department told the court about Wednesday evening now mean the total has grown to “34,116 potentially responsive documents.”
During Clinton’s four years as America’s chief foreign diplomat, her aides communicated with officials at the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings where Bill Clinton was formerly both a client and paid consultant, on the average of  700 times each month, according to the Justice Department filing.
David N. Bossie, president of Citizens United, which requested the documents under the Freedom of Information Act, called the delay “totally unacceptable” and charged that “the State Department is using taxpayer dollars to protect their candidate, Hillary Clinton.”
“The American people have a right to see these emails before the election,” Bossie told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, a President Obama-appointed judge, had previously ordered the State Department to release the requested documents by July 21. But Department of Justice lawyers informed Contreras Wednesday night that “the [State] department discovered errors in the manner in which the searches had been conducted in order to capture documents potentially responsive to plaintiff’s request.” The motion was filed by Justice Department attorney Joseph Borson on behalf of the State Department.
Borson also provided new details about how few resources the State Department has devoted to answering 106 separate Freedom of Information Act requests that are pending before it, many of them ordered by federal judges. Only 71 “part-time” retired foreign service officers are being used to review all of the pending FOIA requests.

Not a bug – a feature.  They draw out the FOIA requests for years and then complain that the process is taking too long.  It's a game plan that's working to perfection.  And if Hillary Clinton is elected president, they will find a way to slow the process down even more.

What's remarkable about the DoJ request is that they're not even trying to be subtle about hiding their corruption.  

That's the way Freedom-Haters roll. They can count on the cattle-masses' apathy, or, in some cases, slavish devotion.

Jihad never sleeps - today's edition

The attacks are occurring with more frequency now. As of this posting, this one is ongoing:

A group of up to nine attackers set off bombs and took hostages while shouting "Allahu Akbar" inside a restaurant frequented by both locals and foreigners in a diplomatic zone in Bangladesh's capital, local media reported Friday.

ISIS' Amaq News Agency later reported that ISIS fighters carried out the attack.

Bangladesh TV stations reported that the attackers entered the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka's Gulshan area around 9:20 p.m. Friday and were holding customers and staff hostage.

There was no immediate casualty count. However, police told the Associated Press two officers were killed by the attackers.

The exact number of hostages also was not known. While some reports said there could be up to 60, others put the figure lower.

That's one busy Jayvee team.

By the way, Secretary Global-Test's remarks at the Aspen Ideas Festival look even more foolish now.

The arrogance of the presumption that empiricism is the end-all and be-all of societal organization

G. Shane Morris at The Federalist nails the heart of why Neil DeGrasse Tyson's tweet "Earth needs a virtual country: #Rationalia, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence" is so objectionable:

The idea that religious people approach the world with dogmatic blinders while secular scientists approach it with a stiff upper lip and brave objectivity is laughable, but it isn’t new. The republic of reason Tyson thinks will logic away the world’s problems has been tried before. It was called the French Revolution, and it caused a lot of people to lose their heads—literally and figuratively. (Tyson should get a pass on this, since he’s already shown his grasp on history is tenuous, at best).

Man has been trying to achieve Rationalia for centuries—millennia, even. All the way back to the Tower of Babel, we thought our intelligence and ingenuity would redeem us, and we were wrong. Rationalia and its one-sentence constitution are, to quote Jeff Goldblum’s character from one of the way-too-many Jurassic Park sequels, “the worst idea in a long, sad history of bad ideas.”

But Rationalia is also the heart and soul of the progressive project for this country. Left-wing technocrats like Tyson advocate ceding control of our lives to an elite corps of experts every time they beat the consensus drum on climate change, or equate abortion-on-demand with “science.”

Rationalia and the rationale behind it are precisely the reason progressives today are so comically intolerant of anyone to the right of Lindsey Graham. If you’ve convinced yourself that you don’t have a worldview—that your beliefs are all self-evident, objective facts of reality—then anyone who disagrees with you must be, as Richard Dawkins so charmingly put it, “ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked).”

Morris goes on to cite some recent looks at how the whole notion of peer review is in shambles. Science, like any endeavor undertaken by fallen human beings, is vulnerable to  corruption.

That's why humility, a character trait at the core of Judaism and Christianity, is something the DeGrasse Tyson types of this world could use a bit of.

