The Border Crisis: Real or Phony?

The Border Crisis Question————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Is the border crisis real or phony? Is it a crisis only because the president labels it as such? The answer, of course, depends on your definition of crisis. More precisely, it depends on your political affiliation, or perhaps even more on your views regarding immigration and asylum policy which, these days, is pretty closely related to political affiliation. Past presidents have declared many crises. Were they all real? Would your answer depend upon whether or not you approved of that particular president?

 

There were more than 100,000 border apprehensions in March, many involving parents with children and unaccompanied children. Some of the children were accompanied by adults who were not their parents, presumably using the popular “borrow-a-child” plan to expedite entry into the USA. Human smugglers know that it’s easier if accompanied by children. Anyone’s will do. The chaos at the border which has overwhelmed our capacity to deal with them means that they will likely be released into the United States with a date for a future court appearance which they will likely not keep.

 

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan has stated that the system is at a breaking point. His words echoed those of then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen who ordered the redeployment of 750 agents from points of entry to border locations in between where many of the Central Americans families are now attempting to cross, causing Border Patrol sector chiefs to characterize the situation as a crisis. An apparently frustrated Ms. Nielsen resigned on Sunday after meeting with the president and Mr. McAleenan has been named acting secretary. Meanwhile, leading Democrats are still insisting that there is no crisis on the southern border. Be honest; whom are you inclined to believe, those in charge of border security who work the problem every day or political hacks in Washington who are dedicated to opposing everything this president says or does?

 

President Donald Trump, admittedly not a patient man, has obviously had enough of Democrat denial and has threatened to close the border.  He has since backed off that demand which is a good thing because the economic impact on both countries would be severe. The only plausible arguments for closing the border would be to force Mexico to take more effective action to stop the caravans before they reached our border and the idea that the economic shock might force our Congress to finally take action to close asylum policy loopholes that act as a magnet for asylum seekers.

 

Mexico seems willing to help but don’t expect Congress to change asylum and immigration policy as long as Democrats control the House. They want to keep it as an election campaign issue and let’s face it; they see immigrants, legal and otherwise, as potential Democrats. Already the demographics have changed in states like Arizona and Texas as a result of immigration. If they can change deep red Texas to blue, it may be all over for the GOP. They might never win another national election. Trump’s favorability rating may be increasing with Hispanic voters who see illegal aliens competing for their jobs, but Hispanics will still likely remain a reliable source of support for Democrat candidates for some time to come as they have in the past.

 

Sadly, when it comes to immigration and asylum policy, it’s all about politics, not what’s best for the country. No other country that values its sovereignty would tolerate losing control of its borders and would militarize it, if necessary, to secure it. Mr. Trump correctly wants to define the border crisis as a security issue. Illegals coming into the country are not vetted. Most may be wonderful people but not all. Some are criminals and potential gang bangers. Some are drug dealers and transporters. Some are human traffickers. Drugs are being smuggled across the border, even at the legal points of entry and while we celebrate every seizure we are nowhere close to getting control of the problem. Illegal immigration generates lucrative business for criminal organizations.

 

Given the political paralysis that prevails in this country, I see no early solution likely. Even when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress as well the White House, they couldn’t get anything of substance done about this problem and most Democrats don’t even see a problem. Until enough citizens become disgusted enough with our inability to control the border and demand action by Congress, the situation will just get worse.

April 28, 2019

Shame of the Yankees

No Pride in These Yankees——————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

“While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,

Let us pledge allegiance to a land that’s free.

May we all be grateful for a land so fair

As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.”

-Recitative from “God Bless America”

Lyric by Irving Berlin

 

Many Americans are experiencing Mueller Report fatigue and so am I. So while the anti-Trumpers are searching desperately for grounds to impeach the president, let’s turn to lighter topics. By way of background, I grew up in Connecticut, about halfway between New York and Boston, which makes me a Yankee, I guess, but not of the baseball variety. In fact, with all due respect to my good friends and relatives who are Yankee fans, I dislike the Yankees. We lived within driving distance of five major league baseball stadiums, in those days homes to the Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Yankees, New York Giants, Boston Braves and Boston Red Sox.

