Is Mexican drug trafficking really our fault?

The president of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, recently claimed that the American fentanyl epidemic was caused by “a lack of hugs, of embraces.” Cute that, but nothing new. Whenever the subject of drug trafficking comes up, Mexico throws its arms wide and pleads innocent. The spokespeople for Mexico tell us the problem is in our own backyard. We consume drugs at a prodigious rate, so demand is the issue, not supply.

To listen to them explain it, we’re not only at fault for drug trafficking, but American druggies are responsible for all the drug related carnage in Mexico as well. The journalists killed this year in Mexico? Our fault. The one hundred thirty-two Mexican politicians killed in 2018? Our fault. The seventy-five American tourists murdered in Mexico in 2016? Our fault. The fourteen people killed in a thirty-six-hour period in Cancun? Our fault. The thousands of Mexican civilians killed each year by drug gangs? Our fault.

And what about the million plus deaths by overdose in America since 2000 and the million annual Emergency Room visits involving illicit drugs?

Definitely our fault.

This deflection always sounded hollow to me. These Mexican shills basically claim that we can’t complain about the drug cartels until we clean up the demand side. Except. Do they really believe that American teenagers wake up one morning and say hey, that drug thing, I'm gonna get into that? Do they really believe that the drug cartels are merely reacting to an organic demand for opioids? If we behave on our side of the border, then all will be copacetic, and the bad guys will retreat to a legitimate business? Do they really expect us to believe that line of bullshit?

They do … and we do. When pummeled with alleged culpability, Americans are too willing to blame themselves for others’ transgressions.

Here’s why I don’t buy it. The drug cartels have an expansive salesforce trained on how to seduce our kids. For the most part this sales force is American, but make no mistake, they are employees of the cartels. And there’s an army of them. A big army. They do the cartel’s bidding and they do it to a honed script. A party with drinking? Allow the partygoers to get a little drunk and then offer free samples. Hey, try this, it’s fun. Guys, you want girls? Use this. Scared of local thugs? Join our gang and survive with the benefit of getting high for cheap. Clubbing? Concerts? Sex? Go high. You’ll enjoy it more.

Once hooked, the cartel salesforce reels them in. You need more? No money? No problem. Get me a referral and I’ll give you a freebee. Still need more? You can pay by selling for me at your school … or maybe, hey, sell your body.

Now imagine a United States without this encouraged demand. Drug free? No, but a much smaller problem, with fewer gang related deaths. Gang violence is nothing more than the Mexican cartel wars exported along with their drugs into the United States.

What if we made all drugs legal? That’s how we got fentanyl, the deadliest of all the illicit drugs. With marijuana becoming increasingly legalized, the cartels had to find a new product to fill their established supply lines. Fentanyl is 35 times stronger than heroin. (And they told us legalizing Marijuana would reduce the drug problem.) Legalize fentanyl and the cartels will move something even stronger because the organizational apparatus is in place, and it requires duffle bags of cash to keep it running.

What’s the answer? We must shut down the supply line. In toto. Build The Wall and get ready for the cartels to sneak in by sea or air. Get very tough with Mexico. Force them to help us. We must stop this poison from entering the United States, and enforce domestic laws to arrest the cartel’s neighborhood sales force. Law enforcement needs to stop trying to move up the management chain and start putting the street vendors behind bars. The cartels cannot move their product without a domestic sales force, and they have a prodigious appetite for cash. Dry up their cash flow and their empires will start to crumble.

You can play with the demand side until your kid’s heart stops. It will do no good. It’s time to go after the supply.

Shut it down. Completely.

 

Lincoln Book Review: Lincoln by Gore Vidal

I’m not a Gore Vidal fan. I thought Burr was a hash, especially from a historical perspective. Lincoln is a better novel, but still blemished due to Vidal’s penchant for showing off. A novel is a story, and the cardinal rule of storytelling is to never jerk the reader out of the story, but Vidal continuously interrupts his characters mid-scene to take a bow. Witty asides, overly clever dialogue, meaningless gossip, and focus on the trivial when the reader yeans for the big picture, are bad enough, but the near absence of transitions is jarring. Vidal goes from one scene to another with a whole different cast of characters without even a “by your leave.” It is like, “Hey, I veered off over here, catch up.” And you do, but it takes the rereading several sentences. By then the magic is gone.

