Luke Ford

Reihan Salam writes in Slate:

As Ryan searches his soul, his most steadfast allies in the conservative movement, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, find themselves in a nightmarishly difficult position. Ryan is a Journal-style conservative through and through, and he is reportedly close to the Journal’s chief ideologist, Paul Gigot. Throughout his career, Ryan has fought for the causes dearest to the newspaper’s heart—namely tax cuts for the rich, open borders, and a hawkish foreign policy. The fact that Trump has won the GOP nomination by bashing elites and immigrants and calling for an “America First” foreign policy is, for Ryan and the Journal alike, an unmitigated disaster. What exactly is the Journal doing to rescue its greatest champion? Are they urging him to get behind Hillary Clinton on the grounds that she’s pro-immigration and more of an internationalist than Trump? Not quite.

Sensing that a beleaguered Ryan was in need of bucking up, the WSJ editorial page defended the House speaker’s endorsement of Trump. Without naming names, the Journal takes “conservative journalists” and “Beltway grandees” to task for arguing that Ryan has sullied his good name…

Leaving aside the merits of the case for tax cuts, the federal income tax is now far more progressive than it was when Ronald Reagan first came to office. Relatively few voters, including relatively few Republican voters, consider tax cuts a particularly high policy priority, as Megan McArdle of Bloomberg View observed back in January. “There is simply no way to make federal tax cuts add up to a winning strategy in this day and age,” she wrote. “It’s great for the donor base and the think tanks. But it’s going to fall on deaf ears among the voters, who just don’t care that much.”

The political advice the Wall Street Journal is giving Paul Ryan and his Republican allies is transparently absurd. Nevertheless, one can’t help but sympathize with the Journal. In the Journal’s ideal world, the GOP would largely abandon social conservatism and instead offer tax cuts for the rich, open borders, and deep cuts in programs like Social Security and Medicare. There is no longer any doubt that this generation of Republican voters has thoroughly repudiated the newspaper’s worldview. That’s obviously pretty distressing. But the Journal doesn’t support these policies because they are popular among Republicans or the public at large. Anyone with even a casual familiarity with American politics would know that simply isn’t so. Rather, the Journal takes these positions because they believe them to be intellectually and morally compelling. That’s fair enough. What the Journal should do, then, is give up on offering political advice and get on with making the intellectual and moral case for welcoming more poor immigrants to America while denying them food stamps and subsidized medical care.

From Heritage: The Obama Administration last week unveiled new federal policy recommendations[1] that instruct states to support and encourage children to retain separate languages and cultural attachments. The policy was included in a joint policy statement[2] by the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services (HHS). The Administration stresses that these are mere recommendations that “do not confer any legal obligations,” but notes that failure to implement them may result in the loss of federal dollars.

The statements observe that there exists a “stubborn achievement gap” between dual-language learners (DLLs) and their monolingual counterparts.[3] The former are “behind their peers” in kindergarten, and experience “higher high school and college drop-out rates.” However, the Administration cites “a growing body of research,” which it says indicates that multilingualism confers all sorts of “cognitive and social advantages.” The reason for the mismatch between the promised potential in the cited studies and the observed facts on the ground is due to “the quality of experience [the DLL children] are currently receiving,” it says. “Not recognizing children’s cultures and languages as assets may also play a role in the achievement gap” because of the “low social prestige of minority languages,” say the statements.

The Administration maintains that the solution is to preserve these differences and recommends that early childhood programs nurture the “cultural and linguistic assets of this population of children.” It advises that states follow this path by such approaches as creating curricula and educational early childhood systems that “support children’s home language development” as well as English, employing credentialed bilingual staff, and communicating with the family in their primary language. Kindergarten entry assessments must be “culturally appropriate” and administered by professionals who speak the children’s home language. To ensure that teachers are “linguistically and culturally responsive” the states are urged to collaborate with Hispanic-serving institutions, or universities that serve immigrants and their children. Tolerance of and respect for cultural differences is not enough, say the recommendations. Early childhood programs must “embrace and celebrate their diversity.”

The Administration identifies four types of classroom models: (1) Dual immersion, (2) native language with English support, (3) English with native-language support, and (4) English only. The Administration encourages No. 2 as “the most feasible in programs where most of the DLLs in a program speak a common language at home,” and discourages No. 4 because “DLLs are less likely to receive the benefits discussed above.” It cited as reasons for action high numbers of immigrants and a globalized world. “The growing diversity of our nation’s children requires that we shift the status quo.”

