As I explained in my book, there are two ways to make yourself valuable. The first way is to become the best at some specific skill, the way Tiger Woods dominated golf. But not many of us can be Tiger Woods. So that path is unavailable to 99% of the world.
I recommend a different approach. Most people can – with practice – develop a variety of skills that work well together. I call this idea the Talent Stack.
For example, I’m a famous syndicated cartoonist who doesn’t have much artistic talent, and I’ve never taken a college-level writing class. But few people are good at both drawing and writing. When you add in my ordinary business skills, my strong work ethic, my risk tolerance, and my reasonably good sense of humor, I’m fairly unique. And in this case that uniqueness has commercial value.
Now consider president-elect Trump. He doesn’t have one talent that is best-in-the-world, but he does have one of the best talent stacks I have ever seen. Consider all the ways in which Trump is better than average, but not best-in-the-world. I’ll list the obvious ones.
Public Speaking: Trump is an engaging speaker, and he knows how to entertain a crowd. But no one would say he’s one of the best speakers in the world.
Humor: Trump is funny. But he isn’t Seinfeld funny. He’s just funnier than most people. That’s all he needs.
Intelligence: Trump is smart. He probably wouldn’t beat Hillary Clinton on a standardized IQ test, but he’s smarter than 90% of the world, and probably far more. That’s good enough for a talent stack.
Knowledge of Politics: Compared to career politicians and political pundits, Trump looks under-informed. But he probably knows more about politics than 95% of the public. And that seems to be enough. Advisors will fill in the knowledge gap.
Branding: Trump is a world-class marketer and brander. He probably isn’t the best in the world at those things. But he’s very, very good.
Hiring and Firing: One of the most important skills a president needs is the ability to hire good advisors and – equally important – fire the mistakes. Trump has plenty of experience doing both. He probably isn’t the best in the world at hiring and firing, but I’ll bet he’s in the top 10% just from practice.
Strategy: Trump won the presidency in large part because his non-standard strategy worked great. He focused on free media, big rallies, and the key swing states. That was good enough to win. Trump probably isn’t the best strategist in the world, but he’s very good.
Social Media: Trump understands social media in a way that people of his generation usually don’t. Trump might not be the most Internet-savvy politician of all time, but he’s definitely in the top 10%.
Persuasion: Trump might be the most persuasive person I have ever observed in the act of persuading. But keep in mind that persuasion requires a talent stack too. Trump is persuasive because he combines a bunch of minor skills into one big persuasive toolbox. For example, Trump is good at reading people, good at being provocative to attract energy, and good at sales technique. He probably isn’t the best in the world at any of those minor skills, but when you add them together, along with lots of other subsidiary persuasion skills, and now the Office of the President – Trump might be the most persuasive person on Earth.
Risk management: Trump understands risk. We see it in his business dealings as he isolates different lines of business in their own corporate structures so they can fail without bringing down the rest. We also know that Trump enters businesses that have an unlimited upside potential with limited risk. And he prefers gambling with other people’s money. Trump probably understands risk management better than 90% of the public.
Trump’s critics have a hard time understanding Trump’s success because he lacks any best-in-the-world talents. They mock his simple speaking style, his lack of policy knowledge, his provocative Tweets and more. But as they criticize the trees they lose sight of the forest. Trump has no trees in his forest that are the best trees in the world. But his forest is one of the best forests in the world.
The takeaway here is that anyone can develop a more valuable talent stack. Just figure out which talents go well together. If in doubt, add public speaking to your stack first. Learn a second language if you can – but only a useful language. And persuasion makes you more effective at nearly everything you do. Those are just examples. You’re the best judge of which skills you need.
President-elect Trump might not be a good role model in terms of his personal life. And you might not care for his policies. But when it comes to a role model for success, you will never see better. Trump’s talent stack is outstanding.
On a related note, Kanye West is another good example of a talent stack. He isn’t the best in the world at singing, dancing, writing, or any other skill you would assume is necessary for his job. But you won’t see many people with Kanye’s combination of talents, including his business acumen, his drive, and his knack for self-promotion. Kanye has been building his talent stack for years. And now he’s adding politics. You probably think Kanye has no chance to be president because of his current mental/emotional health hospitalization. But you’d be wrong. Hillary Clinton proved that health concerns are not disqualifying.