The book is titled Lincoln, but Ol’ Abe comes across as a side character. He is explained by countless others that surround the supposed protagonist. Most of these characters come across as untrustworthy narrators. Characterization is not a Gore Vidal strong suit. Everyone seems similar and each carries a little of Vidal’s rapscallion nature. Vidal likes rogues, scoundrels, and outright villains and ascribes his characters' motivations to the dark side of human frailty.

Some historians have taken issue with the historical accuracy of Lincoln. As a historical novelist, I know strict adherence to facts presented in their proper order does not always lend itself to good storytelling. In this readers opinion, Vidal’s may skew events and people to his viewpoint but, for the most part, his violations are inconsequential. This is a well-researched book and Vidal’s relaying of events, large and miniscule, is generally accurate.

If you prefer history presented as a story, Lincoln is the best novel about Lincoln available ... until I publish Maelstrom.

Lincoln Book Review: A Patriot’s History of the United States

 

A Patriot’s History of the United States

From Columbus’s Great Discovery to the War on Terror

Larry Schweikart, Michael Patrick Allen

From the subtitle, it would be easy to assume A Patriot’s History is a breezy treatment of our nation’s history. From the title, it might also be assumed that this is a polemic tomb. Neither would be correct. To accommodate five centuries of history in a single volume, each episode must be tersely described, but terse does not necessarily mean unacademic. Schweikart and Allen do a superb job of describing the essence of a historic moment without being superficial. Although the authors freely admit to a belief in conservative principles, the book is not a conservative rewriting of history through creative description or omission. The authors do not gloss over some of our uncomfortable past or whitewash occasional spells of truly bad behavior. All in all, this is an excellent survey of American history.

These book reviews have focused on the Civil War and the principal players in that conflict. A Patriot’s History covers much more ground. I had read the book when it first came out and recently reread the two chapters dealing with the Civil War. When lost in the trees, it’s helpful to get a perspective on the forest This book reminded me to always keep an eye the big picture.

I would recommend A Patriot’s History as a reference book or to read cover to cover.

The Myth of Voter Suppression, The Left’s Assault on Clean Elections By Fred Lucas

 

The Myth of Voter Suppression exposes the imbalance between the voter suppression and voter fraud controversies. Although Lucas cites examples of voter suppression in our past, today, voter suppression is a myth. Voter suppression is illegal, minority voting is statistically growing, and extremely few cases of voter suppression have been adjudicated. On the other hand, Lucas demonstrates that voter fraud is real and has a long history in this country.

My favorite historical episode of fraud goes back to the Civil War. For the first time, soldier were allowed to vote by mail. On September 27, Ulysses S. Grant wrote to the Secretary of War: “The exercise of the right of suffrage by the officers and soldiers of armies is a novel thing. A very large proportion of legal voters of the United States are now either under arms in the field, or in hospitals, or otherwise engaged in the military service of the United States … they are American citizens, having still their homes and social and political ties binding them to the States and districts from which they come … In performing this sacred duty they should not be deprived of a most precious privilege. They have as much right to demand that their votes shall be counted in the choice of their rulers as those citizens who remain at home.”

New York Democrats saw an opportunity to use fraudulent votes to defeat Abraham Lincoln. Lucas relates how McClellan’s supporters used forged names and signatures on crate after crate of fake ballots that supposedly came from soldiers. One conspirator even said, “Dead or alive, they all had cast a good vote.” The vote fraud conspirators in this particular case were sentenced to life imprisonment. 

Despite the preponderance of voter fraud being perpetrated by the Democratic Party, many Democrats claim voter fraud is nonexistent or so rare that it’s inconsequential. HR1 demonstrates otherwise. The Democratic Party leadership tried desperately to pass a nationwide voting law that would make cheating easy ... and an easy way to amass or hold political power would unquestionably lead to fraud and the destruction of our republican form of government. Prior to reading The Myth of Voter Suppression, I didn’t know the devilish details of HR1, the “For the People Act.” The name is the exact opposite of the bill’s intent. If properly named, HR1 would be called the “For the Politicians Act.” Lucas’ chapter, “Legalizing Fraud through Voter Rights Legislation” ought to be required reading for every registered voter. Any politician that supports HR1, or one of its derivatives, does not believe that the citizens of this nation should be allowed to pick their leaders. 

This is a well-researched book on a very important subject. I highly recommend it.  