Essay: Where do most of the press and elites get it wrong? They don’t believe that we live in a two-tiered system. They don’t believe, or know they are in, the top tier. They also don’t understand what people view as value.
When the Democrats under Clinton in the early ‘90s shifted towards a pro market agenda, they made a dramatic shift towards accepting the Republicans definition of value as being about the economic.
Now elites in both major parties see their broad political goal as increasing the GDP, regardless of how it is done.
This has failed most Americans, other than the elite, in two ways. It has failed to provide an economic boost (incomes are broadly flat), and it has forgotten that many people see value as being not just economic, but social. It has been a one-two punch that has completely left behind many people.
For many people value is about having meaning beyond money. It is about having institutions that work for you. Like Church. Family. Sports Leagues.
In addition, the social nature of jobs has been destroyed. Unions provided more than just economic power, they also provided social inclusion.
You can scrap this entire analysis as silly if you want, but please try and understand the core point missing from much of the current dialogue — large parts of the US have become completely isolated, socially and economically.
Kids are growing up in towns where by six, or seven, or eleven, they are doomed to be viewed as second class. They feel unvalued. They feel stuck. They are mocked. And there is nothing they feel they can do about it.

When they turn to religion for worth, they are seen by the elites as uneducated, irrational, clowns. When they turn to identity through race they are racists. Regardless of their color.

The only thing they can do, faced with that, is break the fucking system. And they are going to try. Either by Trump or by some other way.

My work these days is listening to those caught in the trap of addiction. Turning to drugs is one way to deal with the frustration, and the sense of isolation.

It isn’t at all surprising to me, that where I go for my work on addiction, I also see political frustration.
I got a lot of places to go these days.

VDARE: Mickey Kaus comes out with analysis of Trump’s accusation of bias against Judge Curiel, a Mexican-American and the child of immigrants:

Cold, cold take: Paul Ryan says Donald Trump’s attack on Gonzalo Curiel, the federal judge hearing the Trump University lawsuit, is “the textbook definition of a racist comment.” Ben Sasse tweeted that “Saying someone can’t do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of racism.”

Literal definition? Isn’t the literal definition of racism claiming that someone is inferior because of their race? That wasn’t what Trump seemed to be saying at all. He was accusing Judge Curiel of something else, namely frailty, a universal human condition.

We all have biases and conflicts. We usually struggle to overcome them. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we don’t. Judges, who are supposed to be “impartial,” have a special mandate to engage in that struggle. Trump’s saying that Curiel, in this lawsuit, has failed to overcome them and is biased against him. (Certainly the media, as Ann Coulter notes, has said it’s practically Curiel’s duty to be biased against Trump.)**

The footnote goes Sonia Sotomayor’s views on race:

** — Justice Sotomayor, when wising Latina, seemed to go even further (Coulter and others note) suggesting

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological [yikes!] or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

It’s not fair to impute these controversial views — she talks of “basic differences in logic and reasoning” — to Trump.

Trump is talking about Curiel’s possible Mexican nationalist bias, something a lot of Mexican-Americans have. Not only did Senator Sasse and Representative Ryan think that attacking Judge Curiel’s presumed bias was the “definition” of racism, Jake Tapper did, too.

Let’s ask ourselves if these attacks on the Republican frontrunner–by fellow Republicans–are actually the result of underground coordination. In his 2015 speech to the American Renaissance conference, VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow said

When I was younger, I used to believe elaborate socio-psychological theories of how this happened—Joe Sobran, who I’m sure many of you remember, used to have this concept of the “Hive,” that all liberals do the same thing at the same time because they have this collective mindset. But now I think it’s all a damn conspiracy.

And I think that the discovery of that JournoList listserv group, where MSM Leftists were actually conspiring during Obama’s 2008 election campaign, to beat up on conservatives and accuse them of racism, proves it.

So is this “textbook definition” meme a “textbook” example of the GOP Donorist wing conspiring against Trump? Mickey Kaus writes:

It’s pretty clear something else is behind the hyperbolic righteousness of the GOP outrage: either a desire of pols like Ryan to posture distance themselves from Trump politically, or to actively undermine him — maybe in the hard-to-kill hope for a last-minute-sneak convention substitution. Or to simply find what Lindsey Graham called an “off ramp” from participating in his campaign. Fine. They’re allowed. But let’s recognize it for what it is.

What it is is sabotaging the GOP’s chance of beating Hillary, but that apparently doesn’t matter to these guys. Oh, as for the actual “textbook definition” of racism, here it is:

“Because the term “racist” is now so debased, I usually shrug such smears off by pointing to its new definition: anyone who is winning an argument with a liberal.Or, too often, a libertarian. And, on the immigration issue, even some confused conservatives.”

