No Kings

Posted on March 30, 2026 by Joe Benning

The weekend brought with it a third round of “No Kings” protests across the country. In light of the glowing press reports about them, it is well worth considering what the protests are really all about. Despite the name, the last thing the protests are about is overweening centralized authority. Quite the opposite in fact. 


The animating spirit behind the protests is surely animus against the Trump administration. The animus is well deserved. The levels of corruption and incompetence displayed by the administration are way outside the boundaries of what we have come to expect. 


However, the crowds (estimated at around 7 to 8 million) have not come to protest corruption and incompetence. Far from it. They have come to protest the fact that their guys are not the ones in charge of the corruption and incompetence. Or have I missed something?


When it comes to the massive corruption scandal that is unfolding in Minnesota, we haven’t heard much more than a whisper of complaint. And when it comes to President Joe Biden, those in the community of the sane are left to wonder if there is anyone left who actually still believes that Biden was competent and not suffering from senility.  


Somehow or other I didn’t see a lot of protests surrounding the Biden presidency—except ones that were mostly organized by the left with the usual list of demands. Not to mention the intimidation that came with the territory, like that visited upon then Senator Jeff Flake. Or the Orwellian “Disinformation Governance Board” dreamt up by the Biden Administration.






The stated reasons for all the “No Kings” protests generally coalesced around the usual laundry list of issues. One had to do with the Trump administration’s tactics vis-vis illegal immigration. Another had to do with the War on Iran. Still another decried (however hypocritically) a lack of free speech during the Trump era.


As far as illegal immigration is concerned, the preferred dodge is that the protest is about the tactics that ICE employed. But as GK Chesterton said to his son about sex—the posture is ridiculous. By and large the protesters disagree with the policy being enforced; not the method of enforcement. 


I personally am loathe to suggest that the Trump administration’s policy stance is correct. But let’s call it the way is really is. 


The great majority of citizens are actually in favor of relatively severe immigration restrictions and of stricter enforcement than we have had in the past. For all the talk about democracy and the will of the people, we recently had an election in which immigration was a hotly contested issue. And the fact is the open borders contingent lost. 
We move on to the focus on the Iran war. It is either astounding in its naïveté or laced with the same hypocrisy over the ICE protests. First though it must be said that Trump’s political management of the issue has been nothing short of appalling. 


There is little question that Trump has handled the whole enterprise badly. He did not consult Congress ahead of time. Then he sent Marco Rubio to address Congress only after the fact. And Republicans in Congress (with the exception of Rand Paul) has denied Congress the opportunity to (symbolically) vote on the President’s war powers. 


That being said though, the salient question is not one of process, although process is important not least in order to resurrect the separation of powers. However the chief question we face is this: Is the United States better off confronting Iran before or after it has acquired nuclear weapons? 


There is really very little question about Iran’s quest to become a nuclear power. Not only would Iran likely engage in nuclear blackmail against the Gulf states; it would also probably attack Israel with its nukes, inviting nuclear retaliation. And its ballistic missals, which can already reach most European capitals including London, Paris and Berlin, would be aimed at the American heartland as soon as Iran developed the capability. So is that what the protesters desire?


And as for the feint that we could stop Iran from acquire nukes any other way—they said that about North Korea too. That North Korea would never be allowed to become a nuclear state. And here we are. 


For a brief moment, a very very brief moment, let’s address the free speech argument. The moment will be very brief because of the unremitting hypocrisy of the players. All of them. 


The keyboard warriors of the left and right have been ferocious in their attempts to silence the opposition. Or to substitute euphemisms for plain English to extirpate concepts that are fundamentally at odds with capital L Liberalism. Whether it is a Biden era Misinformation Governance Board, or organized cancellations of writers or a Nazi sympathizer like Nick Fuentes and his supporters hiding behind euphemisms and outright lies, free speech has been under assault. 


The only people who have been willing to publicly commit to and defend free speech are libertarians. Most Republicans and Democrats have demonstrated a willingness to defend free speech only when it serves their parochial interests. 


In short, the “No Kings” protests are really more like a group therapy session. Everybody gets to feel good and nothing gets accomplished. Sure the participants get to feel good about themselves, but so what? 


There is no cohesive theory underlying the protests. It is really only about personnel. The protesters are more than happy to trade their “principles” for power. 


A pox on all their houses. 