 

Ours was an ethnically diverse neighborhood, but about the only thing that divided us was the team we rooted for or whether our father drove a Ford or Chevvy. I was a Dodger fan, Dodger blue, through and through. The Dodgers were known in those days, affectionately by their fans, not so affectionately by their rivals, as “dem bums” and their logo was a hobo. They were particularly disliked by their cross town rivals. It was the Dodgers, however, that broke the color barrier and fielded the first black major league player, the late, great Jackie Robinson and followed that by bringing up other great black players like Roy Campanella and Don Newcombe. I loved the Dodgers and developed an early dislike for their Bronx rivals, the Yankees, always the best team that money could buy, although I greatly admired the Yankee Clipper, Joltin’ Joe DiMaggio, the greatest player of his time and perhaps of all time.

 

When the Dodgers moved to Los Angeles from Ebbets Field, leaving Brooklyn residents broken-hearted, the Navy transferred me and my family to Long Beach, so I literally followed my heroes across the country. They continued to do spring training at Dodgertown in Vero Beach, Florida, where my in-laws lived so I would spend days there, getting to meet the players and their colorful manager, Tommy Lasorda. I attended the same church that Tommy did while in Vero, and so did the Red Sox manager since their spring training camp was also nearby. According to a local legend, they were both attending mass one Sunday morning and scheduled to play an exhibition game that afternoon. After mass, the Red Sox manager told Tommy he lighted a candle and prayed his team would win. Tommy reportedly replied, ”Yeah, I know. I blew it out.”

 

In 1981, the Dodgers beat the Yanks in the World Series and I rejoiced, but the game I remember best was game 1 of the 1988 World Series against Oakland. I was travelling and had to watch it at a sports bar full of Oakland fans. When an Injured Kirk Gibson hit his dramatic walk-off home run, I erupted in cheers as he hobbled around the bases. Since I was probably the only Dodger fan present, it didn’t go over particularly well and as I left I was booed by everyone, including the bartender. I turned around and picked up the $20 tip I had left. Dodger fans have pride. Inspired by Gibby’s heroics, the Dodgers went on to win that series 4 games to 1.

 

The LA Dodgers changed their image over the years from their scrappy Brooklyn days but the Yankees remained those damn Yankees. Now, however, they have gone too far. They just announced that they will no longer play Kate Smith’s classic version of “God Bless America” at their games. Why dishonor the memory of the beloved American singer with the beautiful voice? It seems that early in her career she sang two songs from the 1933 Paramount musical production “Hello Everybody” which included racial stereotypes. But she was singing a character’s role, not making a statement about race.

 

Nobody sings those songs today and nobody should but times were very different 86 years ago, something younger people today can’t really understand because they weren’t alive then. No amount of purging history is going to change that history. Ms. Smith, who died in 1986, was a beloved performer whose patriotic songs brought great comfort to Americans of all races during WWII. I’m certain that she never meant to offend anyone back in 1933 which raises this question: Are mistakes of the past, when the culture was very different, ever going to be forgiven by people who weren’t even alive to be offended at the time, or will we just continue to bask in victimhood, castigating people who are no longer alive to apologize for their mistakes?

 

I’m of Irish ancestry. My ancestors were discriminated against from the time they crossed the ocean in steerage to escape a famine until well past the time they arrived, legally, in America. They were stereotyped as drunken fighters and Papists. “Irish need not apply” frequently accompanied help wanted ads. They were welcome mainly to work as domestic servants, night watchmen, cops or laborers building America’s railroads, bridges and highways. The term “Irish pennant”, in nautical usage referring to a loose line dangling from a vessel, probably derived from the threads hanging from the shabby clothing worn by poor Irish immigrants and the term is still in use. The Irish were not, of course, the only immigrants discriminated against then or since. In fact, most Americans at one time or another were discriminated against for something, even the Pilgrims who were escaping religious persecution. Most got over it and rose above it. Couldn’t we just forgive each other and learn from history instead of trying to purge it?