Joseph A. Mussomeli served in the U.S. Foreign Service from 1980 to 2015, including periods as U.S. ambassador to Cambodia and Slovenia.

Most of my former colleagues at the State Department will be appalled by the assertion, but much of the media-fed angst about Donald Trump’s dearth of foreign policy expertise is contrived.

Our cadre of neoconservative foreign policy experts, unhumbled after marching us into a reckless war in Iraq and a poorly conceived one in Afghanistan, who applauded as we bombed Libya and bitterly resent our having failed to bomb Bashar al-Assad in Syria, are frightened. Wisely, they often focus on comments that Trump has made on issues that are of less genuine interest to them — from his strident stance on immigration to his “threat” to our liberties to his sometimes deplorable commentary about women and some minorities. But what really troubles them is his generally level-headed and unmessianic attitude toward foreign affairs. Trump has no desire to make the rest of the world in our image; he is concerned only about the world not making America in its image.

The neocons bemoan Trump’s rejection of a global role for the United States, but Trump has no intent to withdraw the United States from the world stage. He only rejects the wanton use of our young men and women on foreign adventures of questionable value.

The neocons have two clear foreign policy objectives, and Trump may grant them neither. For many of them, their deepest yearning, ungranted even in the waning days of the George W. Bush presidency, is an air campaign against Iran. Trump doesn’t like the Iran nuclear agreement, but his instinct is to make a better deal rather than attacking, while Hillary Clinton has a strong record of supporting the prodigal misuse of military force. Clinton is just another neocon, though wrapped in sheep’s clothing — just as on some foreign policy issues Trump is little more than Bernie Sanders in wolf’s clothing…

During an ambassadorial conference in 2014, a former colleague breathlessly characterized the Ukraine crisis in neocon terms as a Manichean struggle between good and evil. Such comic-book notions now dominate our political discourse, distorting reality and making it nearly impossible to objectively assess complex issues. Trump, for all his bizarre commentary on domestic issues, better grasps the subtleties of global politics and the dangers of thinking ourselves infallible and invincible.

It’s quite an irony: The ostensibly more reckless, infantile, inexperienced and bombastic candidate may actually be more mature, level-headed and reasonable on foreign policy than his critics, who, against all the good advice our parents gave us as children, pout and refuse to talk to those they don’t like, escalate arguments to violence when they are upset, lack any remorse for the harm caused by their past opinions and actions, and fail repeatedly to see that there might be two sides to any disagreement.

From The American Thinker: Once again Republicans have proven just how stupid they can be with Paul Ryan publicly corroborating that Trump’s comments about Judge Curiel are racist. Maybe Ryan should have read attorney Alberto Gonzalez’s Washington Post article defending Trump’s right to question Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s objectivity. Instead, Ryan — once a Tea Party darling — couldn’t wait to deride Trump’s comments as racist. This is why people like me — reluctant Trump supporters — will vote for him and enthusiastically defend his comments regarding Judge Curiel. If nothing else, the presumptive nominee gives a big “Trump U” to the Democrat-Media Complex overlords and the Republican sycophants who fear them.

Trump isn’t timid about highlighting the double standards that have been hoisted upon us by the Democrat-Media Complex and affect virtually every aspect of our lives. You see, racist comments or bias in the criminal justice system or judiciary in general, are racist or biased only when conservatives, Republicans, or, G-d forbid, white people make such comments or hand down judgments that impact any of the myriad victims in the Democrat-Media Complex fold — gays, blacks, Hispanics, women, union members, the homeless, drug addicts, welfare-recipients, etc.

As clumsy as Trump’s comments might have been, it’s obvious from the context they aren’t racist and, if Republicans behaved more like Democrats, they would have run to the mic to defend his motives and character much like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democrat-Media Complex would have responded — parroting one after the other in a barrage of media appearances and op-eds.

It isn’t that hard, Speaker Ryan. It would go something like this:

Of course Mr. Trump is not a racist. He is saying that, because of his stance on illegal immigration and U.S.-Mexico relations, the judge, who is of Mexican heritage and is a member of La Raza Lawyers Group and holds differing views on these issues than Mr. Trump, might not have been able to separate his personal and political views when he made a slew of negative rulings against Mr. Trump in the Trump U case. These built-in biases can affect a Mexican-American judge in much the same way liberals argue that white police officers have built-in biases against black men.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of the presumptive nominee — whether a #nevertrumper, an avid trumpporter — or the many conservatives who are torn apart because they want to stand by their principles but also want to make sure Hillary never steps over the threshold to the White House — we should demand that Republican and conservative pundits cease and desist from openly bashing Donald Trump. Enough. Like it or not, as of now, Trump is our guy, and, truth be told, we all know that the average Republican candidate would play tiddlywinks with a Hillary candidacy while getting pummeled by her girl’s rugby team style tactics.

