• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

“Alejandro Mayorkas’ 7 Border Lies”…..A Top Biden Fraud In Action!



The New York Post’s features an editorial on its cover this morning. The editorial is titled “Alejandro Mayorkas’ 7 border lies.” The cover flags the editorial in block letters: LINE OF DECEIT. (It may also refer to Miranda Devine’s companion column “Biden White House’s lies a matter of life and death.” However, the cover story link in the Post’s Morning Report email goes to the editorial.)

The Post editorial performs a public service as it addresses in one place issues we raised daily over the past week. I am posting the text of the editorial in its entirety below the break.

* * * * *

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas is spinning as fast as he can. But no matter how he tries to wave away the crisis at the border, his appearance on “Fox News Sunday” illustrated how this administration is deceiving the American public. Here are some of Mayorkas’ biggest whoppers:

Lie 1: “Approximately, I think it’s about ten thousand or so, twelve thousand. It could be even higher.”

For the last couple weeks, Mayorkas has bobbed and weaved whenever he was asked how many of the Haitians camping under the Del Rio, Texas bridge were being released into the United States and how many were being deported. At one point he blamed “18-hour days” for his lack of clarity. But it’s clear the administration always knew the numbers, they just didn’t want to reveal them. Now that it’s impossible to stop the process, he again lowballs the number at 12,000 — vaguely adding it could be more. He knows it’s more.

Lie 2: “What we do is we follow the law as Congress has passed it.”

What bunk. First of all, the administration’s justification for deporting some people to Haiti was Title 42, which allows them to block entry due to the coronavirus health crisis. So what’s the difference between the 2,000 or so they flew to Haiti and the 12,000+ they let in? It seems completely arbitrary. Much more likely is that, faced with backlash from Democratic activists, they stopped using Title 42. Meanwhile, in August, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration must reinstitute President Trump’s “remain in Mexico” policy, which required asylum seekers to wait there until their cases are heard. Biden and Mayorkas are just ignoring it; Texas is going to court to force them to comply. That’s not following the law — that’s flouting it.

Lie 3: “We have enforcement guidelines in place that provide the individuals who are recent border crossers who do not show up for their hearings are enforcement priorities and will be removed.”

Fox News’ Chris Wallance noted that 44 percent of those who apply for asylum fail to show up for their court hearing. Oh no, Mayorkas said, this time will be different. Considering he can’t even give an exact number of people released into the US, how can we possibly believe him? Aid groups are helping these migrants blend into society, and liberal politicians in states like New York and California will quickly make sure that they don’t cooperate with Immigrants and Customs Enforcement — which has been detoothed by Biden anyway. No one’s getting deported.

Lie 4: Border Patrol agents blocking migrants from crossing illegally, “painfully conjured up the worst elements of our nation’s ongoing battle against systemic racism.”

The photographer who took that picture already has debunked this. The agent was holding reins, and they didn’t whip the migrants. The agents were trying to block migrants from rushing past the horses into the US, which is their job. Biden and Mayorkas claim to want to follow the law and prevent illegal immigration, then shamefully slander the people who try to enforce those laws. If anyone is to blame, it’s Biden.

Lie 5: “We do not agree with the building of the wall. The law provides that individuals can make a claim for humanitarian relief. That is actually one of our proudest traditions”

The wall is to prevent someone from sneaking over the border illegally. If someone is applying for humanitarian relief, they go to an official border crossing — how can Mayorkas conflate the two? Meanwhile, our amnesty laws are meant to cover people who face persecution at home for their religious, social or political beliefs. Wanting better economic opportunity is not asylum. By all accounts, most of the Haitians coming here are looking for a better life — fair enough. But that would mean applying for a green card, going through the process. Instead they rushed the border, asked for asylum, were given a court date a year or two years down the road and let into the country. Will they show up? And if they do, will any judge rule against them?

Lie 6: “11 million people in this country without lawful presence is a compelling reason why there is unanimity about the fact that our immigration system is broken and legislative reform is needed.”