Desperate Engagement by Marc Leepson

 

A lot happened between July 9^th and the 12^th in 1864. Marc Leepson has made this short period of the Civil War the focus of his book Desperate Engagement: How a Little-Known Civil War Battle Saved Washington D. C., and Changed American History.

In the end, the battle changes little other than perhaps delaying the end of the war. General Grant continued his stranglehold on the Confederate Army surrounding Richmond until Lee surrendered at Appomattox. Nonetheless, if the Hail Mary pass had been completed and General Jubal Early had sacked Washington, we might be all speaking with a Southern accent. 

It was close. Heart-stopping close.

The risky moves and countermoves, potential payoff, and unbridled heroism on both sides should have made this an exciting book. The Battle of Monocacy and attempted siege are nicely covered in about four or five chapters with the remaining chapters filled mostly with letters and memoirs of the participants, asides, or research factoids. Civil War buffs should find even the trivia interesting, but a casual reader might view much of this text as fill.

Best Commentaries

Based Opinions with a Dash of Cinnamon

I started my writing career as a magazine columnist. No, not political opinions. My columns were about computer technology. My first book, The Digital Organization, was also a nonfiction, computer technology book. Then I lost control of my senses and wrote Tempest at Dawn, a novelization of the Constitutional Convention. Big subject, big book. And big surprise. I loved storytelling. Been at it ever since, and I have now written eleven novels and several short stories.

Tempest at Dawn, my first novel, brought me some unexpected attention. I had a few scary national television appearances and some surprise endorsements. It also brought me invitations to write for Constituting America and What Would The Founders Think? Soon I was in the thick of political blogging. Along the way, I also wrote for RedState and The American Thinker. It should be obvious from names of these sites that I wrote from a conservative perspective, so, fair warning, Best Commentaries is a collection of conservative opinion pieces.

Here’s a sampling.

We often hear laments that our politicians no longer honor their pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. This is backward. The Constitution was not written for politicians. Our political leaders have no motivation to abide by a two hundred year old restraining order. Americans must enforce the supreme law of the land. The first outsized words of the Constitution read We the People. It’s our document. It was always meant to be ours, not the government’s. It is each and every American’s obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

                                                                        ***

Democrats are disappointed because past campaigns did not go the way they wanted. Occupy Wall Street did not incite class warfare, Black Lives Matter did not start a race war, and Antifa did not expose a vast cadre of neo-Nazis lurking in the background.

                                                                        ***

If you lay every economist in the world end to end, you still won’t reach a conclusion. If you want to carry out bad economic policy, it’s not difficult to find a tenured professor to provide the rationalization. Roosevelt, Carter, Obama, and Biden have all applied disproven Keynesian principles … to the same result. Now, remind me, what was the definition of insanity again?

                                                                        ***

Proponents of Big Government used different nomenclatures to describe their ideal system, but they all have one overriding characteristic—power centralized in government. Socialism, fascism, communism, feudalism, monarchies, dictatorships, theocracies, police states, a unitary state, oligarchies, et. al. concentrate power in the state. The underlying political theology is irrelevant. In each and every case, the individual is subject to control by the state. It doesn’t matter who orders you about. It could be a king, emperor, dictator, a party general secretary, or an elected machine politician. The result is the same. You do as you’re told.

                                                                        ***

The United States of America is exceptional, but we are not exceptional because we are a different people. People are the same the world over. We are exceptional because of the uniqueness of our founding. The Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution were not events. They were processes that took many years to come to fruition. They both engaged an entire nation. They both were guided by clear principles. They both reflected timeless truths that inspired us to move ever closer to greatness.

You can order an e-book, paperback or hard cover at Amazon or order a print version from your local book store. 

If you like it, tell everyone. If you don't, mum's the word.

Abraham Lincoln, by Lord Charnwood

 

Lord Charnwood published Abraham Lincoln in 1916. In order to get a clearer perspective of the Civil War, it helps to read books from multiple viewpoints. Lord Charnwood wrote only fifty years after the war, bringing an almost contemporaneous perspective to his depictions. His biography has the advantage of proximity but with enough time elapsed to dampen the passions of the moment. More important, as an English depiction, it is a simultaneously a distant point of view. It is a distance of more than nautical miles. Lord Charnwood also brings the bias of English nobility to his descriptions. This is exceptionally important in gaining an understanding of the diplomatic imperative for both sides. The Confederacy desperately sought European recognition of their legitimacy, while Lincoln did everything in his power to deny international recognition and suppress arms and funding from abroad. Lincoln’s success was arguably pivotal to eventually making victory possible.