I’m not going to predict a future Kanye West presidency. But if you think it is unlikely, you don’t understand the power of talent stacks. It is possible that Kanye is doing nothing in the hospital but recovering. But I like to think he is using that time to learn Spanish. That’s how Master Persuaders roll.
You can read more about talent stacks and the value of systems over goals in my book.
However, most junk journalism does not take the form of outright “fake news” but of tendentious reporting that focuses on some facts while downplaying or omitting others. And here, the mainstream media are indeed often guilty of bias.
Take recent headlines announcing that the incoming Trump administration is planning to establish a “Muslim registry” or a “registry for Muslims,” wording which seems to imply that all Muslims in America, even citizens, would be required to register.
That impression was reinforced by a comment from Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, quoted in The Washington Post: “The day they create a Muslim registry is the day I register as a Muslim.”
Such a registry would certainly be shockingly un-American — not to mention unconstitutional. Yet a closer look at the articles under these headlines shows that this is not what’s being proposed.
Trump may revive a program that was in place from 2001 to 2011; according to The Washington Post, that system “required people from countries deemed ‘higher risk’ to undergo interrogations and fingerprinting upon arrival” and, in some cases, “to follow a parole-like system by periodically checking in with local authorities.”
Most of the countries identified as high-risk were majority-Muslim, and civil rights groups charged that the program targeted Muslims. But to call such a program a “Muslim registry” creates an essentially false impression — which is what many people were undoubtedly left with if they did not read the story carefully, or only saw the buzz about it in the social media.
Beyond this election and the controversial figure of Trump, the media have a very real tendency to fall for narratives that are seen as advancing a “good cause.”
The Rolling Stone article about the fictitious fraternity gang rape, treated as gospel by the rest of the media for ten days until a lone blogger and then a columnist for the libertarian magazine Reason finally pointed out some of its major and obvious problems (such as the fact that the alleged victim claimed to have been raped for hours while lying amidst shattered glass from a tabletop, yet was able to run out of the fraternity house afterward and did not require medical attention).
Indeed, the first New York Times report on the Rolling Stone story being questioned largely defended it.
First they establish the narrative. Then they do their best to squelch anything that might undermine it. But yeah, let’s worry about “fake news.”
The Columbus Terror Attack and the Left’s Willful Blindness
By Jeremy Carl — November 28, 2016
The latest Somali immigrant attack in America’s heartland was as predictable as it was preventable. Ten people are hospitalized in an attack that could have been much worse, but for our fortunate ability to counter the terrorist with an armed response.
The Left has no excuse — none whatsoever — for its decision to allow the mass immigration to America of a group with few economic prospects and a hugely disproportionate percentage of people who are planning attacks on Americans. And yet, they’ve done it and continue to do it, and Donald Trump is one of the few who has called them out on it. That’s one big reason why he’s President-elect Trump and the amnesty-promoters are finally, at least for now, back on their heels.
I’ve written here on several occasions about our ludicrous immigration policy for Somalis, as has Mark Kirkorian. Scott Johnson over at Power Line has done some outstanding in-depth reporting on the Somali immigrant influx in Minnesota.
I hate to pick on one group, because of course only a few Somali immigrants are terrorists and most just want to live a life in a better place than Somalia (which to be fair, would be pretty much anywhere) but it’s worth focusing on repeatedly because if American elites are not serious about stopping mass immigration even from this group, which accesses our welfare system and our national-security apparatus at wildly disproportionate rates, then we are not really serious about making America’s immigration policy sane again.
It may seem hard-hearted to some to not immediately embrace any “disadvantaged” group (and Somali immigrants are certainly disadvantaged) but there is a term for people who are only able to think in emotional terms, rather than rational ones, when it comes to balancing compassion and the national interest. Those people are called liberals — and they are not people we should let anywhere near GOP policymaking.
Let’s hope that President Trump follows his strong words on the campaign trail with equally strong actions.
The Progressives’ current outrage about the Electoral College is only the latest example of the world of lies with which they surround themselves. This post examines a few of the more egregious lies that underpin Progressive demands for policy changes to bring America more closely in line with a Marxist paradise.
Before I begin, though, I’d like to set out my three favorite quotations about facts, as opposed to lies:
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” — John Adams, during the summation when he represented British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trial.
“Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.” — Bernard Baruch
“When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.” — Legal adage
Progressives do an awful lot of table pounding.
Electoral College lies: The Electoral College has been a fixture in American elections since the beginning. Michael Ramirez perfectly explains why its proportionate representation is necessary:
In order to avoid a situation in which the most populous states have a choke hold on the presidency, the Founders determined that, once a candidate achieves a majority in a given state, the weight given to that candidate is a fixed number of votes in the electoral college. It’s irrelevant if the candidate won with 50.1 percent of the votes or 100 percent of the votes. It’s also irrelevant whether the number of votes over 50.1 percent is vast or small. That last point is especially important, because it means that highly populous states cannot run away with the election (see cartoon above). The same holds true, of course, for state representation in the House.
Faced with these unpalatable facts in an election played according to long-standing rules with which the Progressives, including Hillary, were completely familiar, the Progressives have managed to dig up a “constitutional” law professor who announces that the sole purpose behind the Electoral College is to serve as a racist instrument of Southern oppression. Only a Yale legal scholar could argue this type of historic crapola with a straight face:
The three-fifths compromise operates in the context of the Electoral College but is, in fact, directed at the various states’ representation in the federal government overall. Here’s the deal: At the end of the Revolutionary War, three out of five of the most populous states in the Union were slave states, with Virginia leading the list. These Southern states wanted their vast numbers to apply to their control over the entire federal government, from the House to the means of voting for the president.
To maintain this dominance, though, slaves would have to be counted among the general population in the Southern states. The Northern states, of course, which had no slaves to swell their population, and which disapproved of slavery generally, were unwilling to give the Southern states absolute dominance. Their opposition to Southern dominance was strengthened by the indisputable fact that the Southern states were cheating by demanding that people without any civil rights be included in the tally for determining power in the new federal government.
Given the Southern states’ power within the fragile new nation, the only thing that the Northern states were able to reach a compromise that beat the Southern states down a bit. This compromise insisted that slaves not be counted according to their full number but, instead, be counted at three-fifths of their total number, thereby diluting somewhat the slave states’ power.
It was a lousy compromise but, under the circumstances, it was the best the non-slave states could do. In other words, this hyper-politicized, much-respected Yale scholar has it bass ackwards because, like all Progressives, he believes that lies in the service of policy must always trump facts in the service of truth.
That first lie about the three-fifths compromise leads to another lie, which is the contention that the compromise is the reason for the Electoral College in the first place. It isn’t. As Alexander Hamilton made perfectly clear, the Founders (perhaps anticipating Democrats and Progressives) deeply distrusted the masses. The Electoral college was a hedge against the passions, ignorance, and stupidity of the hoi polloi:
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
In any event, Hillary’s volte face on the subject of challenging the election is the best evidence that the Progressives’ current position is a lie. They were perfectly content with the Electoral College when they thought it would result in a Hillary victory. While Paul Joseph Watson can be a bit too conspiratorial for my tastes (he’s aligned with Alex Jones’ InfoWars, a site at which I take everything with a grain of salt), but he didn’t need to hunt for conspiracy theories when it comes to the Progressives’ current stance on the Electoral College and voting integrity:
Oh, and about that Jill Stein recount? Zero Hedge credibly suggests that it was a Soros project all along because the steady influx of vast amounts of cash is best explained by Bots, rather than humans, making contributions:
During Thanksgiving, Jill Stein’s grass roots campaign had $4,591,039.66 on hand at 06:11:44. By 22:52:24, that number swelled to $5,322,206.01. Money was raised at $730 per minute.
At 3:29:47 on 11/26, Jill Stein had $5,483, 727.60 on hand. As of right now, at 23:37, she has $5,532,782.53 on hand. Money is being raised at $40.87 per minute.
In summary, Jill Stein raised an enormous amount of money in the opening hours of her campaign to recount the votes in the all important swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Although she claimed her fund raising efforts were entirely grass roots, the facts suggest otherwise. By what I’m seeing here, big donors stepped in early to put her over the top — then the grass roots plebs stepped in to toss nickels at her — with donations shrinking from $4,800 per minute to just over 40 bucks now. Interestingly, the rate by which she’s raised funds have an inverse correlation to the amount of press she’s been receiving.