JFB


Please follow and like us:
fb-share-icon
Tweet
Posted in Policy, Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the Iran War

Posted on March 6, 2026 by Joe Benning

There is an awful lot of theorizing going on concerning the US war with Iran. What is truly distressing about it all is how thoughtlessly partisan it is. Both the Republicans and Democrats have moved in lockstep, either in favor of the effort (Republicans) or against (Democrats). Excepting Rand Paul (KY-R) and John Fetterman (PA-D) neither tribe has gone much beyond talking points. Certainly not to the point of exercising independent thought. 


The arguments presented are merely pre-textual. Republicans have resorted to the tried and true don’t-tie-the-President’s-hands  argument. Democrats have complained that Congress wasn’t consulted as is the custom and that the war itself is “illegal”. 


Now we should give the devil his due. Substantively the Constitution gives to Congress, and Congress alone, the power to declare war. But it is the President who wages war. The last time Congress declared war was right after Japan launched its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. To put it in perspective, that was about 85 years ago. 


Somehow they managed to miss Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf wars, Libya, Serbia-Kosovo and minor skirmishes along the way. Nor did the US seek a vote in the UN before bombing Serbia.  Fans of the “living, breathing Constitution” theory should take note. But they won’t.


The scuffling between the executive and legislative branches is almost beside the point. The Supreme Court for instance, has steered clear of institutional-political disputes between the elected branches of government. And it has shown no interest in throwing its hat into the ring any time soon. 


In any case, the Constitutional arguments are irrelevant, given the nature of the dispute. Not to put too fine a point on it, if Congress had shown any inclination to wrest power from the executive it has had ample opportunity to do so over the last 90 years or so. During this time Congress has effectively delegated more and more of its power to the executive branch by passing aspirations rather than laws while leaving the details to the bureaucracy. 


Whether through Congressional cowardice, incompetence or both, the power of the executive has consistently grown over time. Moreover it has done so irrespective of whether the occupant of the White House was a Republican or a Democrat. 


Rather than all the convoluted arguments and theories about whether the government should have attacked Iran, the answer to a simple question ought to clear the matter up. The question is this: is the US better off attacking Iran today, or would the US be better off attacking Iran in a few years time? That is after Iran has had time to rebuild its military capability including (possibly) acquiring nuclear weapons. 


To ask the question is to answer it. Since 1979 Iran has been waging war on the US (the Great Satan) and its ally, Israel (the Little Satan).  Iran is responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of American service members (and civilians) over a long period of time. Iran was responsible for the bombing of the Khobar Towers back in 1996. One of Iran’s many proxies (Hezbollah) exploded a massive truck bomb in Lebanon in 1983 killing 240 marines, 18 sailors and 3 soldiers. In addition, 58 French soldiers were killed in the attack.


And who can forget that Iran held 52 Americans as hostages for over a year after Iran attacked the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. Not to mention the 1985 murder of civilian Leon Klinghoffer by the PLO (another one of Iran’s lapdogs.) That relationship lasted until 1988 when Iran chose Hamas as one of its errand boys to replace the PLO as it busily constructed its “ring of fire”around Israel. 


And of course there was the proxy war waged by Iran against Israel as recently as October 2023. And the many assassination plots hatched by Iran on US soil. 


The question about when—not whether—to confront Iran admittedly assumes inevitability. It is not a bad assumption. Iran was already close to producing a nuclear weapon. That would have effectively inoculated a regime that everybody this side of Vladimir Putin thinks is a bunch of theocratic fanatics with a messianic streak.


So why is there even a question of whether America’s military action is justified.  When South Africa ran an apartheid state, liberals were all too happy to intervene. And they were all too happy to intervene in Libya under the duty-to-protect doctrine that Samantha Powers dreamt up. Likewise they were happy to get involved in the Serbia-Kosovo war. And the ongoing disaster that is Haiti. 


But when the Iranians take time off from throwing gays off of the roofs of buildings, staging public hangings and torturing political prisoners at the notorious Evin prison in Tehran—all of a sudden they are the good guys? They are the victims?  


I don’t think so.


The regime in Tehran is a revolutionary one. It has no problem gunning down its citizens in the streets. And it aims to get a nuclear weapon. And it isn’t shy about stating its intentions. 


Iran’s government has had 45 years to behave itself. And it has spurned every opportunity to do so.


Under the circumstances, the regime is now at its weakest point in a very long time. This is due in no small part to its attack-by-proxy on Israel in October 2023. And with its citizens in open revolt, the regime responded the way it usually does, with violence, torture and executions. 


