Is America Turning into a Fraud?

There is no progress in Progressivism. No democracy in the Democrat party. No Republicanism in the Republican party. Democrats had to wait for a 29-year old to be relevant. How pathetic to see a dozen senior Dem Party functionaries stand behind the neophyte (AOC) to become inspired again. Republicans sit by, dumbfounded, with that pusillanimous look on their sour faces, not knowing if Trump is their savior or their funeral orchestrator. The party of slavery and Jim Crow have become the party of hatred and ridicule after a short bout with meaningless hope-and-change. They practice to perfection the slimy rule of ridicule (Rule #5 of Saul Alinsky’s Rule for Radicals), rules that Obama taught to his band of community organizers before entering politics. This new Democrat party does not hesitate to corruptly use the power of government agencies to persecute its political opponents. The ideal immigrant, Dinesh D’Souza, was the only person ever convicted and imprisoned for exceeding individual election contributions. Obama’s team did not like this particular immigrant who knows the American constitutional principles better than most politicians. In the name of fighting fascism, ANTIFA uses fascist tactics to silence Conservatives and many of Trump’s associates. Our government now uses Gestapo tactics to terrify Trump’s friends into spilling the goods on Trump. Those of us who have memories of the Nazis are shocked at this Democrat America. Then, our elected legislators make one law (healthcare) for the public and a sweet one for themselves. What is more proof of institutional corruption?
Hillary demanded that Trump respect election results, when it looked like she would win. Two years later Hillary and the Democrats still do not respect the people’s choice. Newly-elected, white-robed “resistance” congresswomen threatening one of their own for applauding during Trump’s State of the Union Address (“watch your ass” was the admonition). They preach diversity but do not practice it in their own environment, and certainly not in the realm of thought. In fact, they preach an illogical syllogism: unity in diversity. Diversity emphasizes our differences…. How can this lead to “unity” when we have nothing in common. Failure to assimilate spells the death of America.
Colleges are no longer the home of freedom of speech and academic freedom. Most of the “professors” have drunk the radical liberal potion of the anti-American Left. Many, while asked why they hold their leftist view, are incapable of giving a rational answer. Dissenters are harassed in fascist fashion or driven off campus, their speeches stopped. They have succeeded in considering their own extreme philosophy as the “center”, failing to understand that the Left moved its goal-post to an extreme, but the Right hardly moved from our founding principles. Truth, like principles, change over time in the Democrat view.
They claim our immigration laws are broken, when only their enforcement is broken, in large part at the hands of “liberal” judges who, for instance, claim that the financial responsibility of immigrants (Affidavit of Support) “cannot be enforced”. Democrats love immigrants, above all immigrants from poor and uneducated backgrounds who will eventually (if not immediately) vote Democrats into power and expect more “free stuff” at the expense of Americans taxpayers. Democrats, and especially the Kennedys, created the immigration crisis by changing the laws to favor those who live on our borders, claiming that the 1920 country-origin quota laws were discriminatory because they favored Europeans.
They blame capitalism for most ills that were actually due to Democrat policies with stupid Republican collusion (bank and industry bailouts are not capitalist). The War on Poverty was a colossal failure, serving to encourage millions of US residents to become dependent on the state. Black Americans, who switched from the party of Lincoln and the Emancipation when FDR started the welfare train with Medicare, Social Security. At least 80 more welfare programs followed. Why would anyone work when the government provides for your basic comfort? Progressive Republicans like the Bushes kept the train going (drug program for seniors, etc.). America was created on the principles of individual freedom, justice and equality before the law, and free enterprise. Where can I go to sue America for fraud?

Advertisements

Education or Indoctrination?

E

Poor Socrates must be convulsing in his eternal resting place. His most effective teaching method seems abandoned by the teaching profession. Socrates opened student minds by asking them probing questions to stimulate their critical thinking and come up with their own answers. After all, the word education is derived from Latin: “e” (out of…) and “duco” (to lead). Perhaps one of our common expressions comes to mind immediately: you can lead someone to water, but you cannot make him/her drink it. Although it often seems that the students are leading the faculty. I still believe that the best teacher is one who can articulate several points of view of his/her teaching subject without revealing his/her personal view to the students. Instead, we seem to have mostly teachers who are only too anxious to provide their personal perspective on the teaching subject, rather than to let students sharpen their innate reasoning skill through Socratic questioning. 