 

For the record, I forgive anyone who discriminated against the Irish or who used Irish stereotypes like the fighting Irish or who called them Micks and Harps. They don’t even have to apologize, as far as I’m concerned. But I’ll never forgive the Yankees for trashing the memory of a great American artist, Kate Smith. Rest in peace, Kate and God bless America.

 

This isn’t over ‘til the fat lady sings again. In Yankee Stadium.

April 24, 2019

 

 

The Origins of the Mueller Investigation

Barr Raises the Bar———————————

                A commentary

               By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Democrats and the liberal media, disappointed by the Mueller Report’s failure to find evidence of Russian collusion by the Trump Campaign, immediately demanded a release of the full report. They insist that Attorney General William Barr’s four-page summary of the findings must be omitting some damning evidence that they can use in their continuing campaign to delegitimize the Trump presidency. They will, however, have to settle for a redacted version for several reasons.

 

The twenty-two month investigation produced a report of about 400 pages. Many witnesses were interviewed and much of the information in the report is certain to be highly classified. The report also contains large amounts of grand jury proceedings which are, by law and for good reason, confidential in order to protect the privacy, reputation and sometimes even the safety of innocent witnesses and informants who are not charged with a crime. Without such protection, many would not come forward. These fundamental measures to protect the innocent and to encourage informants and witnesses to come forward with needed information are essential to the work of grand juries. I served as foreman of the 1997-1998 San Diego County Grand Jury and I can attest to the essential nature of these protections.

 

Most Democrats and Republicans agreed that Robert Mueller was a good choice as special counsel for this investigation, even many of those who felt that such an investigation was not warranted, given the lack of evidence that a crime had even been committed. An experienced investigator, Mueller had a reputation of leaving no stone unturned in searching for evidence. If there were evidence of collusion, Mueller would have found it. Among the investigators were some who displayed clear anti-Trump bias. If there were evidence of collusion they surely would have found it. The liberal media, convinced of the Russian collusion narrative, kept it in the forefront of the news for two years, creating an expectation that the report would result in the downfall or substantial weakening of the Trump presidency, increasing the pressure on the investigators to find something damning to justify nearly two years of effort. But the investigators, tasked specifically to investigate the possibility of collusion, found none.

 

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein defended the Barr summary saying that he was as forthcoming as possible in releasing it and working on the redactions to provide as much information to Congress as possible. Yet, Democrats and the liberal media, who once insisted that Mueller be given enough time to do his job properly, complained about Barr taking too long to do his. Some also claim, risibly, that Republicans are trying desperately to suppress release of the entire report in spite of the fact that Trump himself has said that he has no problem with releasing the whole thing.

 

But Democrats and the liberal media now have a lot more to worry about than what the redacted version does or does not say. The new attorney general, William Barr, who replaced the ineffective Jeff Sessions, is raising the bar (pun intended) regarding transparency at the Justice Department. He wants answers to some obvious questions about the origins of this investigation which was based on no credible evidence whatsoever. He wants to know how a FISA warrant was obtained to spy on American citizens based upon a dossier compiled by a foreign spy who could not vouch for the veracity of its unsubstantiated allegations against Donald Trump. He wants to know why the FISA judge was not informed that the dossier was funded by the Clinton Campaign. Mr. Barr also wants to look into the role played by then-FBI Director James Comey in meddling in the 2016 election by influencing the outcome when he re-opened the Clinton email investigation on the eve of the election and then exceeding his authority by declaring that she should not be charged. The Justice Department inspector general and a congressional committee are also looking into these matters.