By “reform,” Mayorkas means “mass amnesty.” To the Democrats, there should be no limit to those allowed into the US, and all of them should become instant legal residents — heck, citizens. And no, there’s not “unanimity” about this, because while most people polled do want a path to citizenship for Dreamers, they also want some border security to ensure that there aren’t 11 million more illegal immigrants living here next year.

Lie 7: “I wouldn’t call it a flood.”

The pictures of a ragged tent city of 15,000 under a bridge in Texas would say otherwise, as would month after month of record numbers of border encounters. But this isn’t the end. Letting 12,000+ into the US en masse just guaranteed that caravan after caravan from Central and South America, not to mention Haiti and Cuba, are massing to come here. Biden and Mayorkas just sent a message to the world: Come on in. The flood has only started.

When Civility, Beauty, and Meaning in Music WAS GLORIOUS! What Is Glorious In America’s Biden-Culture Today?

America’s Greedy Truthless Dems…Among the Most Repulsive “human” fascists in Action!

Loudon County’s school board stops at nothing to prevent Matt Walsh from speaking

By Andrea Widburg at American Thinker:

Loudoun County, Virginia, America’s richest county, is a Washington, D.C.’s bedroom community. That proximity to D.C. probably explains why Democrats hold seven out of the nine seats on the school board, leading the school district to embrace both Critical Race Theory and gender madness. Now that its leftist antics have gained it national attention, Loudoun’s school district is violating state rules—and engaging in conduct it would surely consider racist for elections—to shut down commentary. Its loudest critic, though, managed a perfect end-run around the rule.

The Loudoun County Public Schools district (“LCPS”) has spent tens of thousands of dollars training teachers to teach Critical Race Theory (“CRT”), which categorically derides all Whites as racists and all Blacks as victims and that attacked “heterosexism” and parental control. The result of this racist, zero-sum thinking was that the district become notorious for canceling several Dr. Seuss books, while teachers formed a cabal to attack any parents who objected to CRT.

LCPS has also embraced wholeheartedly the idea of the “transgender” fad, even though there’s no scientific support for this theory. This fad is as evil as witch-burning given the number of lives it destroys, whether it’s the deluded people who are chemically and surgically mutilated or the sane ones hounded out of the public square for trying to stop this madness. For example, the LCPS board fired a teacher who stated at a public board meeting that he cannot in good conscience use anti-science pronouns. The Virginia Supreme Court reversed that firing but it remains to be seen whether the teacher can be fired again for violating the policy in his classroom.

Of course, we know the hypocrisy behind all this virtue signaling. It’s one thing if parents vote to flood poor Hispanic and Black communities with potentially dangerous illegal aliens from Haiti and Afghanistan. It’s another thing entirely if schools in those same Blue communities say that it’s systemically racist for your White son to attend an Ivy League college or that your daughter must share a locker room or compete in sports with a fully equipped male who insists he’s a girl. Still, the leftist hysteria endangers children and liberty, so it needs to be stopped.

Matt Walsh, a celebrated political commentator, is now making it his business to speak out against school board madness whenever school boards institute policies about makes, CRT, or transgenderism. And he’s very, very good, as a viral video of him at a Nashville school board meeting shows:

Question: Why is it so many of the very DEM wealthy in today’s America ARE SUCH GREEDY FASCISTS INTERESTED IN COMMUNISM OR NAZI-LIKE FASCISM? Is it merely from personal arrogance from families raised in such settings, or personal greed and snot who simply hate people they don’t own?

Is it because their self arrogance filled with power drives them to make their children become their twins? ghr

Doug Schoen….One Of The Very Few Honest Dems Noted Today Throughout Our America!

Budget impasses mark a critical turning point in Biden’s presidency


Budget impasses mark a critical turning point in Biden's presidency

As Democratic infighting continues over their $3.5 trillion social spending legislation, the fate of Joe Biden’s presidency and the Democrats’ majority in Congress hang in the balance. 

While moderate Democrats have pushed for legislation with a significantly lower price tag, progressives have dug their heels in, refusing to vote for a bill that is less than $3.5 trillion. Progressives have also threatened to kill the president’s bipartisan infrastructure bill, which is scheduled for a final vote tomorrow, if the moderates don’t make a reconciliation counteroffer that is robust enough by their standards.