So the better question is: why wouldn’t we attack and eliminate an imminent threat?


JFB














Please follow and like us:
fb-share-icon
Tweet
Posted in Foreign Policy | Tagged | Comments Off on Thoughts on the Iran War

Comrade HRH Donald J Trump

Posted on January 13, 2026 by Joe Benning

The New York Times has done a real public service. It has printed an extraordinary interview with president Trump that begins on the front page. The interview was lightly edited for length and to  provide confidentiality for discussions that were off the record. The interview with four NY Times reporters took place over two plus hours and occurred on January 11, 2026. The final story  contained 23,000 words and scores of questions. 

Despite the editing for length the story is a long read. But it  should be read by everybody. 

The subjects that came up for discussion included Trump’s view of his powers as commander-in-chief, the fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis, immigration, Venezuela, the war in Ukraine, Greenland, NATO, Trump’s health and possible plans for additional White House renovations. 

It did not cover the recent opening of a criminal investigation of Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, probably because that news came out after the interview was conducted. 

First Impressions

It became increasingly clear as the interview progressed that Donald J Trump accepted, albeit unknowingly, some key premises of progressive ideology. From the remarks he made to policy decisions he defended he displayed a collectivist philosophical bent although he is probably unaware of it.

As usual Trump spoke in the vernacular. His grammar was atrocious and he routinely misstated facts. For instance, of NATO he said “…They raised their G.D.P. to 5 percent from 2 percent. They didn’t pay the 2 percent, then they pay the 5 percent.” What he was actually referencing was the percentage of their GDP that our NATO allies promised to pay for defense—not actual GDP. By the way, don’t hold your breath waiting for 5% to actually be spent. 

Trump’s Underlying Philosophical Leaning

In the discussion that focused on Venezuela David Sanger (of the Times) brought up the whole subject of international law and asked Trump whether or not he had effectively given either Russia or China a pass on aggression. The planted axiom of course being that either of those parties are constrained by international law rather than Western Power. Then Katie Rogers of the Times asked  “Do you see any checks on your power on the world stage? Is there anything that could stop you if you wanted to?

Trump’s answer was truly remarkable. In it he demonstrated that he was in agreement with a core tenet of progressivism. He replied “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me, and that’s very good.” 

At that point a reporter named Zolan Kanno-Youngs asks “Not international law?” Trump’s response: “I don’t need international law.”

Here he is crystal clear about what he really believes: his omniscience. He will abide no external constraints. The only thing that matters to him is what he wants when he wants it. And what he wants is, by definition, good. Also note that his view of law is purely instrumental. He doesn’t dispute or discuss the idea of law; his sole reference at that point is whether he can use it.

Question: How is he any different from Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or Zohran Kwame Mamdani or any of that lot? For them and for Trump it is quite clear. They are of the opinion that law is merely a tool to be used. But it should not be used to constrain them.

For instance, along with Senator Sanders (ME-Democratic Socialist) and Josh Hawley (MO-R), Trump wants to cap interest rates on credit cards. Not only that: He has ordered Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae to buy $200 billion in mortgages in an attempt to lower mortgage rates. He has taken stakes in American companies for a share of the revenue. He claims he will forbid defense contractors from paying dividends or buying back stock. He has used his leverage over Medicare to fix prices. He has intimated that Exxon will be excluded from Venezuela because its CEO said that the country is “univestable”. 

And to top it off, his Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation of Fed Chair Jerome Powell, although it is unclear whether Trump himself had anything to do with it. This whole fiasco calls to mind a remark made by Henry Kissinger during the Watergate saga. Kissinger is reported to have said something to the effect that “some damn fool did what the president wanted.”

The list of horribles goes on, seemingly endlessly. If a Democratic president were to launch any of these initiatives, the Republicans would be screaming socialism from the rooftops. And essentially they would be right. The fact that the label after the name says Republican doesn’t alter that. 

___________________________________________________

Central Planning vs. Inherent Rights

In the words of Richard Nixon, we are all central planners now. And the tools that central planners have always used are getting a full workout. State coercion, the abegnation of individual rights, the denial of individual dignity, the destruction of due process, are on full display. The State reigns supreme.

Parenthetically we should note however that language matters. The Bill of Rights is phrased in the negative. “Congress shall pass no law…”. There was a reason for that treatment. The rights encapsulated in the Bill of Rights were thought to inhere to the individual, not the State. Hence Congress shall pass no law. 