 

It seems the shoe is now on the other foot. The public deserves answers to these questions. Democrats will try to divert attention from these questions, of course, but how long can the mainstream media ignore them and still maintain a shred of integrity? They bought into the Russian collusion myth with enthusiasm and it has now collapsed. If they have any credibility left as reliable and objective news sources, they will admit that they were so consumed by dislike of Donald Trump and so angry that their favored candidate lost that they fell for a fairy tale. Don’t hold your breath waiting for such an admission, though.

April 21, 2019

Women and the Draft

Don’t Draft Our Daughters——————-

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Once again, in the name of inclusiveness and fairness, some well-meaning folks are urging that, since women are now able to serve in combat roles, they should be required to register for the draft just as men are. These people have probably never engaged in hand-to-hand combat with fixed bayonets in a life or death struggle or been in a tank or fighting vehicle in battle. There is little privacy in a small warship or a combat aircraft. In a tank or a trench there is none and all bodily functions while in battle must be performed in plain sight. This can be traumatic enough even for young people of the same gender. For mixed crews it can be embarrassing to the point of being debilitating.

 

As I previously wrote on these pages (Feb.14, 2013 and Feb. 21, 2016), we shouldn’t allow inclusiveness to get in the way of common sense. To begin with, there is no immediate need to reinstitute the draft and little likelihood that we will again engage in the massive, prolonged expeditionary campaigns that would require drafting large numbers of untrained civilians and integrating them into an all-volunteer force. Nor are the services structured, staffed or organized to process and train large numbers of non-volunteers who probably would rather not be in the military.

 

The military culture and technology has changed greatly since the advent of the all-volunteer force. It is smaller, far more complex and more professional. The training is more complex and demanding as well. Many draftees would not qualify mentally and/or physically today without lowering standards which would negatively impact readiness. The services benefit from the synergy that is produced by people who are there by choice, not because they were drafted. In an emergency requiring more people we will rely on trained reservists, not the draft, just as we did during the Gulf Wars. By the time we reorganized to deal with large numbers of draftees and get them trained and integrated into a professional force, a future war would most likely be over. So why, then, should we require women to register for the draft when there is no foreseeable need, except for some misguided notion of fairness? If the need for a draft arises in the future, we can always revisit this issue.

 

I have long been an advocate for women serving in any position in the military for which they are qualified. In 1978, while serving as commanding officer of a guided missile cruiser deployed to the Middle East, I wrote an essay entitled “Women in Warships: A Right to Serve”. I made the argument that any woman could, and should be allowed to, serve in any position in my ship for which she was qualified. It won me the Naval Institute’s Author of the Year Award, but also a lot of criticism from seniors in that all-male seagoing navy of the time. A few years later, however, it became reality and I had the pleasure of helping to manage the integration of women in ships in the Pacific Fleet. I also commanded one of the first ships to have women officers on board. Women have served with distinctions in combat surface and aviation roles since.

 

But there are significant differences between seaborne and aerial combat where one seldom comes face-to-face with an enemy and hand-to-hand combat in the trenches. Women in the military today have, or are likely to have, as many opportunities as men to distinguish themselves in battle without having to slug it out alongside men on a battlefield, facing all the horrors that this entails. I don’t want my daughters or grand-daughters, or anyone else’s for that matter, to have to deal with this, except perhaps for the few who volunteer and meet the physical requirements without waivers, especially when there is no foreseeable national need or career enhancement to be gained and the only apparent reason is some notion of fairness to the men. But if women are required to register and in the unlikely event that a draft is someday needed, draftees, given their lack of specialized training, will likely be assigned wherever they can be immediately used, namely to ground combat units. I don’t favor this.

 

Does this imply a double standard? Well, yes. Common sense demands it. There are differences between the sexes, if you haven’t noticed. I see no reason to force women into a combat role for which she may not be emotionally suited. It’s true that some men aren’t either, but that’s not a reason to inflict this trauma on women unless they volunteer for that role and are fully physically qualified. Hundreds of thousands of combat veterans, almost exclusively males, suffer from post-traumatic distress syndrome which can affect them for the rest of their lives. Let’s not make a decision that could add daughters, wives and mothers to this list of victims when there is no compelling reason to.