Secretary Global-Test makes it more likely that we'll all get murdered in our beds

Scott Johnson at Power Line draws our attention to just how untethered to anything resembling reality Global-Test's view of how human nature plays itself out in world affairs is:

In the annals of mewling idiocy emanating from Foggy Bottom, Secretary of State John Kerry must be given pride of place. Speaking to his friends at the Aspen Ideas Festival earlier this week, he contributed in a major way to man-made global warming. It was in his remarks at the festival that Kerry declared ISIS’s Istanbul massacre a sign of our success: 

Now, yes, you can bomb an airport. You can blow yourself up. That’s the tragedy. Daesh and others like it know that we have to get it right 24/7/365. They have to get it right for 10 minutes or one hour. So it’s a very different scale. And if you’re desperate and if you know you’re losing and you know you want to give up your life, then obviously you can do some harm.

Kerry also declared our deal with Iran a great success: “Because of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran’s path to actually building a bomb has been closed off…” It’s painful. Does he believe his own bluster?

Johnson goes on to report on what G-T told the crowd at the Aspen Ideas Festival (doesn't that sequence of words have a particularly exquisite odor to it?) the three greatest challenges of our time are: combatting "violent extremism," addressing "climate change," and getting "leaders everywhere to cooperate."

The damage that will someday need to be undone is inflicted by the hour.

Pajama Boy's older brother spews another round of dog vomit

The New York Daily News's Gersh Kuntsman - he of the piece reflecting on firing an AR-15 ("It smelled like sulphur and destruction") - is at it again. He turns his attention from a semi-automatic rifle to one of America's best-loved patriotic songs:

[He's] calling on Major League Baseball to singing God Bless America during the 7th inning stretch of select baseball games because it’s “fascist” to have people honor America with this song:

Part of my outrage stems from ponderous Mussolini-esque introduction of the song, when fans are asked to rise, remove their caps and place them over their hearts.

Reality check, friends: “God Bless America” is not the National Anthem. The only songs Americans should stand for are “The Star Spangled Banner” and “Here Comes the Bride.”

Even Irving Berlin, who wrote “God Bless America” in 1918, considered it so maudlin and depressing that he stuck it in a drawer. Twenty years later, as the world prepared for war, Kate Smith asked Berlin for a patriotic song for her radio show. He pulled out “God Bless America” and changed one lame line — “the gold fields up in Nome” — to an even lamer line — “oceans white with foam.” You know the rest: Smith’s version became as much a symbol of post-war patriotism as the flag, the space program and all the white people moving to the suburbs.

Tony Bennett messes up lyrics to ‘God Bless America’ at Giants game

The song still embodies great things about America, but also our worst things: self-righteousness, forced piety, earnest self-reverence, foam.

And Kuntzman clearly knows a thing or two about “self-righteousness,” doesn’t he?

Kuntzman goes on to detail how the song “offends everyone” as his headline states. However, along with so much else one finds in the pages of the New York Daily News these days, the idea that God Bless America “offends everyone” is only true when viewed through the eyes of a progressive leftist:

“God Bless America” is as divisive as American politics: Kaskowitz’s research found that 83.8% of people who described themselves as “very liberal” dislike the song, while only 20.5% of people who called themselves “very conservative” have a problem with it.

And more than 88% of atheists dislike the song, Kaskowitz found. (Quick aside: We atheists also hate having “In God we Trust” on the currency and in the courtrooms of a country whose Constitution bars the “establishment of religion” — but that’s a fight for another day.)

As if atheists need to be championed in post-America, a land where Christians have been served notice that they are to zip it and shuffle off to the shadows.

Globalism: a term essentially without meaning

Theodore Kupfer at NRO makes the great point that globalization does indeed mean something; globalism, not so much:

“Globalization,” properly understood, refers to a process whereby economies of scale forge international connections abetted by technological developments. The term “globalism,” meanwhile, is used loosely to denote the notion of a one-world government. The conflation of globalization and globalism has traditionally been made by radical anti-capitalists, who play up fears of Americanization to rally opposition to trade agreements and economic institutions. If the United States benefits from international trade, then international trade agreements are a bad thing. 

For a guy for whom rhetorical and conceptual clumsiness is his  signature personality trait, Squirrel-Hair has actually demonstrated a kind of cleverness by giving this "globalism" business a rightie sheen:

Trump is no dogmatist, and likely not a true believer. His motivations are simultaneously more pragmatic and atavistic. He knows that Americans rightly worry about unfettered immigration. And he melds this with a fear of foreign workers. Both of these anxieties have been exacerbated over the course of our current administration: the first by a reluctance to enforce immigration laws, the second by sluggish economic growth. Trump combines distaste for the foreign with a vilification of politicians who stand in his way. All the problems are rolled up into one mass, and all the opponents are likely slaves to the same problematic impulses. Hence, Congress and their financier friends outsource jobs to Mexico in pursuit of globalism. This concatenation of fear and ignorance is less principled than the leftist critique, and equally deluded. 

And his drooling, slavish Bots hammer it home even more emphatically than he does.

I'm looking at you, Laura Ingraham.