In other words, none of this makes any sense. Where did all of the early money come from?
The Zero Hedge post is replete with hard data to support the above conclusion, and you’ll want to check it out to assure yourself that you’re not being lied to. Having said that, bots would certainly would explain the speed with which the money appeared, not to mention the constantly shifting financial goals, all of which seem dedicated to shifting wealth from a discredited Clinton syndicate into a new Progressive syndicate.
There’s another Big Lie the Left is currently pushing:
The Dakota Access Pipeline Protest: The more ardent Progressives on my Facebook page are in a daily state of hysteria about the Dakota Access Pipeline that now has a vast crowd of hippies violently protesting a long-standing pipeline project. My friends are useful idiots, who are focused on the feel-good emotions their Facebook virtue-signaling protest produces, but the people behind the protests are hard-core liars who ride roughshod over facts.
Shawn McCoy has looked at the facts as revealed by court filings and discovers that everything the Progressives are saying is false, including “and” and “the.” I’ll quote briefly from McCoy’s data-rich piece, but you really need to read the whole thing:
The record shows that Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the pipeline, spent years working diligently with federal, state and local officials to route the pipeline safely and with the fewest possible disruptions. The contrast between the protesters’ claims and the facts on record is stunning.
Protesters claim that the pipeline was “fast-tracked,” denying tribal leaders the opportunity to participate in the process. In fact, project leaders participated in 559 meetings with community leaders, local officials and organizations to listen to concerns and fine-tune the route. The company asked for, and received, a tougher federal permitting process at sites along the Missouri River. This more difficult procedure included a mandated review of each water crossing’s potential effect on historical artifacts and locations.
Protesters claim that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to consult tribal leaders as required by federal law. The record shows that the corps held 389 meetings with 55 tribes. Corps officials met numerous times with leaders of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which initiated the lawsuit and the protests.
Protesters claim that the Standing Rock Sioux pursued meetings with an unresponsive Army Corps of Engineers. Court records show that the roles in that story were in fact reversed. The corps alerted the tribe to the pipeline permit application in the fall of 2014 and repeatedly requested comments from and meetings with tribal leaders only to be rebuffed over and over. Tribal leaders ignored requests for comment and canceled meetings multiple times.
If you need a good argument for the Electoral College, the Progressives’ useful idiots who are now running around in North Dakota in winter are that argument.
The attacks conflating Trump and his supporters with antisemitism: While the Progressive medias (“news” and social) are doing their best to pin the “antisemitism” tag onto all Trump voters thanks to some weaselly little maw worm named Richard Spencer, along with his supporters who number in the low hundreds, the facts on the ground are that violent, offensive, continuous antisemitism has arisen on the Left: It’s been booming for years on America’s Leftist owned college campuses; through the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement; within the Black Lives Matter movement; from congressional Democrats; and through the newest Leftist poison of intersectionality.
Trump, by contrast, is easily the most philosemitic president we’ve had in at least eight years and possibly much longer. The most important figure in his campaign may well have been Jared Kushner, an orthodox Jew who is his son-in-law. Ivanka converted to Judaism to marry Kushner and they are raising their children to be Jews.
Steve Bannon, Trump’s Senior Strategist and Chief Counselor, is also being disgracefully slandered, as both Jews and Israel supporters (not always the same people) can attest. He’s never been heard saying anything anti-Jewish (except by his wife who came forward during a contentious divorce to claim Bannon didn’t want his children in a heavily Jewish school that they attended) and has been a longtime, stalwart friend of Israel.
Breitbart, the media empire that Bannon manages, is heavily staffed with Jews and is aggressively pro-Israel. Even Benjamin Shapiro, an orthodox Jew who had a huge fight with Bannon and really hates him, asserts that Bannon is not antisemitic. The antisemitism charge exists only among the Leftists, who hide real antisemitism on their own side of their aisle and distract attention by pointing everywhere else.
Other lies…. And then there are all the other Progressive lies: The Lancet lie about the number killed during the early days of the Iraq War; the endless data fraud to support the falsehood that the world is immolating thanks to anthropogenic climate change; the lies about America’s neonatal survival rate; the lies about America’s healthcare system as a whole, lies that were used to justify Obamacare; the lies that if you like your doctor or hospital or current premium and deductible, you can keep your doctor or hospital and enjoy the benefits of lower premiums and deductibles; the lies about America’s alleged gun problem (and other nation’s “lack” of gun problems); the lies about George W. Bush’s military service; and on and on, ad inifinitum and ad nauseum.
