America • Americanism • Asia • China • Donald Trump • Economy • Foreign Policy • Greatness Agenda • History • Silicon Valley • Trade

Raise Tariffs, Secure the Nation

overlay_color=”” spacing=”yes” hover_type=”none” undefined=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_position=”all” padding=”50 0px 50px 0px” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″

The Financial Times accuses President Trump of suffering from an odious, if tongue-in-cheek malady called trade deficit disorder (TDD). The symptoms? A bizarre and unjustified desire to impose tariffs, thereby ensuring America sells as much as it buys on the international markets.

Of course, Trump is not suffering alone with this malady: many prominent billionaires from Carl Icahn to Warren Buffet have it, too—along with a majority of the American public. This raises the question: why the disconnect over tariffs between academics and businessmen, the media and the public?

In a word: myopia.

Economists and media pundits think inside the box, looking at the potential impact of tariffs on America’s economy. However, they neglect the bigger picture: raw economic growth is not the exclusive, or even primary objective of statecraft. Preserving America’s national security, and freedom are far more important, and worthy goals. And therein lies the justification for tariffs—they are an economic means to a political end, and this is why economists fail to understand their value. They are naïve.

Have you ever heard of import dependency? The concept is simple but important. Basically, it is when a country depends upon imports of a critical product, without which it would collapse. A good example is the United States and oil. Before the advent of fracking, offshore drilling, and the exploitation of unconventional reserves in Canada, America depended heavily upon Saudi Arabia’s oil. This gave the Saudis not only wealth, but leverage and power. It is why Saudi Arabia sits on the UN Human Rights Council, despite punishing homosexuals with death, and why they are considered a strong American ally despite funding radical Islamic terror groups.

Of course, import dependency not only applies to natural resources, it also applies to manufactured goods. For example, China supplies America with the vast majority of its semiconductors, laptops, and a multitude of other random products—many of which are technologically advanced. Because of this, we depend upon them more than we like to admit. This gives China leverage, and it is why Beijing can act with virtual impunity in Tibet (light scoldings do not count), Africa, and the South China Sea—to say nothing of the situation in North Korea. We need the Chinese and they know it. The bottom line: import dependency hamstrings our foreign policy.

It was not always like this. America used to understand the link between economic and political independence. America used to be free.

The lesson was first learned during American Revolution, which was almost stillborn because of insufficient colonial industry: we were unable to manufacture enough cannons, muskets, and gunpowder to resist the British (our former supplier). It was only when other European powers, particularly the French and Dutch, began supplying the Continental Army that the tide began to turn. For example, the French provided the Continental Army with more than 80,000 muskets, swords, and even uniforms.

America’s first president, George Washington got the message. He recognized that the fledgling republic was vulnerable. How could America defend herself if she could not supply herself with gunpowder? In Washington’s own words:

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies . . . 

Washington observed that political independence depended upon economic independence. To this end, his first major piece of legislation was the Tariff Act of 1789, which raised taxes on imported manufactured goods, thereby encouraging American industry. Maybe these tariffs made America’s economy less efficient, but they were invaluable in political terms.

Washington’s tariff policy paid off during the War of 1812, when the United States and Britain again found themselves at loggerheads. But this time, America made its own muskets and cannons, despite Britain’s naval blockade. America was self-sufficient. America was safer. At this point even the famous free-trader President Thomas Jefferson recognized the wisdom of Washington’s tariffs. In a letter from 1816, Jefferson admitted:

. . . experience has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort: and if those who quote me as of a different opinion will keep pace with me in purchasing nothing foreign where an equivalent of domestic fabric can be obtained, without regard to difference of price  it will not be our fault if we do not soon have a supply at home equal to our demand, and wrest that weapon of distress from the hand which has wielded it. . . . 

Jefferson recognized the difference between the ideal and the practical, between theory and reality. While free trade, and trade deficits, with the developing world may make sense in a vacuum, the real world is more complicated. Today, the United States faces a problem with so much of its military equipment made overseas or reliant upon foreign sources. What happens when our guns come from foreign suppliers?

When we manufacture our semiconductors in China we are not simply getting a “good deal” as economists would have us believe, we are also gifting China our latest technology, building up the Chinese computer industry (which is our future competition), and giving them political leverage over us. And do not be naïve: China plays hardball. If they have leverage, they will use it.