 

(Kelly, a freelance writer based in Coronado, is a retired navy captain who commanded three San Diego-based ships and a naval laboratory. He teaches ship handling and seamanship at Naval Base San Diego. This commentary first appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune.)

April 14, 2019

 

The Mueller Report Disappoints Dems

Trump Triumphs, Dems Despair, Media Mutters———–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

The Mueller investigation is, mercifully, over and the Barr summary reveals what many in Washington with minds still open already knew, namely that there was no evidence that Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 election. There never was, much as the anti-Trumpers may have wished otherwise. One may fairly ask, then, “Why was this investigation, which cost taxpayers millions and consumed the efforts of a large task force of investigators and government resources, ever launched?”

 

We know, the answer, of course. It was part of the continuing effort by the opposition party to de-legitimize and drive from office this duly elected president whom they despise. Mr. Mueller’s report stated that while he found no evidence that Mr. Trump obstructed justice, it also did not exonerate him, unnecessarily punting that issue to the attorney-general who promptly did. But if there was no crime, why did he need to be exonerated?

 

Defenders of this colossal waste of time and taxpayer resources noted that the investigation found evidence of Russian meddling in the election, something else we already knew, and indicted thirteen Russian citizens, none of whom will ever stand trial. Why does that shock anyone? Through the ages, nations, including ours, have sometimes meddled in the election campaigns of other nations when they have an interest in the outcome. Spying and intelligence gathering can be a dirty business and one doesn’t have to like it but it’s a fact of life. By the way, what was the Obama Administration doing to prevent or stop it?

 

Mr. Trump took a victory lap and his approval rating inched up. Americans should have breathed a collective sigh of relief that their president, beloved or not, was found not to have colluded with a foreign government to influence an election. Instead, the mainstream media behaved like a child who was denied desert. The juicy scandal that could topple a presidency just didn’t happen like it was supposed to. Damn! They had swallowed the entire false narrative hook, line and sinker and were made to look like fools. The disappointment was palpable. Democrats were dismayed but tried their best to make lemonade out the lemons that came out of the Mueller Easter Egg hunt. One poll found that a majority of Democrats believed that further investigations were warranted, Actually, I agree. We really do need to get to the bottom of why this investigation, which pre-occupied the nation for two years, brought forth unfounded claims of treason and destroyed lives, was ever authorized when there was no credible evidence of a crime on which to base it.

 

On the other hand, there appeared to be plenty of evidence to warrant an investigation of the Hillary Clinton campaign that reportedly funded efforts to obtain a dossier, supposedly containing negative information on Trump, compiled by a former British spy who couldn’t even verify its authenticity, but nevertheless was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on American citizens. Nor was it revealed to the FISA court that it was funded by the Clinton campaign. And how about an investigation into the role played by then-FBI Director James Comey whose clumsy, last-minute re-opening of the Clinton security violation investigation almost certainly cost Clinton the election and who then exceeded his authority by declaring that she should not be prosecuted for serious security violations?

 

The investigation debacle did little to restore the image of the FBI, tarnished by former director Comey, whose firing, though perfectly legal and overdue, was the nominal reason for the appointment of the special counsel, and by the actions of Peter Strzok and his FBI attorney girlfriend Lisa Page. Their outrageous exchange of emails showed clear bias against the president and opposition to him as a candidate, raising questions about the integrity and objectivity of the entire investigation.

 

It would be wonderful if we could now put this matter behind us and work together for the good of the country but it’s clear that the Democrat left, most of the announced Democrat candidates and other dedicated anti-Trumpers  like Adam Shiff, Jerry Nadler and Tom Steyer, will likely never let the matter go. They will continue to demand the release of the complete, un-redacted report which isn’t going to happen because it contains some material, included Grand Jury testimony, that is, by law, secret, the release of which could cause serious damage or harm to innocent, uncharged individuals.