 Abraham Lincoln, by Lord Charnwood can be a tough read. A simple, declarative sentence is beyond the baron. This is partly due to the style of the times and partly the way of academics who feel a need to qualify every utterance. Once the reader adjusts to the wordily writing, nuggets of rare perspective make the effort well worthwhile. For example, Thomas Jefferson is not one of my favorite Founders and Lord Charnwood seems to have shared some of my reservations. He also makes other political observations that an American might be reluctant to express.

If you have an interest in the mid-nineteenth century, Abraham Lincoln by Lord Charnwood can be an enlightening read.

Did the Framers get it right?

The Framers interminably debated every little detail of the Constitution. Did they end up getting it right? The Civil War indicates they may have.

Nothing puts stress on government more than war. Especially, a civil war. Superficially, the Confederate Constitution appeared very similar to the United States Constitution. However, there were differences. The Confederate Constitution openly used the word slavery, where the Framers adopted the euphemic, “other persons.” Many of the Framers abhorred slavery and refused to see it referred to outright in the language of the Constitution. The Confederacy made more than semantic changes. In their minds, they corrected errors they felt were decided improperly seventy-three years prior. Some of these, arguably, contributed to the South losing the War for Southern Independence.

In Philadelphia, the Framers argued numerous times over the proper length of term for the president. Some wanted a short term with re-electability, others wanted a long term with no re-electability. The Constitutional Convention settled on a four-year term with unrestricted re-electability, which the Twenty-Second Amendment limited to two terms. The Confederate Constitution adopted a six-year term with no re-electability.

In 1787, most southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention believed the executive should be nonpolitical, so when they had a chance to write their own constitution, they gave the president the liberty to abstain from politicking. With an above-the-fray executive, they then felt comfortable giving the president more power. Under the Confederate Constitution, the president had a line-item veto and Congress, without a two-thirds majority, could not appropriate money unless requested by the president. In essence, this shifted the power of the purse from Congress to the president.

Jefferson Davis never ran for president. He was selected for one six-year term and, for the most part, ignored politics. Davis was an iconic figure for the Confederate cause, while at the same time, the public held Congress in low regard. Davis used the disparity in their respective reputations to neglect Congress. He did not host meals with congressional leaders, provide patronage, help legislative candidates, speak highly of people to the press, or support bills sponsored by powerful legislators. He openly displayed impatience with people who disagreed with him. As an indicator of Davis’ distain for Congress, he wrote, “Now when we require the brains and the heart of the country in the legislative halls of the Confederacy and of the States, all must have realized how much it is otherwise.” A Charleston Mercury reporter wrote, “He regards any question put to him by Congress as a presumptuous interference in matters which do not concern them.”

Lincoln did not have that luxury. The U.S. Congress constantly challenged his war decisions. The Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, commonly referred to as the War Committee, used oversight powers to wield a potent check on the executive branch. The committee investigated battle defeats, war profiteering, Confederate atrocities, and generally stuck its nose in wherever it wanted. Members often leaked testimony and criticisms to the press, which caused distrust in the War Department and the Union Army. While the Confederate Congress met in secret, the Union Congress broadcast its proceedings at the top of its lungs.

Presidential politicking of congress was one of the great differences between the Union and Confederate governments, but did this affect the outcome of the war? Perhaps, and perhaps significantly.

Lincoln smooched Congress to get legislation passed, appropriations approved, and to garner support for reelection. It may not have felt good to Lincoln at the time, but this constant politicking brought many more minds to the task, built comradery, provided a vent for mistakes, and may have tamped down some ill-conceived moves. The War Committee harangued Lincoln and his cabinet throughout the conflict, but by acting as the catalyst for aggressive debate, the committee may have helped win the war. It certainly caused Lincoln to think long and hard about what needed to be done and how he would get various factions behind his proposed actions.