While the US Constitution laid out the mechanics of the divisions of power, rights and responsibilities, it was the Declaration of Independence that provided the philosophical basis for it. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

But that idea has gone right out the window. Rights are phrased as positives and are simply a matter of convenience—for the central planners. You have a “right” to decent housing, to a basic income, to health care etc. Which, by definition gives central planners the coercive power to extract resources and then to redistribute them. This, of course, gives central planners a powerful incentive to continually extract and redistribute those resources to those deemed worthy of state largesse. Which tends to be voting blocs that turn out in force on election days. Which is also why we have managed to accumulate $30 trillion worth of public debt.

____________________________________________________

Trump the Mercantilist

With that in mind, let’s talk about Greenland. After pointing out that we could reopen 16 of our our military bases there, David Sanger asked president Trump why it was important for the US to own Greenland. 

David E. Sanger

“Why is ownership important here?”

President Trump

“Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base.”

At that point Katie Rogers asks a piercing, perhaps the piercing question.

Katie Rogers

“Psychologically important to you or to the United States?”

President Trump

“Psychologically important for me. Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything.”

Then Trump was asked about the use of force to acquire Greenland. His answer: “Yeah, I wouldn’t comment on that. I don’t think it’ll be necessary.”

When pressed by David Sanger he replied:

“It’s possible, if I needed it. It might upset NATO. Look, we spend a lot of money on NATO. You know a lot of people don’t think NATO is to our benefit. We’re out there fighting with Russia, stopping Ukraine from being decimated and all of the things that we do — spend a lot of money. It’s thousands of miles away. We have a big ocean in between us. We’re helping Europe, but we spend a tremendous amount of money on NATO and frankly, you know, other than the fact that I get along — I get along with virtually every leader really well, and they wouldn’t have done that.”

__________________________________________________

Trump, Democratic Legitimacy and the Rule of Law

After a while the reporter Zolan Kanno-Youngs asks him if judges have the authority to prevent him from what he wants to do with respect to domestic policy. 

Trump gives an answer that Oliver Wendell Holmes could be proud of. Wendell Holmes, a man enamored with the idea of the popular will said that “I will give the people what they want if it takes me to hell.” 

Trump frames his answer to the Kanno-Youngs question with respect to the will of the people, not the protection of individual rights.  Responding to the  question of whether judges have the authority to restrain him, Trump says:

“Well, I think they do under certain circumstances, but I think I have the right to. You know, I was elected on law and order, among other things. The border, law and order, the strong military — all the things that I’m doing a really good job of.”

So, once again Trump displays his progressive bona fides. For the moment leave aside the narcissism (“I’m doing a really good job”) and note his assertion that he is following the popular will. He claims he was elected on a law and order platform and so therefore “the people” have given him legitimacy. In true progressive fashion, his legitimacy comes from following the will of the people.

Which is to say mob rule. There is no room for any  countervailing power. There is no brooking of dissent. There is no room for individuals because the State, or better yet it’s maximum leader, is all important. 

___________________________________________________

Trump On Prices

President Trump, like most presidents and virtually all progressives, is terrified of prices freely negotiated by free people in free markets.  Here he is on drug prices. 

“I’m lowering the drug prices. I’m lowering the drug prices down to what the lowest price anywhere in the world is, so that we won’t be paying the highest prices. We’ll be paying the equivalent of the lowest prices. And this is something that people can’t believe this happened, because depending on the way you want to do your math, it could be thousands of a percent, or it could be 90 percent or 80 percent. It’s called “most favored nation.” So you take the nation that’s the lowest, the absolute lowest in the whole world — that’s what we’re paying. And no nation agreed to it.”

And I called the nations, and I said to the prime ministers and presidents, “You have to do it.”

Ignoring the bravado for a moment, what he is really talking about is that other countries subsidize drug prices through their government run health care systems, which by the way, are going broke. So while they avoid, for now, paying higher drug prices they simply pay higher taxes instead and have less choice and less innovation in health care.  

Right from the Bernie Sanders playbook. 

________________________________________________

On Taking Stakes in US Firms

In keeping with his view that his powers are unconstrained, Trump bragged about his deals with Intel and Nvidia. In return for allowing certain chips to be sold into China, the US Government receives a 25% cut of the revenue. The US Government also got a 10% stake in the equity of Intel. 