Without economic independence, there is no political independence. President Trump, like Washington and Jefferson before him, understands this fact, and it is why he is right on trade and domestic manufacturing. America should always come before blind ideology. It is time to reconsider tariffs.

background_color=”” border_position=”all” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hover_type=”none” element_content=””]

America • Big Media • Congress • Democrats • Silicon Valley • The Culture • The Left • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

James Hodgkinson, the Left, and Degrees of Moral Responsibility

overlay_color=”” spacing=”yes” hover_type=”none” undefined=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_position=”all” padding=”50 0px 50px 0px” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″

In response to a recent article of mine on James Hodgkinson—the Bernie Sanders supporter and despiser of all things Republican who attempted to assassinate Republican congressmen in Alexandria, Virginia on June 14—a reader who self-identified as being “as far right as it gets” accused me of going “UNDER the gutter” for implicating the Democrats and the left generally in Hodgkinson’s crime.

In my piece, I quoted from the shooter’s Facebook pages and from those who knew him. My aim was to establish that, politically, Hodgkinson was of the same mindset as leftist politicians, celebrities, media personalities, and academics who have been laboring incessantly for many decades now to convince the world that the Republican Party is the embodiment of evil.

As one notable 20th century conservative thinker once famously put it, ideas have consequences. And because ideas are expressed in and understood through words, words have consequences.

It is for this reason that those who espouse ideas, and do so publicly and repeatedly, must assume some ownership of the actions performed by those who have taken those ideas and words to heart and acted upon them.

In most contexts, no one has any difficulty understanding this.

Among the moral philosophical traditions of the West, the oldest is what is known by moral philosophers as “virtue ethics.” Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle endorsed this vision of morality, and Aristotle specifically is universally recognized by philosophers as the premiere exponent of it, the first to give it systematic expression.

Christian thinkers in the classical and medieval periods, like Saints Augustine and Aquinas, would adapt virtue ethics to their faith.

By the lights of the virtue ethicist, morality is not, as many of our contemporaries are disposed to think, essentially a matter of following rules and/or principles. Morality is essentially a matter of character-development. “What kind of a person do I want to become?” This is the key moral question.

Human beings become virtuous or vicious, respectively, by acting virtuously or viciously. Acting leads to being.

Virtues, like their contraries, vices, are habits. Virtues are character excellences that the virtuous person acquires by habitually acting virtuously. Conversely, vices are character flaws that the vicious person acquires by habitually acting viciously.

Human beings become virtuous or vicious, respectively, by acting virtuously or viciously. Acting leads to being. However, the only way for a person who is not yet virtuous to know how to act virtuously is for him or her to imitate someone who already is virtuous.

Knowledge of morality, then, is not, strictly speaking, taught but, rather, imparted. The recipients of a moral education—this would mean all of us—imbibe the knowledge that is imparted to us by moral exemplars, virtuous human beings who today we (in the uninspired and pedestrian rhetoric of our age) simply call “role models.”

We learn morality as we learn so much else in life, through the example of others, whether these exemplars are people who we know intimately, pillars of our local or national communities, historical personages, or even fictional characters.

Of course, we can also learn how to become immoral, or vicious. And we learn this in the same ways in which we learn to become virtuous—through the example of others.

For that reason, words are never mere words. Every utterance is a speech-act, an action of sorts. Again, we all know this to be true, a fact borne out every time we praise and condemn people, especially those in positions of influence, for their words.

We praise and condemn people for their language, for the ideas that they express, because we all readily understand that words and ideas have consequences.

Moral agents, i.e. adult human beings, are unique in that they are not just causally, but also morally, responsible for their actions. These actions, of course, include their speech-acts, what they say and how they say it.

Moral responsibility is not the same thing as causal responsibility. When a bolt of lightning, a force of nature, strikes a power grid, the former is causally responsible for the damage that it inflicts upon the latter. The lightning determines the damage caused to the power grid.

For that reason, words are never mere words. Every utterance is a speech-act, an action of sorts. Again, we all know this to be true, a fact borne out every time we praise and condemn people, especially those in positions of influence, for their words.

In stark contrast, moral responsibility presupposes free will, or indeterminism. No moral act is ever determined by antecedent conditions. Moral acts are determined, if you will, only by those who immediately and directly choose to perform them.