Trump won’t be afraid to talk about Hillary’s criminality, corruption, and character flaws. He won’t hesitate calling a lie a lie versus a misunderstanding, mistake, or mischaracterization. And he will throw as many punches — offensively as well as defensively — as warranted to defend not just himself, but the country, our traditions, our values, and our way of life. He will not let Hillary Clinton mock us, malign us, or marginalize us. He not only gives voice to over half of this country, but defends each and every one of us with pride and patriotism.

Comments by Paul Ryan, David French, Bill Kristol, Erick Erickson — among too many others — only serve to divide the party they claim to be uniting. They fan the flames of negativity about the most likely person to be our nominee while arming the enemy with more firepower.

Do Republicans and conservatives ever learn?

Clearly, they do not. They just don’t get it, when it comes to the media, PR, and communication with the public. And they certainly do not understand their own constituents.

Trump gets it. While Republican and conservative pundits throughout the media galaxy are wringing their hands or gnashing their teeth, Trump has barreled ahead unfazed — taking a page out of the Clinton-Obama-DNC playbook: Go out there, tell your story as you want it be received, turn the guns on your opposition, then move on while using media opportunities to hype your message.

Breitbart: The lawyers’ association to which Judge Gonzalo Curiel belongs was co-founded by a man who publicly bragged about Hispanics taking over California and all of the state’s governmental institutions–and insisted that whites should go back to Europe. The group, the California La Raza Lawyers Association, has been widely defended as “not pro-Mexican” by mainstream media outlets, though the outlets failed to report the inflammatory statements of the man listed first as a founder, Mario Obledo.
A 2010 Snopes report asserts that the first-listed co-founder of Judge Curiel’s group, Obledo, made the statements. They reported:

Mario Obledo was a co-founder of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the La Raza Lawyers of California bar association, and he formerly served as California’s Secretary of Health and Welfare. We don’t know exactly when and where he first made his controversial statement about California’s becoming a “Hispanic state,” but he has confirmed he said it at least twice: during an appearance on Ray Briem’s talk radio show in May or June of 1998, and again on Tom Leykis’ talk radio show:

Obledo: “We’re going to take over all the political institutions of California. In five years the Hispanics are going to be the majority population of this state.”

Caller: “You also made the statement that California is going to become a Hispanic state, and if anyone doesn’t like it, they should leave. Did you say that?”

Obledo: “I did. They ought to go back to Europe.”

The statements were also reported by the New York Times in their 2010 obituary for Obledo. They wrote:

When someone put up a sign at the California border saying, “Illegal Immigration State,” he threatened to burn it down personally.

He ignited an explosive response in 1998 when he said in a radio interview that Hispanics were on the way to taking over all of California’s political institutions. He suggested that people who did not like it go back to Europe.

The Washington Post asserts that Judge Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which is a local affiliate of the La Raza Lawyers Association of California.

Ann Coulter writes: Annoyed at federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel’s persistent rulings against him in the Trump University case (brought by a law firm that has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches by Bill and Hillary), Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that maybe it’s because the judge is a second-generation Mexican immigrant.

The entire media—and most of the GOP—have spent 10 months telling us that Mexicans in the United States are going to HATE Trump for saying he’ll build a wall. Now they’re outraged that Trump thinks one Mexican hates him for saying he’ll build a wall.

Curiel has distributed scholarships to illegal aliens. He belongs to an organization that sends lawyers to the border to ensure that no illegal aliens’ “human rights” are violated. The name of the organization? The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association—”La Raza” meaning THE RACE.

Let’s pause to imagine the nomination hearings for a white male who belonged to any organization for white people—much less one with the words “THE RACE” in its title.

The media were going to call Trump a racist whatever he did, and his attack on a Hispanic judge is way better than when they said it was racist for Republicans to talk about Obama’s golfing.

Has anyone ever complained about the ethnicity of white judges or white juries? I’ve done some research and it turns out … THAT’S ALL WE’VE HEARD FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.

The New York Times alone has published hundreds of articles, editorials, op-eds, movie reviews, sports articles and crossword puzzles darkly invoking “white judges” and “all-white” juries, as if that is ipso facto proof of racist justice.

Two weeks ago—that’s not an error; I didn’t mean to type “decades” and it came out “weeks”—the Times published an op-ed by a federal appeals judge stating: “All-white juries risk undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same sentence.”

In other words, even when provably not unfair, white jurors create the “perception” of unfairness solely by virtue of the color of their skin.