Here is part of the conversation with David Sanger about those deals.  

David E. Sanger

Would the old Republican Party have done that? I mean —

President Trump

The old establishment, no.

David E. Sanger

That would’ve sounded a little bit like state socialism to them, right?

President Trump

Yeah, would they have done that? No, because they were stupid. OK, we have a number of deals that are going through right now. I say the United States should be entitled to a piece of those deals, because without the United States, those deals couldn’t be done.

________________________________________________

Zohran Kwame Mamdani, the new mayor of New York City, who ran and was elected as a Democratic Socialist, couldn’t have said it better.

JFB

Please follow and like us:
fb-share-icon
Tweet
Posted in Political Philosophy | Comments Off on Comrade HRH Donald J Trump

More on Minneapolis

Posted on January 11, 2026 by Joe Benning

Mounting outrage over an ICE agent’s killing of a woman in Minneapolis spilled into streets across the country on Saturday, as crowds of protesters mobilized against what they called the excesses of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. 

— The New York Times January 10, 2026.

So now we have plenty of outrage over the killing of a Minneapolis citizen by an ICE officer during a deportation event. The only thing we lack are facts. 

Immediately after the shooting, the combatants confidently began to frame a narrative around the events that had just taken place. The protesters led by arguing passionately that the shooting was legally unjustified. Contrary to that, others insisted that not only was the killing justified, but that the deceased woman had herself committed a crime by interfering with a legitimate police action. 

Neither side gave any indication of having sufficient evidence to back up their respective claims. On the one hand Mayor Jacob Frey, after viewing a tape of the incident, announced that the assertion the ICE agent acted in self-defense was false; that the claim that Ms Good “ran over” the ICE agent was “bullshit.” He went on to say that ICE should “…get the fuck out of Minneapolis.” He described the federal response as reckless, claiming that the footage he viewed did not support a self-defense claim. Then he urged the protesters to remain peaceful and not escalate tensions. 

Enter Kristi Noem, Director of Homeland Security. Ms. Noem sprang to the defense of the ICE agent saying that the agent acted in self-defense. She claimed that Good “attacked ICE and those surrounding them and attempted to run them over with her vehicle.” 

JD Vance chimed in by blaming what he characterized as the “far left,” liberal cities, and media coverage for creating a hostile environment for law enforcement. He described Ms. Good’s death as “a tragedy of her own making” and went on to say that Good was a “victim of left-wing ideology.”

Needless to say, none of this amounted to much more than theatre. No one produced any evidence whatsoever that clearly supported their preferred position.  They only offered undocumented impressions, which is to say opinions, that aligned with their political stances. Which is something worth talking about.

(A side note. I have attached to this document an analysis of the legal issues involved, written by Jeb Rubenfeld, a professor of Constitutional Law at Yale Law School.) See this link.  http://www.onlibertywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/The-Free-Press-The-Legal-Stakes-for-the-Minneapolis-ICE-Shooter.pdf

There is a good deal of chatter among the participants about the importance of the rule of law.  But that conversation conflates law and policy. The pros and cons here have to do with policy preferences, not abstractions about the rule of law. 

I, for one, think that the Trump Administration has gone way overboard in adopting a mass deportation strategy. Saying that though raises a serious question. Does anybody seriously doubt that the Executive branch is responsible for enforcing the law as it is written? If not then what is to prevent the Executive from announcing that it will refuse to enforce the tax code on upper-income earners. High income earners would be able to simply ignore what had previously been their tax obligations. That is worth thinking about. 

There are also jurisdictional issues that need to be considered. There are also questions about which shot was the “kill shot” and whether it matters. Jeb Rubenfeld considers these questions in the attached brief. 

When it comes right down to it, the problem that exists resides with Congress. The last time Congress enacted a major overhaul of immigration law was 40 years ago. In 1986, during the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. Since then all changes have been made administratively or have been on the margin. 

The reason for Congressional paralysis is fairly straightforward. Three factors are responsible for this. (1) Congress has gotten out the habit of passing actual laws. They pass aspirational wish lists and let the bureaucracy make the hard decisions, if it even comes to that. (2) Passing actual legislation with designated policy after a thorough and informed debate that reaches a consensus has become a thing of the past. (3) With an electorate that is (and has been) polarized for about 40 years, developing a reasonable consensus is an exercise in frustration. It also requires leadership, which we sadly lack, and have lacked for quite some time. 