So, James Hodgkinson is causally responsible for firing bullets into those Republicans who he preyed upon on the morning of June 14. He also shoulders the largest share of the moral responsibility for this action, for it was Hodgkinson and no one else who chose to do what he did.

That being said, there are degrees of moral responsibility. To suggest that those Democrats and leftists with loud and influential voices, those who served as Hodgkinson’s moral exemplars, those who imparted and reinforced the ideas that fueled him to go on a Republican hunting spree, shoulder zero culpability for the fruits of their tireless endeavor to demonize Republicans stretches credibility to the snapping point.

It’s like saying that all of the responsibility falls upon a black person who shoots police officers after being exposed to hordes of Black Lives Matter activists chanting, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” This person is ultimately the most responsible for the act that he chose to do, certainly. Yet it is equally certain that those who urged actions of the sort that this shooter engaged in also must assume some responsibility for their words, their speech-acts.

Their hands are not without blood on them. They are not without guilt.

And neither are those Democrats and leftists who continually spout the worst sort of lies about Republicans without the blood on their hands of the five Republicans who James Hodgkinson shot up in Alexandria.  

 

background_color=”” border_position=”all” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hover_type=”none” element_content=””]

2016 Election • America • California • Cultural Marxism • Donald Trump • Economy • self-government • Silicon Valley • The Culture • The Resistance (Snicker) • Trade • Trump White House

Liberal Tech Could Become a Millstone for Trump

overlay_color=”” spacing=”yes” hover_type=”none” undefined=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” border_position=”all” padding=”50 0px 50px 0px” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″

When President Trump took office, it only made sense that he would court the burgeoning tech industry for advice. After all, his campaign was built on Silicon Valley-style disruption, his publicly stated preference was to use the most successful businesses as a model for government, and even some of his trusted advisers came straight from the Valley itself. Small wonder, then, that Trump not only brought in tech titans as partners, but delegated responsibility for integrating their insights into government to his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s new Office of American Innovation. It was perfectly sensible, if a bit naïve.

At this point, however, it is becoming clear that the tech industry’s sky high stocks don’t necessarily tell the full story about its economic strength. In fact, very soon, tech could become a sinking ship―and a sinking ship whose passengers hate President Trump’s guts. Rather than tossing them yet another life raft through influence in his administration, the President needs to be wary of supporting companies who could drag him down to the depths along with them.

There is ample reason to fear that tech will sink. The most recent evidence for such a fear comes in the form of a warning from Bank of America analyst Michael Hartnett, who treats the ever-increasing returns on tech stock as an example of “peak irrationality,” because tech could very soon crash in the same way as the 1997 dot com boom did. Hartnett is far from the only economist to be worried about the bubble-esque character of the modern tech industry. The Financial Times recently warned that tech stocks are entering “bubble territory.” The Seattle Times, meanwhile, points to the troubling rise of “unicorn startups,” IE startups who ludicrously mark up their private valuation, only to see their actual stock sell for vastly less. In the immortal words of Wendy’s, there’s ample reason to ask “Where’s the Beef” about such developments.

But it’s not just the economic power of tech that is arguably in a bubble: their political power could very easily be on the wane, not just nationally under Trump, but even among their allies on the Left. Hartnett warns that “renewed leadership of ‘creative disruption’ vs ‘economic nationalism’ is ultimately unsustainable.[…] It could ultimately lead to populist calls for redistribution of the increasingly concentrated wealth of Silicon Valley as the gap between tech capital and human capital grows ever-wider.” Late last year, and early this year, liberal outlets like the New Yorker and SumofUs attacked the Valley for its “empathy gap” toward the unfortunate, or issued thuggish warnings that working with the Trump administration would be “collaboration with hate.” Leftist author Jonathan Taplin slammed the Valley for hiding behind the fig-leaf of liberalism while really supporting Darwinian anarcho-libertarianism in his new book Move Fast and Break Things: How Facebook, Google, and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy. Combine this with the yawning income inequality and resentment that presently exists in the tech industry’s back yard, and you see why Breitbart recently warned, “America’s next social justice movement will be ‘Occupy Silicon Valley.’”

But it’s not just the economic power of tech that is arguably in a bubble: their political power could very easily be on the wane, not just nationally under Trump, but even among their allies on the Left . . . Combine this with the yawning income inequality and resentment that presently exists in the tech industry’s back yard, and you see why Breitbart recently warned, “America’s next social justice movement will be ‘Occupy Silicon Valley.’”