The Progressives never stop. They’re always pounding away at those tables, obscuring facts and law in their efforts to bring America to heel. Trump is a serial exaggerator, but when he’s placed next to the Left, whether the collective Left or it’s dishonest individuals (Obama, Hillary, etc.), he suddenly starts looking like a boy scout.
Being out of power will not stop Progressive lies. Indeed, as we’ve already seen, being out of power accelerates the lies. It is imperative that we never stop challenging the lies and exposing the facts.
The S&P 500 index tested the move above the 2170
resistance and today we watch to see how it unfolds. The futures
are higher currently and should it hold throughout the day we may
eclipse the previous highs. The headlines remain focused on the Trump
transition to president and what that means for the markets looking forward.
For the last two weeks, it has meant gains based on anticipated
spending and changes. Semiconductors (SOXX) are the latest to make a
move through resistance gaining 3.4% on Wednesday. I continue to
watch for the trends to develop and the consolidation breakouts... up
or down.
The S&P 500 index held the move above the 2170 level
despite the split decision in the sectors... four up and six lower.
The leaders were technology (XLK), consumer discretionary (XLY) and
telecom (IYZ). Financials led the downside as some profit-taking
crept into the sector. Energy (XLE) struggled again with the price of
crude moving lower and utility (XLU) sold of the Tuesday gains.
Technically the market remains in a position to resume the uptrend
from a longer term view and reverse the short-term selling trend
started off the October highs. Sustainability of the move is the big
question looking forward... thus, stops in place and take what the
market gives.
The scans for Wednesday's activity show some laggards
bouncing like China (FXI), tech (XLK), Greece (GREK) and Treasuries
(TLT). If you step back and look at the charts over the last two
weeks you find the leaders going vertical on the Trump speculation,
the movers making moves based on data, and the laggards which have stayed
in their respective trading ranges looking for a catalyst to move
higher. Then, of course, there are the loser which
have accelerated lower on the speculation of the election. The
goal is to find what works best with your defined strategy and trade
with discipline.
The trend shift in sectors is causing some frustration
to investors as they continue to ask why versus following the
leadership short term. The why is based solely on belief currently
and as the belief spreads money moves. For now, money is flowing
towards the belief that financials, biotech, and higher interest
rates will benefit from a Trump presidency. True or not? Only time
will tell! Take what the market gives with a defined strategy and
risk management as the decision factors.
Jimsnotes.com was
created by Jim Farrish with the goal of educating investors about
trading with discipline. Jim knows the risk of losing money will
increase without disciplined trading strategies, and current market
analysis. Always invest according to your own risks,
disciplines and objectives.
The
S&P 500 index continued to set new highs during the holiday week. As we
approach the final month of the year investors like what they perceive about
the economy, the Fed and the changes coming in Washington. Emotions remain the
primary driver for the broad markets with investors and traders alike pushing
sectors and stocks up or down based on speculation. My view is to take what the
market gives, keep your stops in place, and manage the risk of the current
environment.
The
S&P 500 index ended the week at 2213... a new high and all things
positive in the headlines.
The leaders were telecom (IYZ), energy
(XLE) and basic materials (XLB). Nine of the ten sectors closed in
positive territory for the week and helped push the overall index to new highs.
The loser for the week was healthcare (XLV) as the sector tested
lower and bounced off the test to end the week. Watching how it unfolds this
week.
Biotech has been the source of pain as the drug manufacturers struggle
with the outlook and changes from Washington on healthcare. Treasury bonds fell
as the yield on the ten-year bond pushed to 2.37% as investors look
for the Fed to act on interest rates at the next FOMC meeting.
Technically the
market has resumed the uptrend from a longer term view. The two-week trend higher
remains in place with no real negatives being voiced of late. Focused on risk
management as this move continues to unfold.
Carlos Eire is a professor of history and religious studies at Yale University. Writing in the Washington Post, Prof. Eire presents 13 facts about Fidel Castro. I will follow Eire’s lead and use bullet points for these facts as “a fitting metaphor for someone who used firing squads to murder thousands of his own people.”