Now, instead of passing laws, legislators have been busy building their personal “brands”.  Think Marjorie Taylor Green or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. With the advent of campaign finance “reform” party discipline has vanished and political entrepreneurship has replaced regular order. Fiery speeches (largely brimming with stupidity) and executive orders now act as replacements—until the next administration comes along and changes course. 

JFB

Please follow and like us:
fb-share-icon
Tweet
Posted in Politics | Comments Off on More on Minneapolis

Donald J Trump and Cory Booker: Two Peas in a Pod

Posted on January 10, 2026 by Joe Benning

The shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis is the latest event to bring to the surface the absurdities and contradictions of the political moment in which we live. As soon as the shooting took place the players assumed their pre-ordained positions and began to compete to frame the “narrative” of what happened. 

The word narrative is in quotes because it represents one of those mindless formulations that allows the combatants to head into battle without mentioning the word truth. All that matters is controlling the story—i.e., the narrative. 

By now many cell-phone videos have been released that purport to clarify what actually happened. None is conclusive.  And in any event these efforts are doomed to failure. They will fail because by and large the contestants are not acting in good faith. 

First, the varying contenders have already concocted back-up stories in the event they are proved wrong. Second, the standard for a federal criminal charge depends crucially on whether the agent in question honestly believed his life was in imminent danger. The armchair generals representing the respective sides have already decided that question; not on the merits, but on the politics of the matter, both local and national.

Note that the entire discussion has focused on whether the shooting itself was justified. But 18 U.S.C. § 111 and related provisions make it a crime to assault, resist, or impede federal officers — whether by bodily force or by using a vehicle in a threatening manner. If it turns out that Renee Good acted in such a manner, then she would be the responsible party under the law. That has not received any serious discussion. 

Another fact that should be taken into consideration is that the politicians leading the charge have amassed impressive reputations as liars. Neither president Trump  nor Governor Walz (or their administrations) has given us any reason to put any trust whatsoever in either of them. President Trump wouldn’t recognize the truth if it bit him, and neither would Governor Walz. 

One of the great ironies of this situation is that (1) the two sides hate each other and (2) even if they don’t recognize it, they are in radical (if erroneous) agreement about the methods they use to justify their behavior. They simply disagree about their preferred outcomes. And neither is above fanning the flames to achieve their preferred political goals.

Consider one of the mindless pronouncements president Trump made the other day according to the New York Times. Trump Lays Out a Vision of Power Restrained Only by ‘My Own Morality’ Headline NY Times Page A1 January 8, 2026. 

Now, how is that any different from the following quote from Senator  Cory Booker (D-NJ) who said “I want to be able to speak my mind, tell my truth and remain authentic.” Diane Rehm Show interview (and there are plenty of others like it.) 

Short answer: It isn’t different at all.

Neither Donald J Trump, nor Corry Booker (and a whole lot of others, but primarily progressives), believe that there is such a thing as The Truth. It all depends on several favorite phrases of progressives, for instance “lived experience” or “context” or “it depends on where you sit”.  Which is not to deny that context etc is important. It is. 

But acknowledging the importance of context is not the same as denying that truth exists. To deny the idea of truth—even if we can never say that we know exactly what it is—is to deny the spiritual side of man that searches for transcendence. It leads to the seemingly bland assertion that the importance of an education is that it “teaches people how to think.” It throws out Mathew Arnold’s famous dictum that education consists of “The best that has been thought and said.”  

For the likes of Donald Trump and Cory Booker et.al. there is no such thing as right and wrong. After all, who are we to say that X is even preferable to Y, much less right or wrong? Are not all cultures and civilizations equal?

For the progressive mindset it is really about power and control. Michael Foucault for instance argued that power and knowledge aren’t separate; scientific/expert knowledge creates categories e.g.—criminal, homosexual, insane that exert power by defining and correcting behavior. 

Who can deny that is what the modern political class believes? They don’t deny the method, they just look for different outcomes and so they differentiate the incentive structures they impose.  The power to create those incentives and to try to control behavior is their goal. 

Ultimately they believe that man is a blank slate and a slave to his passions. In this view, mankind is not a collection of individuals. Instead mankind represents a collection of identity groups, to be catered to or not depending on who holds power. 

Progressives want to create a new man, for a utopia on earth.  People are not individuals, each with his own thoughts, hopes, dreams and aspirations.  They represent that statistical abstraction so favored by social scientists: populations. People are merely automatons that respond to certain stimuli in the aggregate. 