The same is true for news reporters and anchors. They seem to have only their opinions and they buttress them by ridiculing all others. While America claims to have more better-educated citizens than ever, why is it that so many journalists are convinced that these citizens do need an interpretation of their reports as if news consumers could not think for themselves. This is an ominous sign pointing to “1984”, an Orwellian world in which citizens are expected to adopt the central command’s opinion.  Most of us voters consult several news sources so that we can determine what the likely truth is. We attend college in order to be exposed to a variety of theories so that we learn how to think, not necessarily what to think. In essence, today’s teachers and news reporters indoctrinate their audience and, in the process, produce virtual robots programmed in leftist thinking. Their teaching has turned prescriptive rather than descriptive. So, what happened to academic freedom and intellectual challenges?

Yes, I am disappointed… very disappointed!

Throughout my adult life, I always assumed that colleges upheld their intellectual commitment to the five freedoms: press, speech, religion, assembly, petitioning, as well as academic freedom. Not true anymore. Even privately-owned colleges in the Midwest have turned left in political and social life. During my eleven-year career as an Adjunct Professor, I had the occasion to join a faculty book “club” in which we would read and discuss cutting-edge books. Our discussion leader picked a “civil rights” book that I described as a “litany of grievances” that we have heard over decades. I inquired as to the next club book, assuming it would be a contrarian perspective, if not a book about solving racial problems. No, more of the same, so that we might better understand Black man’s burden. It is a characteristic of Africans to dwell on past problems, to believe that wisdom comes from the “street” rather than study; pride comes before results, etc. But why to dwell on problems and not attempt a solution, I asked. Contrast this attitude with that of Asian-Americans who also have grievances, but don’t dwell on them. They buckle down and work hard and smart, resulting in the highest household income in America, outpacing Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, according to federal government statistics.

College policy manuals still stipulate freedom of speech and academic freedom, but in reality, the faculty expects conformity to left-wing ideology now prevalent on most campuses. The soft humanity of college life is at odds with the principles and values that led to the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The five freedoms guaranteed in the first amendment are under assault by the Left (Hollywood, education and the press) because the Left wishes to believe that all Right-wing political talk is hate speech. Therefore, the college owes it to the students to provide a “safe” place where they can avoid hearing contrarian views. These students will be severely handicapped in the real world. They are taught the lie about Democrats having given up their racist ways switching roles with Republicans during the civil rights years. Actually, Democrats opposed virtually all civil right legislation and Republicans did all the proposing and cajoling (E. Dirksen, -Chicago-R) as did Lincoln and the Republicans with freeing the slaves. Too many teachers point to all the social and economic problems in the world and pretend that it was all caused by capitalism. We see proof every day among our newest elected officials spouting socialist theory without being able to point to a single socialist state that has succeeded in raising the living standards of its people. Capitalism has. But colleges do not see it and do not teach it. 

Capitalism: Vilified and Misunderestimated

 

Capitalism is justifiably credited with raising the standard of living for hundreds of millions of people around the world, having cut extreme poverty (people living on $1.25 per day) in half.  And yet, the public at large has the opposite image in mind. It is true that the rich have become richer, but the poor have also become richer, though to a lesser degree. The Gap between rich and poor has grown. As a result, income inequality has become the new stanza in this monotonous cacophony of vilification by its opponents. “Corporations are greedy and exploit workers” is the popular refrain on the Left. Liberals want to make the rich poorer in order to make the poor a little richer. Conservatives want a free-market economy that continuously grows so that more people can participate in economic prosperity. Free-market capitalism requires individual freedom and economic freedom along with a minimum of rules and regulations that encourage entrepreneurship and investment opportunities.