Near the end of the war, Lincoln won reelection and enjoyed substantial popularity in government and the states that remained in the Union, while the Confederate Congress tried to force President Davis to replace his entire cabinet, stripped him of his commander-in-chief authority, and threatened a vote of no confidence. By this time, of course, a Union victory had become obvious, affecting the respective reputations of the presidents. But Davis has gone down in history as cantankerous, aloof, and averse to taking advice. Perhaps if he had been required to build relationships with the other people in government, the South could have leveraged their early victories to achieve a different outcome.

Did the hyper-political Abraham Lincoln have an advantage over the standoffish Jefferson Davis? Probably. An engaged president knows the thinking of other players and can more easily leverage strengths and mitigate weaknesses. If this be the case, then the Founding Fathers got it right when they settled on a short presidential term with re-electability.

The Real American Tragedy

 

Supposedly, the number of pandemic deaths have exceeded a million. But who’s counting. While the Wuhan virus killed Americans, it cannot kill America. We’ve been through worse, and it looks like we got through this one. The pandemic appears to be burning itself out. They all do. It’s tragic, but the Wuhan virus is a transitory crisis. The real American tragedy didn’t suddenly spring at us, it’s been building for decades.

The real calamity is that we’ve lost trust in our government and in our institutions.

Whoever is in power, roughly half the people view government as malevolent. Not just Americans with different political approaches, but malicious actors out to utterly destroy opponents. The amount of hate and distrust has been illuminated by this pandemic. Governments are supposed to govern, especially during a crisis. It’s beyond difficult to implement a consistent national policy when everyone is screaming that the other party is a pack of tyrants set on stripping opponents of all their rights. There has always been tension in our system; it was designed that way. Creative tension. The kind of push and pull that kept the nation moving ahead without veering off to the extremes, but that creative tension has been twisted and engorged until it threatens to pull the nation apart. American politics have become fierce, unseemly, and harmful to our wellbeing.

Americans used to pull together in crisis. Now we bicker and argue until we amplify the damage any adversary tries to inflict on us. This level of intensity is new, or at least unknown since our Civil War in 1860.

How did our national unity disintegrate before our eyes? Three big reasons: 1) identity politics, 2) embezzled elections, and 3) judicial usurpation.

Identity Politics

Relying on a political philosophy, such as traditional liberalism, requires selling something that doesn’t excite busy people trying to get on with their lives. With identity politics, a party merely figures out a group’s foremost grievance and promises to resolve it. The Democrat Party has used this strategy to enormous success in states with major urban populations. 

Unfortunately, as long as Democrats adhere to identity politics, they will viciously attack any attempt at reconciliation. Identity politics mandates tribalism. Identity politics destroys unity.

No special interest is large enough to comprise a majority, so lots of differing and sometimes conflicting groups are gathered up. For a person to be welcomed in this supposedly big tent, they must join a tribe, never diverge from the group’s narrative, remain unquestionably loyal, and encourage other like-minded people to join. The party leadership then picks at scabs, set opponents up as the oppressors, and appeals to emotions instead of reason.

This is a formula for raucous disunity.

Embezzled Elections

Our republic functioned for almost two and a half centuries because we had faith in our Constitution, free elections, and way of government. Whichever side lost got another chance in a few years. But that trust is waning due to increasingly rigged elections and the unwillingness of Democrats to abide by our election process.

Democrats push every change making registration and voting easier, fight every check against voter fraud, support every change that opens a new path to fraud, push to legalize vote harvesting, and fight the cleansing of voter rolls. Democrat states and cities provides sanctuary, benefits, and driver licenses to illegals. They fight to eliminate the electoral college. But skewing elections goes beyond fraud. It also includes using the permanent government bureaucracy and supposedly independent enterprises to tilt elections.

If after all this, Democrats lose, they deny the legitimacy of the winner. This started in earnest with Al Gore refusing to accept defeat and has escalated to blatant attempts to overturn elections. An unrelenting string of assaults were aimed at removing President Trump from office. Examples include Russian collusion, Pelosi directing non-stop committee investigations, the Mueller probe, Ukraine as a ruse for impeachment, and politicizing the Wuhan virus as a platform for unrelenting and ever-shifting attacks.

Manipulating elections erodes confidence. None of this is by accident. The brazenness is meant to demoralize the electorate. Voting ceases to be an exercise in citizenship and instead becomes a nasty fight to prevail by any means necessary.