April 8, 2019

Kids Recruited for Liberal Causes

Children Behaving Badly—————————–

A commentary

                by J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Everyone loves children. Well, almost everyone. When they behave like children. Not so much when they try to act like adults and are convinced that they have the only answers to the world’s problems. Trouble is, they don’t have much, if any, experience to inform those positions. Their growing brains, moreover, are not fully developed until the mid-twenties and some neuroscientists say not until the early thirties. That’s why it’s up to adults to set the rules and to prescribe minimum ages for such things as owning property, operating a motor vehicle, buying a gun, voting and running for office.

 

Still, children are the future, as they frequently remind us, and we ought to listen to them as long as they are making sense and are ready to listen in return. But they don’t get to make the rules or, least of all, government policy. That’s for adults with real life experience. But some adults do a lousy job of making this clear to them is the formative years and, anxious to avoid being considered old-fashioned or behind the times, feed their little egos by telling them that they’re  smarter and more grown-up than they really are or should be. Then they are apt to grow up into older children pretending to be young adults with all the right answers and solutions to the world’s problems. Since they are convinced that they have all the right answers, you must therefore be wrong if you disagree with them and they feel justified in shouting you down or otherwise silencing you.

 

Behavioral scientists, generalizing about generational differences, commonly describe young adults as being in search of causes. They want to make a difference in the world. Many, including school children, have, thanks in part, I’m pretty sure, to coaching by their liberal teachers, latched on to the so-called Green New Deal, a radical scheme to transform the U.S. energy sector and eliminate its dependence on fossil fuels. Trouble is, as any reasonable adult should be able to figure out, there’s no way to pay for such a radical scheme without wrecking the economy and, without the cooperation of China, India and the rest of the emerging nations, it wouldn’t  have much effect on climate change anyway. But that didn’t stop bunches of kids from cutting school and shaking their tiny fists while chanting cool slogans like “Hey, hey; ho, ho. Fossil fuel has got to go!” and “No coal. No Oil. Leave the carbon in the soil”.

 

Dozens of youth activists were arrested after a Green New Deal protest in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office where they demanded that he look them in the eye and explain why he doesn’t support the Green new Deal. California’s Senator Dianne Feinstein also found herself in a tense confrontation with a group of school children over her failure to endorse the nutty scheme. Feinstein said, ”There’s no way to pay for that”. Ah, but children these days, even up to age 30 or so, can’t seem to understand that there’s a limit to what government can do and pay for. It really is a zero-sum game. Someone in the crowd replied, “There’s tons of money going to the military.” Replied an irritated Ms. Feinstein, I’ve been doing this for thirty years. You come in here and say it has to be your way or the highway. Maybe you should learn to listen a bit.” Brava, Ms. Feinstein. I almost forgive you for your part in the smear job on Brett Kavanaugh. Perhaps you will reconsider your support for lowering the voting age to 16.

 

Kids, particularly those in college learning to be adults, tend to be advocates for change. They are natural rebels, looking for a cause. Anything but the status quo. I was no exception. Hopefully, most of the really radical ideas, along with acne, fade away with maturity. But, fortunately for the Democrat Party, many graduate as card-carrying progressives thanks to their overwhelmingly liberal professors.

 

Parents spend tons of money sending their children to the best schools they can afford that their kids can gain admission too and, as we’ve seen recently, some resort to cheating to get their kids accepted. Most parents, I presume, hope that their children will learn to think for themselves, to be tolerant of other opinions and to respect adults with real life experience. Alas, the parents may not be getting their money’s worth. Kids, away from home, probably for the first time, are eager for acceptance and are easy prey for the liberal professors that dominate most college faculties. A college campus can be a very lonely place for a conservative today.

March 31, 2019