An interesting medical case was discussed in my article published on April 15, 2012 in Dubuque’s (Iowa) top newspaper, the Telegraph Herald, touching on the then-current story about catheterization competition between Dubuque’s two hospitals. The prediction by one of a ‘disservice’ to the patient base did not materialize after the Iowa Medical Board decided in favor of competition, though competition was not cited in their reasoning. Press reports a year later showed that both hospitals did well in this exercise of the “invisible hand” of competition.

Why does capitalism have such a bad reputation among the young? As the 2012 article pointed out, capitalism has been blamed for all the terrible government policies since Progressivism (in both parties) took over America. Just because a Republican President decides policy, does not mean it is a “capitalist” decision. Bush 43 admitted that he had to “kill the free market in order to save it”. TARP funds, Wall Street bailouts and industry loans are not part of the capitalist agenda. Bush 43, like Obama, succumbed to Wall Street’s “too big to fail” hat trick, panicking everyone into a stampede over a weekend (!) to bail out Wall Street, while promising to also save Main Street. Of the two streets we know which one is prospering and which one is suffering, still. Capitalist principles have helped more countries raise their standard of living, while foreign aid has maintained the status quo over the years. Countries that adopted some form of capitalism have seen their GDP and living standards rise. Within Latin America, Chile adopted a form of capitalism with the help of American economists (Milton Friedman) during the 1970s and remains the top performer in that region.

 

Immigrant Bashing Vs National Sovereignty

Why this chaos on the border? Illegal immigrants reflect a un-American characteristic, i.e. a fundamental lack of respect for America’s sovereignty and its laws. Democrats during the 1960s figured out that European immigrants were voting mostly Republican, and immigrants from south of the border were voting mostly Democrat. America’s weak enforcement of immigration laws has encouraged millions of Mexicans and Central Americans to buy their “US lottery” ticket and exploit America’s “soft underbelly”.  Of course, the Left is sympathetic to immigrants from poor countries because they represent future Democrat voters. As usual they label any opponents as racist. Democrats like Ted Kennedy and President Johnson argued against the 1920s immigration laws which specified quotas per country. In fact, they called the laws discriminatory because they favored (white) Europeans. So, if indeed those laws were discriminatory, then the current system is also discriminatory because the rules favor Mexicans and Central Americans due to proximity. The Federal Government switched one race for another under the banner of “diversity”.

The very notion of national sovereignty gives a nation the right to decide which immigrants and how many to admit to the country. Apparently, that right has been declared null & void in Mexico and Central America. This is endorsed by the Liberal press but especially the Spanish-speaking media, and in particular News Anchor Jorge Ramos of Univision and Fusion. He calls America the “land for all” which is the English title of his book “Tierra de Todos”. (Everybody’s country). The sub-title makes Ramos’ perspective clear: “Our moment to create a nation of equals”. Ironically, he endorses special privileges for illegal aliens and in fact argues for open borders. Will America in the future look more like Mexico than the United States? This cultural tsunami will continue unless our federal government re-establishes the rule of law. While roaming the migrant crowds at the Guatemala-Mexico border, Ramos points his camera to mothers with children and asks rhetorically if these kids and women represent a “national security threat” to the United States. Interviews show that most of them had jobs back home but are looking for a better paycheck in the US so that they can send funds to support family back home. Democrats and illegal immigrants need to hear JFK’s admonition: ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for the country.

A Tale of Two Immigrants

There could be no bigger disagreement about the nature of America than between these two high-profile immigrants: one from India and one from Mexico. Both are naturalized citizens who came the legal way. Both are prominent in the field of immigration, and each has published over 10 books. Each energizes opposing political segments of the US population.  One is the rigid scholarly type, the other the do-good  journalist armed with heart-warming statistical and anecdotal information.

