It is difficult to imagine a more galling demonstration of incivility than the Democrats in the House Chamber for Trump's SOTU speech last night (1/30).

They scowled, frowned, and sat on their hands throughout the speech. They could hardly be bothered to acknowledge the heroes in the audience when they were introduced. While the Dems brought illegal immigrants, Trump invited actual paragons of American character and the families of victims of illegal immigrant crimes, as well as a victim of North Korea.

It was embarrassing, like watching the anti-Semites in the UN stomp out of the room when Benjamin Netanyahu speaks. How is it any different? Our Democrats behave exactly like the most racist, intolerant people on the planet, and in their own Capitol.

Besides blind hatred of Trump, Democrats have one issue and one issue only, the prioritization of illegal immigrants. The Democratic Party is today the party of illegal immigrants. That is their core constituency, that is who they represent over and above Americans.

It matters where the seats of power are located. Given the populist revolt in the United States and Europe against the so-called "global elite," it is time to refigure the geography of governmental and transnational power.

Take the United Nations.

Much of the international body's perceived negatives derive from being in the world's richest and most visible city, New York. But what if U.N. elites did not have easy access to instant television exposure, tony Manhattan digs, and who's-who networking?

Most of the world is non-Western. Many Western elites are apologetic over past sins of imperialism and colonialism.  So why not move the United Nations to Haiti, Libya or Uganda?

Liberals treasure the United Nations. Conservatives don't trust its often anti-democratic and anti-American tenor. So why not split the difference by staying in the United Nations but, after 66 years of a New York headquarters, finally allowing another country a chance at hosting the U.N.?

Washington, D.C., is often considered out of touch, both politically and geographically, with the rest of America. Given Washington's huge number of federal workers, why not disperse at least some of its agencies westward to ensure demographic diversity?

Russian affairs used to attract outsized attention at the annual gatherings of the World Economic Forum in Davos.  Not this year.

In Davos last week, the global business elite appeared not to be interested in either the problems or opportunities connected to this troubled and trouble-making power.

Moscow’s delegation of Davos-schmoozing veterans tried to give the Russian question a new spin, but they had next to nothing to say on any of the topics at the focus of this year’s debates: whether it was the fourth industrial revolution, disturbances in world trade, or deepening inequality (which Russia exemplifies) (New Times, January 24).

At Davos, the main theme is the future of the world economy – and in that regard, Russia doesn’t matter much in 2018.

United States President Donald Trump’s keynote address was the highlight at Davos, and he didn’t even bother mentioning Russia.  Neither did British Prime Minister Theresa May nor Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.  No wonder Putin didn’t attend, but sent underlings.

Over explicit American protests, Turkey this week attacked an American-allied Kurdish-led militia in the northern Syrian town of Afrin, killing nearly 300 fighters.

The Kurdish YPG militia were America's boots on the ground in the successful war against ISIS, and the Department of Defense earlier this month announced a plan to support a 30,000-strong force. That plan is in shambles now after Turkish fighters and tanks crushed their strong point in Afrin.

Vice President Pence's Middle East trip was one of the ultimate feel-good moments in American diplomatic history. But before we feel too good about ourselves, we should take stock our strategic humiliation in Syria.

The Turkish attack, cynically labeled "Operation Olive Branch," had Moscow's open approval, as the Russian press reported. Russian permission was required for Turkish warplanes to fly in Syrian air space. “Turkey and Russia are waging proxy war against the United States in Syria," Cengiz Çandar wrote yesterday in Al-Monitor.

With the support of Russia, China, and Iran, Tinpot Tayyip Erdogan flipped the bird to the United States of America, and got away with it.

On Wednesday (1/24), President Donald Trump had a long talk with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The telephone call came in the wake of Erdogan’s most recent demonstration of the fact that under his leadership, the Turkish-American alliance has become an empty shell.

The White House read-out of Trump’s conversation with Erdogan can be read in several ways.

Trump’s conversation with Erdogan appeared to be an attempt to bridge the yawning gap between the US’s policy of supporting and working with the Kurds in Syria and its deference for Erdogan and his regime.

The read-out of their conversation also reflected the distinct possibility that the Trump administration is implementing a sophisticated strategy for contending with Erdogan’s Turkey and its open and growing hostility to the US and its allies.