●He turned Cuba into a colony of the Soviet Union and nearly caused a nuclear holocaust.
●He sponsored terrorism wherever he could and allied himself with many of the worst dictators on earth.
●He was responsible for so many thousands of executions and disappearances in Cuba that a precise number is hard to reckon.
●He brooked no dissent and built concentration camps and prisons at an unprecedented rate, filling them to capacity, incarcerating a higher percentage of his own people than most other modern dictators, including Stalin.
●He condoned and encouraged torture and extrajudicial killings.
●He forced nearly 20 percent of his people into exile, and prompted thousands to meet their deaths at sea, unseen and uncounted, while fleeing from him in crude vessels.
●He claimed all property for himself and his henchmen, strangled food production and impoverished the vast majority of his people.
●He outlawed private enterprise and labor unions, wiped out Cuba’s large middle class and turned Cubans into slaves of the state.
●He persecuted gay people and tried to eradicate religion.
●He censored all means of expression and communication.
This is the man who has been eulogized in glowing terms by many on the left and in neutral terms by President Obama. Are the “social justice warriors” who obsess over “micro-aggressions” and politically incorrect turns of phrase being hypocrites when they praise Castro, or is there considerable consistency at a deep level between their version of social justice and Castro’s totalitarianism?
On the same day last week that Donald Trump nominated noted immigration hawk Sen. Jeff Sessions for Attorney General, New York City declared that it would stick to its “sanctuary city” policy—setting up a battle that will likely occupy a lot of national attention during the next Administration. . . .
This is a political fight both sides will relish taking on. Trump got a big boost early in his campaign by shining a spotlight on the murder of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco. The murderer had previously been detained by the San Francisco police, but under SF’s sanctuary city policy—which is more militant than New York’s—the city refused to honor a request from the federal government to transfer him, and instead released him. This was a story to which Trump returned throughout his campaign.
Furthermore, as I wrote on Friday, the nomination of Sen. Sessions as AG likely signals that the Trump Administration will seek first and foremost to fulfill his campaign promise of a more hawkish line on immigration through the enforcement of existing laws against criminal illegal aliens. Unlike previous Attorneys General, Sessions will presumably not hesitate to use the full range of remedies, including financial and legal sanctions, available to the federal government to compel cooperation from reluctant municipalities. And it helps Trump’s populist brand to pick fights with New York City liberals who want to protect illegal immigrants in disregard of the law.
For their part, de Blasio and other leaders of deep-blue cities also have strong incentives not to back down. Again, this will partly be a matter of politics: fighting Trump plays as well with de Blasio’s constituents in NYC as fighting de Blasio does with Trump’s backers in the heartlands. But there are other considerations. Right now the NYC policy is not to call the feds about a suspect’s immigration status until the the person is convicted, while federal policy technically requires the local cops to call the feds as soon as they find out someone is here illegally. Cities with large illegal immigrant policies, like New York, feel that such a policy will deter its residents from cooperating with the police or calling emergency services.
Such a fight will galvanize public opinion on each side. The Jacksonians will see only flagrant disregard for law and order; for historical reasons, many in the south will also be angered by what they’ll perceive as deeply hypocritical flouting of federal authority. . . .
But the law will not be on de Blasio’s side. And it is a deep principle of American history that the state and local authorities not be allowed to override or nullify federal law. This is a point that liberals reaffirmed with particular vehemence on the immigration front as recently as a few years ago, when arguing (successfully) that Arizona’s immigration laws were preempted by federal policy.
As we’ve been writing around here, Donald Trump is the most purely Jacksonian character to win the White House since possibly Andrew Jackson himself. And now he may have a nullification crisis on his hands. I can’t imagine Bill de Blasio ever dreamed he would wind up as the heir to John C. Calhoun—but he just might.
Technically, states’ refusal to cooperate with a federal regulatory scheme isn’t the same as nullification, and it’s not even illegal unless it violates a condition on federal funding. But these niceties aren’t likely to get much attention.