Jorge Ramos, born in 1958 in Mexico City, is the evening news anchor on Univision, the largest Spanish-language television network in the US. He has been an outspoken critic of US immigration policies and promotes open-borders. He delights in the fact that Latinos will dominate demographics by 2059 and is wondering why we don’t already have a Hispanic President (Is it racist to want a specific race in the White House?) He seems convinced that any of the seven billion people in this world have a right to immigrate to the US if they so choose. He also believes that America “stole” half of Mexico in 1848 and that they are merely re-occupying their land, which the Spanish Conquistadores occupied by force. Furthermore, he insists that America’s “noblesse oblige” reputation and a certain poem on the pedestal of Lady Liberty, obligates it to accept any who are brave enough to come to the US. He did not hesitate to ask President Obama to simply sign an executive order to give legal status to illegal aliens, if not citizenship, reflecting a basic lack of respect for the rule-of-law typical of a socialist nation like Mexico. Ramos likes to point out that he is not White but Latino, conflating race and ethnicity. He is a naturalized American and votes in Mexican and US elections, which is against the spirit of the Oath of Allegiance. While enjoying the reputation as one of the most influential Hispanics, he is a journalist by profession, but practices advocacy journalism, always on the side of the illegal alien and other leftist causes. He influences 3.5 million Hispanics every night on Univision (along with similar opinions for the 1.5 million Hispanics watching Telemundo). The title of one of his latest books, A Country For All, makes it clear that America has no sovereign right to deny entry to anyone, simply because the founding Americans had no entry permission either. The original Spanish version (2009) subtitle states that Hispanics have a chance to turn this nation into a place of equality-for-all. However, the English translation (2010) characterizes the book as “An Immigrant Manifesto”.

Dinesh D’Souza was born in 1961 in Mumbai, India, earned a degree at Dartmouth, and was President of King’s College in New York for a short period. After a stint in the Reagan administration, he became a writer and producer of political documentaries and books such as The Roots of Obama’s Rage, Hillary’s America, The Big Lie and The Death of a Nation. Dinesh investigated Obama’s past in Kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii and his attendance at US universities, and exposed the socialist and communist circle of friends and family that raised Obama or groomed him for political office. This unflattering treatment earned him Obama’s wrath by making him the first American to be prosecuted and jailed for the minor offense of exceeding campaign contribution limits. He destroyed the myth about a Republican connection to the KKK. His biggest revelation is the myth that the two parties somehow switched slavery attitudes after the Civil War. The party of Lincoln provided emancipation for America’s slaves and led the way in civil rights legislation which Democrats boycotted for a long time. American Blacks did not switch voting allegiance from Republican to Democrat until FDR’s New Deal (1930s).

Unity-In-Diversity and other Oxymorons

There could be no bigger disagreement about the nature of America than between these two high-profile immigrants: one from India and one from Mexico. Both are naturalized citizens who came the legal way. Both are prominent in the field of immigration, and each has published over 10 books. Each energizes opposing political segments of the US population.  One is the rigid scholarly type, the other the do-good journalist armed with heart-warming statistical and anecdotal information.

Jorge Ramos, born in 1958 in Mexico City, is the evening news anchor on Univision, the largest Spanish-language television network in the US. He also provides commentary on the FUSION network, in English. He has been an outspoken critic of US immigration policies and promotes open-borders. He delights in the fact that Latinos will dominate demographics by 2059 and is wondering why we don’t already have a Hispanic President (Is it racist to want a specific race in the White House?) He seems convinced that any of the seven billion people in this world have a right to immigrate to the US if they so choose. He also believes that America “stole” half of Mexico in 1848 and that they are merely re-occupying their land, which the Spanish Conquistadores occupied by force. Furthermore, he insists that America’s “noblesse oblige” reputation and a certain poem on the pedestal of Lady Liberty, obligates it to accept any who are brave enough to come to the US. He did not hesitate to ask President Obama to simply sign an executive order to give legal status to illegal aliens, if not citizenship, reflecting a basic lack of respect for the rule-of-law typical of a socialist nation like Mexico. Ramos likes to point out that he is not White but Latino, conflating race and ethnicity. He is a naturalized American and votes in Mexican and US elections, which is against the spirit of the Oath of Allegiance. While enjoying the reputation as one of the most influential Hispanics, he is a journalist by profession, but practices advocacy journalism, always on the side of the illegal alien and other leftist causes. He influences 3.5 million Hispanics every night on Univision (along with similar opinions for the 1.5 million Hispanics watching Telemundo). The title of one of his latest books, A Country For All, makes it clear that America has no sovereign right to deny entry to anyone, simply because the founding Americans had no entry permission either. The original Spanish version (2009) subtitle states that Hispanics have a chance to turn this nation into a place of equality-for-all. However, the English translation (2010) characterizes the book as “An Immigrant Manifesto”.