Ordinarily, the fact of an industry coming under potential attack from the social justice Left would be a signal to Trump that he should step in and defend them. There’s just one problem: Tech has shown absolutely no appetite to return the favor. Indeed, despite their being uniquely vulnerable to the very forces that Trump is most well-positioned to fight, tech companies seem to be caught in an increasing spiral of Trump Derangement Stockholm Syndrome.

Witness a story published late last month by The New York Times magazine, in which reporter Farhad Manjoo notes with some amazement, “In the 17 years I’ve spent covering Silicon Valley, I’ve never seen anything shake the place like [Trump’s] victory. In the span of a few months, the Valley has been transformed from a politically disengaged company town into a center of anti-Trump resistance and fear.” One overly excitable startup founder even anonymously told Manjoo that he thought Trump’s election heralded the coming of an apocalypse in a mere nine months. There’s Trump Derangement Syndrome, and then there’s flat out clinical delusion, and the tech sector seems to be teetering between the two even according to friendly outlets.

To be sure, there are exceptions. But these exceptions do nothing to soften the more important question of just what Trump gets from defending an industry that in some cases stabbed him in the back not three days into his term in office. The fact is that there’s no obvious reason that Trump should give the tech establishment the benefit of a doubt, least of all when it comes to comporting with his priorities. Kushner’s Office of American Innovation could obviously still retain a mission, particularly in making the government free from entanglements with unreliable and insecure services like Amazon’s Cloud computing technology. But at this point, and with a tech crash potentially down the road per Hartnett, the real mission of Trump’s engagement with tech should be to make it so his administration, and Washington more broadly, doesn’t need them anymore, if only to prove to the embattled industry how much they do need him.

Whether the White House will have the political appetite for such a shift is anyone’s guess. But those who want to see the President empowered rather than fettered to contemptuous and politically counterproductive “allies” should hope that they do. Otherwise, it may be not just Silicon Valley that the Left finds a way to occupy, but Trump’s own seat.

background_color=”” border_position=”all” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hover_type=”none” element_content=””]

2016 Election • America • American Conservatism • Big Media • California • Conservatives • Defense of the West • Democrats • Donald Trump • Education • Free Speech • GOPe • Government Reform • Identity Politics • Immigration • political philosophy • Silicon Valley • The Culture • The Left • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

Political Violence and Coming-of-Age for an American Student

The recent events at Middlebury College should have been a jolting reminder that all is not well in our polarized culture or, especially, in our institutions of higher learning. The level of chaos on display two weeks ago was incongruent with the understanding most of us have about the experience of university life, and somehow even more disturbing coming as it did from placid little Vermont, on a bucolic campus billing itself as an escape from the pressures of the outside world.

For those of us familiar with the genteel Charles Murray, add to the disconnect above the absurdity of seeing such a man made the target of such violence—a sort more to be expected when confronted with a Bull Connor than a mild-mannered social scientist—and it is easy to see why the story made national news.

Yet to me, and to many others well-acquainted with the sad state of affairs at our elite college campuses, it was nothing new.

When I heard the news, my mind raced back to the events of June 2, 2016. On that day my own graduation from Stanford was upon me, but my mind was not on sentimental last parties or picking up my gown—it was on the end of a Republican presidential primary that had been sealed well in advance, and the rally that night where I could see Donald Trump in the flesh.

Trump came to California, the “yugest” state in the union, even though he didn’t need to. I’d been to a lot of rock concerts in my life, so I knew at once what he was up to style-wise. No sheet music, no lyrics, not even a set list. He knew his dozen songs by heart. He was coming at us with gale-force bluster, assuring the audience he would win California—not just in the primary (which no longer mattered) but in the general election.

It was so ballsy and unbelievable that we all threw our hands into the air and cheered. This was the new rock and roll, and we could do anything.

Until that day, I’d never been to a political rally, never volunteered for a campaign, never bought a hat, never bought a yard sign, never trumpeted my support for a candidate in front of a large class. Trump was my virgin political moment, and I did all these things without looking back, because I finally had a candidate I believed in.