Judicial Usurpation

Judiciary usurpation may seem like an outlier, but in fact it is elemental to our current disarray. The Supreme Court now dictates much of our American life and social norms. It overrules Congress and the president, but no one overrules the Supreme Court. The selection of a Supreme Court Justice has become a highly charged emotional event. It’s instructive that political movements spend inordinate resources influencing nominations. They relentlessly advocate for their entrants and hyperventilate fighting a disliked nominee. Everyone knows that these are enormously powerful individuals with life tenure. Everyone also pretends their candidate is an impassive judge who measures decisions based solely on law. If that were so, no one would care who sat on the bench. 

It’s not so … and everyone knows it.

Democrats believe they own the courts and distrust any jurist who doesn’t espouse a progressive bent. Nothing illuminates Democrat duplicity more than a Supreme Court confirmation. When substantive arguments fail, Democrats infallibly turn to character assassination. Bork’s nomination started combative hearings, civil restraint was abandoned with Thomas, and the Kavanaugh hearings were downright slanderous.

The tribunal nature of the supreme court destroys confidence in elections and our system of government. It is no longer balanced, and checks seem impotent. When raw political power emanates from the bench, trust in the system deteriorates.

Americans used to set politics aside during a crisis. Those days may be gone. Now everything is a political battle, political theater, or political sabotage. Distrust, the order of the day.

Will we emerge from these dark times with our American principles reinvigorated? Can a rebirth occur? I’ll leave with the words of Abraham Lincoln.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”

Busybodies Want to Rule the World

"Seeking perfection in human affairs is a perfect way to destroy them." Jaron Lanier

We live perfection. 

Right now. In this moment. No other humans in all of history can make a similar claim. Look about you. Everything is just as it should be. Even the tiniest change will derail spaceship Earth. The planet is over four billion years old, but now is its moment of perfection. How do I know this to be true? Leftists tell me. Incessantly.

• They harangue me that the temperature is just perfect, and it is worth trillions to keep it within a range of one half degree. 
• I’m reassured daily that every little species and sub-species is precious and animal diversity is perfectly aligned for all of eternity. 
• When I wander into the wilderness, I used to adhere to, "take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints." Now footprints are offensive … especially the carbon variety. 
• Every ecosystem is tuned to perfection, and none can be disturbed. 
• All native cultures are sacrosanct and must be preserved as is, with no pollution from Western culture. 
• Food must remain unaltered by man.
• If a building gets older than fifty years, slap a brass plaque on it and committees will preserve it forever … for the well-to-do.
• Apartment rents are perfectly fair and must remain controlled into perpetuity. 
• Do not even think about eliminating a government department or program because each and every one is desperately needed for eternity. 
• Zero population growth assumes the Earth has just the perfect number of people. 

Sustainability is the most powerful word in the English language, which means everything must go on forever and ever. Exactly as is. Want to destroy a movement, idea, or argument, just claim it’s none-sustainable. Want to deflect criticism of a movement, idea, or argument, claim it is vital to sustainability.

Why do Leftists worship the status quo? The simple answer is they’re control freaks.

In truth, Leftists don’t really believe everything is perfect.  They just can’t abide change. Any change. Change is frightening … shake in your boots scary. An educated populous, free speech, social and geographic mobility, and competition cause change. Nasty and unpredictable change. And capitalism is the horror of horrors because it incents massive, continuous change. The uncertainty boggles the mind. Everything must be held in balance or Earth might spin out of control.

The rest of us might ignore these phobic busybodies except for their incessant need to control not just things, but people. People cause change, so uncontrolled people represent a threat. If the public does not submit to the approved theocracy, then the progressive vision might be stifled. That cannot happen, so speech must be policed using political correctness and more stringent means. Ideas need to be managed, debates closed, and science declared settled. Education must be carefully crafted to discourage deviations from the true orthodoxy. If Leftists could only control people, they will achieve stability in their lives and heck, save the planet to boot.

We may wish that they would retreat permanently to their safe spaces, but that will never happen. Safe spaces are used to discipline apostolates, plan insurgencies, and reinvigorate the psyche. After a respite, they re-enter our disorderly world to get people to think, speak, and behave properly. Progressives believe humans can be perfected. People just need direction. Oh, a few less of those pesky humans would help too.