Dinesh D’Souza was born in 1961 in Mumbai, India, earned a degree at Dartmouth, and was President of King’s College in New York for a short period. After a stint in the Reagan administration, he became a writer and producer of political documentaries and books such as The Roots of Obama’s Rage, Hillary’s America, The Big Lie and The Death of a Nation. Dinesh investigated Obama’s past in Kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii and his attendance at US universities, and exposed the socialist and communist circle of friends and family that raised Obama or groomed him for political office. This unflattering treatment earned him Obama’s wrath by making him the first American to be prosecuted and jailed for the minor offense of exceeding campaign contribution limits. His scholarly research destroyed the myth about a Republican connection to the KKK. His biggest revelation is the myth that the two parties somehow switched slavery attitudes after the Civil War. The party of Lincoln provided emancipation for America’s slaves and led the way in civil rights legislation which Democrats boycotted for a long time. American Blacks did not switch voting allegiance from Republican to Democrat until FDR’s New Deal (1930s). What has the Democrat Party done for Blacks or any other minority besides taking their vote for granted?

Is there a plan to destroy America?

Is there a plan to destroy America?

 

Former Governor Dick Lamm (D-CO) is still today waking up America to its planned demise.  “All great nations commit suicide”, he stated in 2003 and repeats that statement often.  Judge for yourself. The audio clip with Lamm’s voice articulating a “seven-point plan-to-destroy-America” can be found on this website:  http://www.marklevinshow.com/2018/01/09/former-dem-gov-dick-lamm-on-how-to-destroy-america-3/. It does not take a scholar to recognize the simple strategy to fundamentally transform America using seven specific tactics. First and second tactics: turn America into a multi-lingual and multi-cultural nation, i.e. create a modern “tower of Babel” where nobody understands one another.  European heads of state (Merkel/Germany, Sarkozy/France, Cameron/UK, Cardinal Walter Kasper/Germany) have admitted (2010) that multi-culturalism has been a major failure, yet nothing has changed. Encouraging people to live according to the culture of their heritage and speak its language creates rivalries that may well result in civil war. Integration without assimilation destroys cohesion. Virtually all countries with 2 or more cultures and languages constantly face the threat of a break-up along cultural lines (Belgium, Spain etc). Remember Scotland almost voted itself out of the United Kingdom.

3) Redefine the meaning of words like “diversity”, i.e. celebrate our differences, not our common beliefs and principles. Diversity means dividing people into groups by culture and language. That is why they had to invent the oxymoron “unity in diversity”.  This is like fitting a round peg into a square hole. The original American motto was E PLURIBUS, UNUM, from many (cultures), one (culture) has been reinterpreted to mean that America is many cultures. No country can be more than one culture. None.

4) Keep minorities uneducated, for they will vote for “goodies” from their benefactors in office

5) Have foundations and private organizations fund these efforts to provide a comfortable welfare system that perpetuates itself and keeps them dependent on government.

6) Allow and even encourage dual citizenship so as to weaken loyalty to their adopted country, although the Oath of Allegiance signed by all new immigrant citizens clearly states that they commit to loyalty to the US exclusively. Activist “journalists” like Univision’s Jorge Ramos, brag about their dual citizenship and often vote in US elections and elections of their country of birth. Mexico’s President Zedillo publicly encouraged Mexicans in the US to “vote Mexico’s interests”. “ Of the 35.8 million people of Mexican descent in the U.S., 68 percent are native-born, and more than a quarter of those born in Mexico have become U.S. citizens”