To understand that strategy it is first imperative to understand the present state of Turkey’s military.

Suppose what many are now suspecting is completely true -- that the FBI, or parts of it, exonerated Hillary Clinton and her cohorts with a mock investigation, attempted to swing our presidential election against Donald Trump and then continued to undermine the new administration after they had won with illegitimate claims of Russian collusion orchestrated by sleazy political lowlifes?

While this is not quite Stalinist -- no one was tortured in Lubyanka or sent to the Gulag for life -- it's not all that distant. It's tantamount to an internal coup d'état that is still ongoing.

And just as in many coups throughout history, many of the participants are convinced they are doing the right thing, that they are on the side of justice, even though they are bending it, especially because they are bending it. The ends justify the means, as the old homicidal slogan goes.

The inside of the FBI, particularly at the higher reaches, seems to have been filled with a band of smug, self-righteous ideologues who would do anything, erase or rephrase anything, to get their way.  And then lie about it.  Either that or quote scripture.  Or form "secret societies."

Put another way, should "lying to the FBI" be a crime, when the FBI itself lies?  That's not a zen koan. That's reality.

So if -- and it's not that big an if anymore -- this story out of a spy novel (the density of Le Carré coupled with the outlandishness of Fleming) is indeed the truth, what do we do about it?  The answer is not easy.

Dreamers. You hear so much about them. Who are they?

Let’s not play word games. “Dreamers” are illegal aliens. Harsh but true. There are more than 1.3 million Dreamers living in the United States, of which 800,000 or so had registered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

They really shouldn’t be here. So they need to face the music, and start packing to leave. Shouldn’t they?

Oh, right -- we’re told they’re in this pickle through no fault of their own.  “No fault of their own” is the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card. And someday it will gain them an E-Z Pass to oodles of special privileges.

Before we give away the store, however, we might want to think this through. We seem to know what it means to be a Dreamer. But are Dreamers really Dreamers? Or could it be that some are actually DINOs (Dreamers in Name Only)?

The anonymous attack on comedian Aziz Ansari, essentially for being a lousy date and inconsiderate sex partner, has led some to think that the spate of attacks on men for sexual harassment and assault might be slowing down.

Although the account by “Grace,” the pseudonymous accuser, has been defended by many, others who have supported the outing of sexual assaulters have drawn the line at lumping bad dates in with more serious sexual malfeasance.

Still others hope that the absurdity of Grace’s charges will force a rollback of the ever-escalating demonization of men guilty of nothing more than failing to fulfill a woman’s subjective expectations even when not made explicit.

Don’t count on it.  Modern feminism for years has institutionalized a fundamental incoherence.

Women are the equals of men and should have the same autonomy and agency, particularly over their sexual choices. At the same time, they need protection from men, who are empowered by a persistent “patriarchy” that encodes in women’s psyches a deference to that power.

This internal contradiction has given us the Snowflake Feminists.

World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland.  Team Trump stormed the fortress of the global elites on their first day (1/24) in Davos, defiantly accusing foes of blinding the world with free trade humbug and abusing the international trade system.  Their boss arrives tomorrow (1/25) and delivers his keynote speech Friday (1/26).

The US economic cabinet – Steve Mnuchin at Treasury, Wilbur Ross at Commerce, Rick Perry at Energy – said America has long been the victim of daily guerrilla warfare by trade hypocrites and is at last drawing its own sword in response, no longer willing to tolerate what it deems to be systematic gouging of the open US market.

“Trade wars are fought every single day: every single day there are always parties violating the rules and trying to take unfair advantage of things,” said Mr. Ross. “So a trade war has been in place for quite a little while. The difference is, US troops are now coming to the ramparts."

Mr. Ross denied that President Donald Trump is retreating into commercial isolation, insisting that the blizzard of 84 separate trade measures, probes and sanctions over the last year are a response to mercantilist abuses that have been tolerated for far too long.

“What has provoked a lot of the trade actions is inappropriate behavior on the part of our trading counter-parties.  Many countries are good at the rhetoric of free trade but actually practice extreme protectionism, and that is a problem the president is quite determined to deal with."