Any who doubts this, should consider the inaugural  address of  Zohran Mamdani, New York’s new mayor. Mamdani ran as a Democratic Socialist and has said he intends to govern like one. In his address he said wanted to “replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

Strap in. 

JFB

Please follow and like us:
fb-share-icon
Tweet
Posted in Culture, Political Philosophy, Politics | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Donald J Trump and Cory Booker: Two Peas in a Pod

“My Truth, Your Truth” and The End of Truth

Posted on December 30, 2025 by Joe Benning

Watch Melanie Phillips.

Please follow and like us:
fb-share-icon
Tweet
Posted in Politics | Comments Off on “My Truth, Your Truth” and The End of Truth

“Bondi is Coming Here” — Bret Stephens Interviewed by Benjamin Anthony of the MirYam Institute

Posted on December 28, 2025 by Joe Benning

Bret Stephens, a New York Times columnist, makes some fascinating (and trenchant) observations when he is interviewed by Benjamin Anthony, co-founder and CEO of the MirYam Institute. This 24 minute You Tube interview is definitely worth the time. You can see it below.

JFB

Please follow and like us:
fb-share-icon
Tweet
Posted in Politics | Comments Off on “Bondi is Coming Here” — Bret Stephens Interviewed by Benjamin Anthony of the MirYam Institute

Can Civilization Survive? A Conversation with Douglas Murray and Brendan O’Neill

Posted on December 28, 2025 by Joe Benning
Please follow and like us:
fb-share-icon
Tweet
Posted in Politics | Comments Off on Can Civilization Survive? A Conversation with Douglas Murray and Brendan O’Neill

An Example of Why the Press Lacks Credibility

Posted on December 22, 2025 by Joe Benning

In a story published by the New York Times this morning the headline reads: As U.S. Guns Pour Into Canada, the Bodies Pile Up. So with that assertion in hand, the Times invites us to buy into the assumption, proclaimed to be universal truth by gun control fanatics everywhere, that the mere existence of guns is a cause of “gun violence”. 

The Times’ story notes that 

“American firearms are spilling increasingly into a country where gun control is far stricter than in the United States, according to government data and the authorities.”

It is important to note that not only is the preceding sentence manifestly false; the Times’s interpretation of the situation is incorrect and the underlying data is problematical.

First things first. There is an obvious question, namely this. If gun control in Canada is far stricter than it is in the US, then how is it that guns are increasingly spilling into Canada from the US? A reasonable conclusion to draw is that enforcement of gun control measures in Canada is very lax, which calls into question just how strict Canadian laws are in practice. A second question concerns whether it is it in fact correct that guns from the US are ‘increasingly spilling’ into Canada and if so, if that increase is causally related the increase in murders.

The Times article uses gun seizures at the border as a measure that captures the quantity of guns that slip over the border from the US. Note that the incidence  of seizures may or may not be related to the quantity of guns entering the country. Note too that the number of seizures may or may not be related to the number of crimes committed with those guns. 

Nevertheless, the Times insists on claiming (implicitly) that an increase in guns from across the border necessarily implies an increase in crime. But the number of gun seizures at the border has, in recent years, gone down rather than up. See the graph below.

Still, the Times insists that 

”…The proliferation of illegal guns from the United States has fueled bloodshed in Canadian cities and even in remote northern communities.” 

However, notwithstanding the Times’s assertions, both the number of homicides and the homicide rate in Canada have remained essentially flat for the last 5 years, according to the central statistics office in Canada. See the graph below. (Years from 2019 through 2024).   

It may very well be the case that the murder rate has actually risen in Canada. But the Times article doesn’t reflect that. It actually shows the opposite. But even disregarding that, the Times article fails to show a causal link between an increase in crime and an increase in guns—legal or otherwise. 

The article does illustrate one thing that any economics student could predict. 

According to the article “…The price of trafficked guns has risen sharply in recent years…Today, a handgun bought in Florida for $500 can fetch up to $4,300 in southern Ontario…”

The article notes that

“In 2023, Canada further tightened control over handguns, making them virtually impossible to buy or transfer legally.”

The rise in the price of trafficked guns reflects the increase in the incentive for traffickers to ply their trade. Still that explanation does not illustrate a causal relationship between an increase in crime and an increase in guns. 