I should note that the Tennessee Law Review published a special symposium issue on constitutional conventions a few years ago. I wrote the Foreword, Sandy Levinson wrote the Afterword, and an all-star cast including Randy Barnett, Brannon Denning, Richard Epstein, Tim Lynch, Rob Natelson, and too many other luminaries to mention contributed the stuff in between. Here’s my contribution, which focuses specifically on spending. And here’s video of me talking about it at the Harvard Law School conference on constitutional conventions.
Plus, note this from Robert Natelson: How the procedures for a modern Amendments Convention may unfold.
If this were a just world, 13 facts would be etched on Castro’s tombstone and highlighted in every obituary, as bullet points — a fitting metaphor for someone who used firing squads to murder thousands of his own people.
●He turned Cuba into a colony of the Soviet Union and nearly caused a nuclear holocaust.
●He sponsored terrorism wherever he could and allied himself with many of the worst dictators on earth.
●He was responsible for so many thousands of executions and disappearances in Cuba that a precise number is hard to reckon.
●He brooked no dissent and built concentration camps and prisons at an unprecedented rate, filling them to capacity, incarcerating a higher percentage of his own people than most other modern dictators, including Stalin.
●He condoned and encouraged torture and extrajudicial killings.
●He forced nearly 20 percent of his people into exile, and prompted thousands to meet their deaths at sea, unseen and uncounted, while fleeing from him in crude vessels.
●He claimed all property for himself and his henchmen, strangled food production and impoverished the vast majority of his people.
●He outlawed private enterprise and labor unions, wiped out Cuba’s large middle class and turned Cubans into slaves of the state.
●He persecuted gay people and tried to eradicate religion.
But he was a lefty, so it’s all okay. Just like with Venezuela.
Election 2016: President-elect Trump this week put forward a list of things he planned to do right away upon taking office. While we might have quibbles with one or two items, it's a bold plan that will go a long way toward immediately setting a new tone in the nation's capital.
As we noted in an earlier piece, some things on Donald Trump's bigger agenda might not be so easy to put in place. Anything requiring congressional budget action, for instance, will move at a glacial pace.
That said, we're impressed with the energetic and focused plan he's put together for his first days in office after taking the oath on January 21, 2017.
"Whether it's producing steel, building cars, or curing disease, I want the next generation of production and innovation to happen right here, in our great homeland: America — creating wealth and jobs for American workers," Trump said in a message he released on YouTube Monday evening.
"As part of this plan, I've asked my transition team to develop a list of executive actions we can take on day one to restore our laws and bring back our jobs. It's about time," he added.
Here are the top six items on his to-do list upon becoming president:
Trade: Trump vows to pull out of the Trans Pacific Partnership, which he says will be a job-killer. Instead, he said, he'll negotiate "fair" trade deals bilaterally with nations that will be more to the U.S.' advantage.
Energy: Trump wants to immediately get rid of onerous restrictions on the U.S. energy industry, especially shale ad clean coal. He also will open up U.S. lands to energy exploration.
Regulation: The new president plans to put in a new rule: For each new regulation put in place, two regulations must be killed. The dynamic would create a significant reduction in the soaring number of regulations that now strangle businesses, both big and small.
Defense/National Security: Trump will create a plan to protect U.S. infrastructure from cyberattacks, a problem he claimed during the 2016 campaign that has been largely ignored by President Obama. He has also promised to significantly bolster the military.
Immigration: Trump said he'll of the Labor Department look into abuses of visa programs. This may eventually include greater restrictions on businesses using illegal immigrant labor.
Ethics Reform: Trump vowed repeatedly to "drain the swamp" of corruption and cronyism in Washington, D.C. He'll start by imposing a 5-year ban on those in the executive branch working for a lobbying firm. The idea is to end the revolving door between positions of power and business, which Trump believes has led to a sometimes-corrupt relationship between government and big business.
All in all, this would be a very promising start to a new administration. At the very least, it begins the process of reversing President Obama's eight-year trend toward bigger, less accountable government and dramatic slowdown in U.S. long-term economic growth that took place under his watch.
We only hope that Trump will get the political cooperation he deserves to enact his new agenda. Unfortunately, so far, the childish tantrums from the left side of the political spectrum don't bode well for political compromise.
The Progressives’ current outrage about the Electoral College is only the latest example of the world of lies with which they surround themselves. This post examines a few of the more egregious lies that underpin Progressive demands for policy changes to bring America more closely in line with a Marxist paradise.