During the Bush and Obama years I’d felt alienated from the idealistic internationalist military vision of the neoconservative-controlled Republican Party, despising the Iraq war from the start. Similarly, I was turned off by the way Republicans seemed to use gays, a tiny minority of the population, as a wedge issue to rally the party’s not-so-tiny evangelical wing. While I was convinced that we needed to tone down immigration for a while to re-grow our middle class and do the hard work of assimilation, Republicans did not seem serious about following through on protecting the border.

Yet I could not in good conscience get excited about the Democratic Party. The extreme obsession with policing words and thoughts, the condescending and increasingly malicious double-standard of identity politics combined with the lack of genuine concern for those who had lost their communities and livelihoods in the push towards globalization were enough for me to steer clear.

At its very core, so much of their liberal ideology seemed to be based on assumptions about the malleability of human nature that were beyond naïve—assumptions that had disastrous consequences in our educational, justice, and economic systems.

Trump answered all these failures of the Democratic Party while advancing past the recent misguided fixations of the GOP. He shifted the political paradigm to a new place that felt . . . well, exhilarating when I saw all my entrenched political enemies and as well as mainstream “thought leaders” denouncing him as dangerous (mostly to their careers).

His willingness to invent his own playbook felt like a miracle: making government work rather than annihilating it, even to the point of offering $1 trillion on infrastructure. Silicon Valley was aghast at Trump, but here was the Disruptive Innovator—the fantasy of every tech entrepreneur—in his most disruptive form, disrupting the very paradigm of society and the laws that bind it. Here was a masterful obliteration of the cautious, calculating political personality that had dominated America’s executive branch—seemingly—forever, in favor of the kinetic flair of a supreme media icon.

As Trump hammered away at the hefty trade imbalances that the United States maintains with China and other nations, I couldn’t help but see suspended behind him the massive trade surplus that we have worldwide in the entertainment industry—a symbol of something we still do way better than anyone else. Could he bring his entertainer’s vitality and inimitability to other American industries that were atrophying?

Then there was a lull, a hesitation—this policy business could get mighty dense, and this speech was lasting over an hour. Trump’s bravura was such that he could instantly sense the shift and turn it inside out. After all, the greatest hit among his song catalogue was so beloved by the audience that they knew it by heart, and the relationship between the man at the podium and his massive, spellbound crowd was such that he could do it call-and-response style.

“What are we going to build?”

The wall!

“And who’s going to pay for it?”

Mexico!

I had been informed by countless erudite editorials that I would see “hate” and “anger” (usually expressed by these writers in terms that cranked up the hate dial to 11), but the only true hate and anger I saw that night were outside the San Jose Convention Center.

Before the rally, a crowd of protesters was stewing behind barricades, some waving Mexican flags, and one holding aloft a sign that read “Trump, this is Mexico. You are not welcome on our soil.” This should perhaps have served as a gentle warning about what would happen afterwards.

The Trump rally itself was protected by metal detectors and police. However, the complicated network of parking lots and garages around the convention center were less secure. Tight-knit groups of Trump-haters, mainly teenagers, descended upon the people leaving the rally—folks who appeared to have driven long distances in order to be there, probably from California’s less storied Central Valley. These protestors cast orange police cones into the air as they readied for the rampage. My friend hid his Make America Great Again hat inside his jacket, so we escaped unscathed, but the unlucky ones beside us who were wearing shirts and other gear found themselves the targets of a venomous frenzy such as I have rarely encountered in real life or even in fiction. This was something on another scale.

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo later delivered a perfunctory denunciation of the violence unleashed on a reported 24 peaceful rally attendees, but made it clear that the real target of his own anger and hatred was Trump, saying the candidate “needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign.”

Yet for those of us who were there, this was a day of images that would never leave our brains: a middle-aged woman with egg yolk dripping through her hair and down her face; a car in a parking garage being shaken menacingly by a group of angry youth surrounding it and laughing as the terrified people inside wondered how far this would go; a bright red hat on the pavement, in flames.

It is at moments such as these when the media narrative breaks down—when individual Americans see a severe disconnect between their own experience and what the New York Times chooses to feature above the fold. When the thin pages of the Times slip from our hands, when this physical world comes flooding in, we want to take “responsibility” back into our own hands and to resist being told that what we see in front of us is somehow “incorrect.”

Yet here we are, months later, and mirabile dictu, we find ourselves launched into the wild with the proof that one man can change history.