But the willingness of gangs to use guns might be strategic. It therefore might be a causal link. Further, the hesitation to prosecute is more than likely to be the connection between crime and shootings. Which is to say that the cause is the behavior of people: gangs, prosecutors and the body politic. Trying to foist off the availability of guns as a cause is a cop out. It is human behavior and the incentive structure created by a society that represents the causal link.

JFB

Please follow and like us:
fb-share-icon
Tweet
Posted in Culture, Economics, Policy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on An Example of Why the Press Lacks Credibility

Here Goes Trump Again

Posted on December 12, 2025 by Joe Benning

Asked where he wants interest rates to be a year from now, Trump said, “1% and maybe lower than that.” He said rate cuts would help the U.S. Treasury reduce the costs of financing $30 trillion in government debt. 

—The Wall Street Journal, December 12, 2025.

We are rapidly approaching banana republic territory here. 

After announcing in a WSJ interview that rate cuts would help the U.S. Treasury reduce the costs of financing $30 trillion in government debt, president Trump went on to say “…I’m a smart voice and should be listened to.”

On the contrary, he is not smart, not by a long shot. And he should be ignored for the simple reason that he hasn’t got the slightest idea what he is talking about. 

Consider: the inflation rate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5% to 3.00%. President Trump has nevertheless embarked on a campaign to have the Fed lower overnight rates to 1% or “…maybe lower than that”.    Let’s suppose that the Fed were to lower the overnight rate to 1%. Does anybody seriously believe that market rates on the long end of the market would follow? If so, why haven’t they done so already?

Let’s go to the video tape. The Fed started its current path of easing monetary policy in September 2024. Up until that point, the overnight policy rate had been set by the Fed at 5.25% to 5.5%. Today the policy rate is 3.5% to 3.75%—which is lower by 175 basis points (1.75%). And yet, market rates for Treasuries with maturities longer than 5 years are higher, not lower. See the Table below. 

Market Rate 1Market Rate 2
September 2024December 2025Change
Overnight Fed Funds5.25% — 5.50%3.25% — 3.5%-1.75%
3 Month T Bills4.61%3.62%-0.99%
2 Year T Notes4.57%3.52%-1.05%
5 Year T Notes3.48%3.74%0.26%
10 Year T Notes3.75%4.19%0.44%
30 Year Bonds4.10%4.85%0.75%

* These are actual market rates

The data clearly show that longer term rates rose even though the Fed lowered the overnight Federal Funds policy rate a full 175 basis points (1.75%). And let’s not kid ourselves: people finance their housing loans on the long end, not the short end of the market. So mortgage rates have not really declined materially despite press reports about the Fed “lowering” rates.  

That is not the only thing to consider. Donald J Trump wants to lower overnight interest rates below the inflation rate. What does he think the inflation rate is going to do? Inevitably the inflation rate will rise—just as it did during President Biden’s term in office. And no phony happy talk is going to change that. 

When HRH Donald Trump says that financing the federal deficit will be easier with lower rates he is pulling a hand-is-quicker-than-the-eye stunt. What he really means is that by suppressing short term rates he is implicitly trying to inflate the accumulated $30 trillion debt away. And he intends to do that by selling lots of short term Treasury Bills at rates below the inflation rate. 

The cost of that maneuver is a massive (but hidden) tax rise. This is for two reasons. First, because there is a de facto decrease in purchasing power that benefits the government. Second, because the government will tax nominal interest earnings even though purchasing power is declining.  That is what Trump really means when he says lower rates will ease financing accumulated debt. It is a con.

Another consideration comes to the fore. It is that the interest rate that really matters is the “real rate”. That rate is defined as the nominal rate plus inflation expectations. Pushing the nominal rate down below where the market would otherwise put it, necessarily causes the real rate to rise. And central banks around the world who have been massive buyers of Treasury securities will be forced to re-evaluate their holdings. 

The market however is not stupid. Prices of fixed-income securities will respond by widening the spread between short term and long term securities. That, along with rising inflation, is the price of an errant Fed policy designed to punish savers. It also includes reduced savings, reduced investment and perhaps a flight from the dollar.  

So charitably speaking, maybe we should just ignore the very smart voice of Donald J Trump. Especially when he is spouting off economic nonsense, which he does with clockwork regularity. 

JFB

Please follow and like us:
fb-share-icon
Tweet
Posted in Economics, Political Economy, Politics | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Here Goes Trump Again