7) Make it taboo to talk about anything except “diversity” as an ideal tool for social and other kinds of justice. Corporations are spending hundreds of millions to “teach” diversity to their managers, yet cannot define what “diversity” is. Do corporate CEOs really want to pick a decision from a diverse group of direct-reports or implement their own best judgment?  “Unity in Diversity” is a fantasy. Emphasizing our differences cannot possibly lead to “unity”.  Harvard Professor and friend of Obama, Robert Putnam got into trouble raising doubts about the usefulness of “diversity”, several years after his famous research into integration and assimilation (Bowling Alone, 2000). His book observed that integration has indeed been happening but without assimilation. We are a community during the week and on the job, but we go our separate ways on weekends. Why, because we have our own cultural preferences. Diversity divides; it does not unite people. Integration without assimilation destroys cohesion. Another professor got into trouble for speaking her (conservative) mind about affirmative action and race relations. Amy Wax (Penn State Law School) was “demoted” by not being allowed to teach a required first-year course because minority students might be offended by her contrarian public opinion. Academic Freedom and Freedom Of Speech on campus are mere historic relics.

Captive Minds and the Academic Chastity Belt

The sad state of Learning in America’s Colleges

Pablum In, Pablum out.

Captive minds protected by an academic chastity belt.  That is the impression that academics leave with the average American.  While they perfunctorily promote the principles of freedom-of-speech and academic-freedom, they are often in contravention of those principles. Just publish your own beliefs about the state of higher learning, and you will be admonished for going off the reservation.  Such was the case of Professors Amy Wax (U. of Philadelphia Law School) and Larry Alexander (U. of San Diego Law School) after their August 9, 2017 article in the Philadelphia Inquirer. They had the audacity (or courage) to express their observations about the institution having long ago abandoned those principles in favor of one-opinion-fits-all. The resulting suppression or oppression of thought reminds us of the George Orwell novel “1984” where uniformity and conformity were sacrosanct.

The authors blame the “breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture” for the chaos on campus and Main Street.  Espousing “old” values such as gainful employment, hard work, patriotism, neighborliness, respect for authority, substance abuse avoidance etc. is not just frowned upon, but condemned. Instead of teaching responsibility, accountability and coping strategies, they teach victimhood for virtually all classes of people, except the white male. College administrators seem to go out of their way to guarantee the purity of their thinking with an academic chastity belt, removing any little adversity or challenge from their students ‘daily lives. They are protected in “safe” spaces away from “offending” thought and speech. This offensive speech is defined as hate speech and always linked to Conservative or Republican speech which is supposedly steeped in the evil known as capitalism. Capitalism is routinely vilified and blamed for all the ills in this world, though these ills are largely the result of socialist do-good policies (Disaster cities are all managed by Democrats).  What is that pabulum? Capitalism exploits the poor.

With precious few exceptions, these professionals seem to put their personal beliefs ahead of truth and critical thinking. This one-dimensional thinking is enforced through the grading system but also enforced physically in rallies that forcibly remove divergent speech with “muscle”.  Do not conservative speakers get pelted with objects on stage or never even make it to the stage to deliver their non-conforming message. Conservative articles seldom get published in newspapers for fear of upsetting their liberal readers. Furthermore, while promoting the holy grail of “diversity” in gender or ethnic identification, diversity of thought is strictly forbidden. To forestall any argument about the ideal of “diversity” which by definition divides people into classes, they devised an oxymoronic expression “unity in diversity”. Round peg into a square hole?

My own experience as an Adjunct Professor spans only 11 years, but provided ample proof of academic malfeasance to fill a book. Besides the distraction to learning caused by sports programs and “sports scholarships”, the injection of personal beliefs into the course material skews the students’ learning.  I was astonished to learn, for instance, that my specialty of cross-cultural management can have a right or left wing twist to it. Then, I was shocked by the conduct of a faculty-level book discussion group where I expected a semblance of academic freedom and freedom of thought, but I was wrong. I was virtually accused of racism for my habitually-skeptical approach to any new book, including one written by Ta-Nehisi Coates which I found to be a litany of complaints with which we are all sufficiently familiar. I inquired as to the follow-up work, preferably a work on solutions to the race problem, not a dwelling on the past that cannot be changed.  It was not to be.  All participants seemed to compete about ingratiating themselves to the black members in the room. One made sure that her kids had black dolls to play with; another actually married a black individual. It was the usual Sharpton-J.Jackson lecture of victimhood for Blacks. This book “review” was one more notch in the chastity belt, assuring the purity of racial thought among mono-chrome instructors.