I feel those lingering emotions surrounding my graduation each day—the exhilaration of accomplishment and newfound opportunity, mixed with the intimidation that comes of acknowledging our responsibility while processing the viciousness we are likely to face in the opposition.

My wonderment and anxiety are surpassed only by a hope for this country unlike anything I have felt before it. I have but one simple question to ask on behalf of those of us who want to help: Where do we begin?

Administrative State • Deep State • Silicon Valley • Technology • The Leviathian State • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker) • Trump White House

Is Silicon Valley Trying to be the Deep State’s Enforcer?

The Deep State is fomenting a coup. If it wasn’t apparent in the weeks leading up to Donald Trump’s inauguration last month that the entrenched network of D.C. bureaucrats, intelligence officials, and establishment press were working to undermine the new administration, the truth has become obvious in the past week.

#Resistance-sympathetic press outlets are continually and relentlessly pushing an anonymous leak-drive narrative meant to propel the legitimate occupant of the White House into impotence, obscurity, or resignation. It is a fact that has rightfully raised serious questions about the nature of constitutional government, and its capacity to coexist with an ever more intrusive and arrogant administrative state.

What is less obvious, or at least less remarked upon, is the extent to which the machinery enabling this coup is propped up by the #Resistance’s most prominent industry backers in Silicon Valley and the tech sector.

Indeed, the one thing that conclusively can be said about the loudest anti-Trump voices in the tech sector, aside from the fact that they also happen to be some of the most obnoxious and vocal progressives in the industry, is that they owe large amounts of their success to America’s intelligence apparatus.

And if you don’t believe that, don’t worry; there’s plenty of evidence at hand.

Start with Amazon, the brainchild of Jeff Bezos, who also happens to be the owner of one of the president’s most frequent press antagonists, the Washington Post. Back before liberals abandoned their principled critiques of the CIA in a fit of Trump Derangement Syndrome, the left-wing news site Alternet ran an article pointing out an obvious issue with Bezos’ stewardship of the Post. Namely, that he was neck deep in Deep State money. As Alternet wrote:

The Post’s new owner, Jeff Bezos, is the founder and CEO of Amazon—which recently landed a $600 million contract with the CIA. But the Post’s articles about the CIA are not disclosing that the newspaper’s sole owner is the main owner of CIA business partner Amazon.

Even for a multi-billionaire like Bezos, a $600 million contract is a big deal. That’s more than twice as much as Bezos paid to buy the Post four months ago.

Under other circumstances, one might feel inclined to pity the CIA, given the questionable track record of the cloud-based services that they paid Amazon to set up. However, in this case, schadenfreude is the best that patriots can manage.

Not to be outdone, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, another tech titan with disturbing ideas about the uses of political power and a low opinion of the resident, was outed around the same time for offering the NSA access to his social network, even going so far as to offer to set up “spying rooms,” or secure portals for spooks to enter the site with impunity.

Nor was Facebook alone in this: another tech giant, Google, was negotiating a similar deal. In fact, according to a post from investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed on Medium, it’s arguable that the CIA made Google the powerhouse that it is, by (for instance) investing in the company through government-backed venture capital firms. Small coincidence, then, that Google has also emerged as a booster for President Trump’s eventual impeachment, despite its insincere public attempts to appear friendly to the new administration.

Of course, every firm is entitled to its own opinions about a politician. Opposition to a particular president’s agenda is not, by itself, evidence of any guilt or collusion. When it comes to these particular firms’ opposition to Trump, however, the size and quantity of deep state connections they enjoy raises serious questions about what exactly motivates that opposition, and more important, what they have within their power to do to further that opposition.

Consider this: Facebook, Google, and Amazon likely each possess information about every American citizen that, if they looked the other way at a few violations of privacy, could be used to damage or destroy people’s lives.

It is not a stretch to imagine, given each firm’s connections to the Deep State, that this information might already be in the hands of intelligence agencies across the board. Which means that, should they want to, tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon could easily act as enforcers for the Deep State by handing dirt on political opponents straight to leakers, and also (in the case of Amazon’s Bezos) by offering them a sympathetic press outlet to publish that dirt. So long as the Deep State is willing to violate rules surrounding the leaking of information, this should frighten everyone who has ever had reason to be suspicious of policies favored by official Washington.

Therefore, Americans interested in constitutional government should gird themselves for a fight not merely over draining the swamp, but also the valley.