Is it possible for Leftists to achieve their utopian goal of a safe and predictable life for all? Of course. The Dark Ages held change in check for centuries. All you need is enough political power to keep everyone in place. The entire planet can be fundamentally transformed into a safe space. Real perfection can be achieved. Our planetary thermostat will be regulated so that melting icecaps, severe weather, illegal migration, and sweat will become things of the past. Laws will ensure that humans eat only wholesome food prescribed by learned tribunals. Speech will be harmless, albeit boring. To keep the masses pliant, sex will be encouraged for any and all purposes except procreation. Every government bureaucracy will be self-perpetuating with independent funding with no oversight from spiteful elected officials. People in the hinterlands will be rounded up and stuffed into congested cities in order to regulate their daily lives. The remainder of our planet will be set off-limit so nature's critters can frolic unmolested.

It will all work perfectly. Leftists are confident because they have deemed themselves the very best specimens of humanity. They are wise, benevolent, and non-offensive. Besides, Native American reservations have given progressives almost two centuries of experience administering controlled safe spaces.

What could possibly go wrong?

Grant Takes Command by Bruce Catton

 

When asked, what sort of man is Grant, Lincoln replied that Ulysses S. Grant was “the quietest little fellow you ever saw. The only evidence you have that he’s in any place is that he makes things git! Wherever he is, things move."

Lincoln explained that every other general briefing him before a battle told him that he was short some crucial resource to ensure victory, but, if ordered, they would proceed anyway. This essential resource was almost always cavalry. Lincoln claimed their real purpose was to shift responsibility to him. When Grant took charge, he immediately recommended reassigning twenty thousand horseless cavalrymen to the infantry. Since there was no way to acquire horses for every man designated as cavalry, these idle soldiers were only held in reserve as a handy excuse. Grant recognized the duplicity and removed the excuse before his first battle.

In this biography, Bruce Catton does an excellent job describing the man and his military philosophy. Grant reminded me of General Patton, a warrior through and through. Both believed that to decrease casualties in war, you don’t minimize the fallen in a specific battle, you win the war to stop the killing.

Catton relates a story about a grizzled sergeant leaning against a fence post when a comrade came up.  The sergeant jerked a thumb at a man in the distance and remarked: “That’s Grant. I hate to see that old cuss around. When that old cuss is around there’s sure to be a big fight on hand.”

General U.S. Grant on the Military vote

American Founding documents contend that people have a natural right to form and reform governments. The Declaration of Independence states, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." 

Under that principle, elections are sacrosanct. 

Despite a raging Civil War, the United States held elections on November 4, 1863. As Commanding General of the U.S. Army, Ulysses S. Grant had to set the policy for military voting. On September 27, he wrote the following letter (abridged) to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton.

The exercise of the right of suffrage by the officers and soldiers of armies is a novel thing. It has, I believe, generally been considered dangerous to constitutional liberty and subversive of military discipline. But our circumstances are novel and exceptional. A very large proportion of legal voters of the United States are now either under arms in the field, or in hospitals, or otherwise engaged in the military service of the United States. Most of these men are not regular soldiers in the strict sense of that term; still less are they mercenaries, who give their services to the Government simply for its pay, having little understanding of the political questions or feeling little or no interest in them. On the contrary they are American citizens, having still their homes and social and political ties binding them to the States and districts from which they come and to which they expect to return. They have left their homes temporarily to sustain the cause of their country in the hour of its trial. In performing this sacred duty they should not be deprived of a most precious privilege. They have as much right to demand that their votes shall be counted in the choice of their rulers as those citizens who remain at home. Nay, more, for they have sacrificed more for their country.

 I state these reasons in full, for the unusual thing of allowing armies in the field to vote, that I may urge on the other hand that nothing more than the fullest exercise of this right should be allowed, for anything not absolutely necessary to this exercise cannot but be dangerous to the liberties of the country. The officers and soldiers have every means of understanding the questions before the country. The newspapers are freely circulated, and so, I believe, are the documents prepared by both parties to set forth the merits and claims of their candidates. Beyond this nothing whatever should be allowed. No political meetings, no harangues from soldiers or citizens, and no canvassing of camps or regiments for votes.

 As it is intended that all soldiers entitled to vote shall exercise that privilege according to their own convictions of right, unmolested and unrestricted, there will be no objection to each party sending to armies, easy of access, a number of respectable gentlemen to see that these views are fully carried out.

Modern Americans should follow suit and ensure that secure, honest, and fair elections are a binding principle of this nation.