More recently I commented on a professor friend’s Facebook page which raved against the NRA for causing school shootings. I wondered why we don’t ban cars since they kill more people annually than guns. I was immediately admonished for being so “uninformed” and that I should “be ashamed of myself” as an academic, but no counter argument was made, only the personal attack on me. In other words we have progressed to the “1984” status where everyone forcibly thinks the same way, like a mass of robots marching headlong into the abyss of academic nihilism.

Here is another example of group think. An after-hours on-campus conference compared native-born Blacks to immigrant Blacks. Research has been published (WSJ and others) showing that immigrant Blacks do better economically than native Blacks. This contrasts with findings in the Hispanic community that show the reverse. The highlight came when a recent immigrant from Jamaica made her comment to the effect that American-born Blacks seem to have a “sense of entitlement”, that they are owed something because of the past. The panel of black professors and students immediately white-washed the comment without even trying to formulate a counter argument.  Of course this commentary was not found in next day’s newspaper report.

I was flabbergasted that the newspaper which routinely published all the articles that I had submitted finally refused a particular one which questioned the assumption that the US is to practice multi-culturalism. I argued that indeed Americans come from many different cultures, but we all adopt the American culture and live accordingly, thereby providing cohesion as a nation.( The word “multi-culturalism”, like “democracy”, is not mentioned in the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.) The practice of allowing or even encouraging people to live according to the culture of their heritage is what creates division and strife. As we know from the studies conducted by Robert Putnam (Harvard), integration without assimilation lacks national cohesion. Liberalism has taken these key words to the absurd extreme by crafting the oxymoronic slogan “unity in diversity”. This is tantamount to promoting open-minded debates in an Orwellian closed-mind environment, or higher education for lower expectations, i.e. fitting a round peg into a square hole. The elaborate chastity-belt is assuring compliance.

March 1, 2018…. 1062 words

The Rebel of French Culture is dead: long live Johnny

The stage lights went dark on December 5, 2017, for a certain septuagenarian labeled “the greatest rock-star unknown outside France”. Johnny Hallyday on that day perhaps got his wish to come face to face with his mysterious Marie, to whom he dedicated a song of despair and hope on his 60th birthday. In the extraordinarily long funeral cortège on the Champs Elysées, a venue normally reserved for great statesmen a million French citizens, young and old, said goodbye to the French “King Of Rock & Roll”. The very familiar refrain from Marie could be heard along the somber route, while dozens of bands played this haunting melody which had become the fastest selling single ever in France. A magnificent tribute to his career, his tremendous charisma, his rebel-without-a-cause behavior in an otherwise well-defined national culture: “Oh Marie, if you only knew all the wrongs done to me, Oh Marie, if I could find peace in your bare arms; Oh Marie, I hope that in heaven we shall meet.”

None other than the President of France himself, Emmanuel Macron and former President Nicolas Sarkozy were among the dignitaries eulogizing Johnny. Even former Minister of French Culture, Jacques Lang, had words of praise for the non-traditional Frenchman. Street interviews revealed the presence of many traditionalists who reluctantly acknowledged that Johnny was not of “their” culture, but loved him anyway. “He transcends generations”, stated Macron.

Many more millions will be added to the 110 million albums sold over six decades. As a seventeen-year-old infatuated with two American idols, Elvis Presley and James Dean, he forged a splendid career against all cultural odds. His always-sold-out venues naturally included spectacular entrances, whether on a Harley Davidson or dropped from a helicopter and his trademark on-stage gyrations and a chaotic lifestyle, earned him the title of “the French Elvis”. And yet, his music has hardly caused a ripple in America or the UK. What is so different, of course, is the language, but also the content and meaning of his lyrics. His sound is a French interpretation of rock and roll, with lyrics often touching on the darker side of humanity, dealing with despair, hope and prospects of this wonderful dream ending, especially after his diagnosis of lung cancer. Such is the tone of many of his songs, especially SEUL (alone) and Quelques Cris, (A few cries). That his appeal in the English-speaking world is not great is baffling, although some Americans know him for his acting in movies like The Man From The Train. His detractors remind us that Johnny must be a foreigner (his father is Belgian and his mother is French), and that his fanbase is mostly from the provinces, not Paris, an unkind cultural put-down. However, he consistently filled the largest stadiums three nights in a row, a feat not often duplicated by British or American rock stars. Three months after his death, his records are still sold out, but If you listen by the stars tonight, you will surely hear Johnny having a rocking good time with his Marie

P.S. During his lifetime he was estranged from both parents. In death, he is estranged from two of his children as he left all of his US and European assets to his fourth wife (32 years his junior) and their two adopted Vietnamese children. MERCI JOHNNY

M-T-M: Three Presidents On The March

Macron – Trump – Macri: the trio of presidents that promises to save a weary world that is about to lose its Western ways. Emmanuel MACRON, barely 40 years old and youngest President of France since Napoleon. Donald TRUMP (70), President of America-First-Again, and Mauricio MACRI (58), President of Open-For-Business-Again Argentina. Though not obviously orchestrated, they seem to act with some harmony of purpose. While their political party affiliations have been of the flexible kind, their actions and intentions are not ideological but very clear: they spell a Machiavellian pragmatism. All three are clearing the swamp left by prior socialist administrations, doing away with restrictive regulations, loosening labor laws, inviting investors with lower tax rates and fairer regulations, encouraging job and company formation, talking tough on welfare and immigration (Macri mentioned a possible fence with Bolivia), revamping education for the 21st century. All have made money in the “free market”, perhaps the consequence of being born into moderately rich immigrant families. Macron’s parents were both doctors. Trump’s and Macri’s parents became rich in the real estate world and, in fact, did business together in NY and Buenos Aires. Macron became wealthy while working as an Investment Banker for the Rothschild Bank after a brief stint in the Inspectorate General of Finances of the Hollande administration. He was then appointed Minister of Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs where he was successful in getting business-friendly reforms passed.
Elite schooling shaped their thinking. All frequented prestigious schools: “Sciences Po” and “ENA” for Macron, “Wharton School of Finance”/U. of Pennsylvania for Trump, and Macri graduated from the “Pontifical Catholic University” of Argentina, and attended a few classes at Wharton. Politically, all are “mavericks”, outsiders, although Macri was twice elected Mayor of Buenos Aires after becoming well known as the chairman of the very popular Argentine soccer team Boca Juniors. Republicanism is on the march. Macron formed his own centrist party: LA REPUBLIQUE EN MARCHE (The Republic on the March).  Macri formed PRO i.e. PROPUESTA REPUBLICANA (Republican Plan party). They had to do this in order to be free to attack the stale traditional organizations and their wishful but failing policies. Trump did virtually the same thing by simply appropriating the Republican name and turning it into his own vehicle. Macron was not the favorite in the primaries, but handily beat the “extreme right” candidate, Marine Le Pen in a run-off. Le Pen argued for a FREXIT (French exit from the European Union), but  Macron argued the opposite, though his was not the popular view in France during the election cycle.
All married well. Trump and Macri are said to have married beauties, in fact, three each. Some in the press are wondering if Melania has “met her match” in elegant Juliana Awada, Mrs. Macri. While Trump married a much younger woman, Macron married a much older one, Brigitte, who was his drama teacher in High School.
Macron can be described as the most intellectual and erudite of the three. He studied and excelled in philosophy and piano, though his passion remains Public Finance.  Trump definitely is the “street-smart” operator whose unpolished language is understood by the popular masses. Macri’s popularity can be traced to his very successful management of a highly successful soccer team. He is rich but not arrogantly so, and is motivated to correct the grievous errors of  Argentina’s decades of Peronist mismanagement.
It is however not perfect harmony. Macron objects to Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris environmental agreement. Macri openly supported Hillary Clinton for President. There may well be more disagreement, but it all trends in favor of pragmatism, peace, and prosperity.

Macron wanted to make

Trump Meets With Argentine President Mauricio Macri in the Oval Office