Ultimately, President Biden must act urgently, using his influence among Democrats and moderate Republicans in the House to ensure the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure agreement, first and foremost.https://c0b0c300a94b61764245843ec42f5895.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

Simultaneously, the president along with Democratic leaders in Congress must develop a set of principles or a framework that will convince progressives not to kill the bipartisan infrastructure plan, and then work to negotiate down the size of the $3.5 trillion bill to something that moderate Democratic Senators — namely, Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) — can get on board with. 

If not, the Biden presidency could be left in tatters, with nothing to show for legislatively on both traditional infrastructure and on so-called “human infrastructure.”

To be sure, the political stakes couldn’t be higher for President Biden and the Democrats. Biden’s job approval rating, according to Gallup, dropped six points over the past month to 43 percent, a new low for the president. Further, his approval has steadily declined over the course of the year — it stood at 49 percent in August, 56 percent in June, and 57 percent in April.

“Among elected presidents since World War II, only [Donald] Trump has had a lower job approval rating than Biden does at a similar point in their presidencies,” Gallup reported, also noting that “President Biden’s current 37 percent approval rating among independents is his lowest to date and 24-points below his personal high of 61 percent.”

To further complicate matters for Democrats, government funding is set to run out on Sept. 30 — which would result in a government shutdown — unless both houses of Congress pass a continuing resolution to keep the government funded until Dec. 3. 

At the same time, the U.S. is set to default on our debt sometime in mid-October if Congress does not vote to raise the debt ceiling, which would trigger a historic financial crisis — or an “economic catastrophe,” as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Last week, the House voted to extend government funding until Dec. 3rd and raise the debt ceiling, which passed with no Republican votes. Senate Republicans have now threatened to block the resolution due to the debt-limit hike — even though Democrats voted to raise the limit three times under President Trump — as a way to protest the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion social spending bill.

Republicans are clearly using this political maneuver to box Democrats into a corner. A government shutdown would be detrimental to President Biden’s and the Democrats’ agenda, and Democrats need to avoid a shutdown at all costs. 

Thus, with Republicans united in their opposition, it is more than likely that Democrats will agree to a continuing resolution without a provision to raise the debt ceiling. This means Democrats will need to either find a way to raise the limit in the next month on a bipartisan basis — which is unlikely, given the Republicans’ posture — or they will be forced to go it alone.

Even if Democrats find another way to raise the debt ceiling without Republican support, likely via the reconciliation process, Democrats would need to put in writing the precise amount they are going to spend. In turn, this would force a number of Democrats running in swing-states and swing-districts in 2022 to make a politically detrimental vote.

To note, historically, some government shutdowns caused by Republicans seeking economic concessions from Democratic presidents have backfired on the G.O.P. This was the case when Republicans shut down the government twice under President Bill Clinton over budget standoffs — which likely played a role in helping Clinton win reelection in 1996.

However, President Biden’s and Democrats’ political position is far too precarious — and their entire agenda is in far too much peril — for them to bet on history repeating itself.

To be sure, we are at a turning point in Joe Biden’s presidency — and whatever he chooses to do next will make or break the Democrats’ chances of holding onto their control of government in 2022.

Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. He is the co-author of a forthcoming book “The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.”

Is America Entering A Fog…..Or POISON GAS?

How It Might End, Act I

It seems to be that we have alarm bells going off all around us. The oddity is that so few people seem to hear them. 

By Roger Kimball at American Greatness:

September 25, 2021

A couple of years ago, I had the honor of publishing American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup by Frank Buckley, a prolific author and law professor at George Mason University. Buckley began by noting the obvious: that we in America are more divided now than at any time since the 1850s. We know how that Disunited States of America worked out, and the horror of the Civil War—what Buckley calls Secession 1.0—has led many of us to conclude that we’d put up with almost anything rather than risk a repeat of that disaster. 

“Almost” anything. 

Buckley does not predict a second American secession, exactly, but he shows, convincingly, I think, how it might come about. “The bitterness” of our life together, “the contempt for opponents, the growing tolerance of violence, all invite us to think that we’d all be happier were we two different countries.” There is something to that. And something to Buckley’s admonitory conclusion: “In all the ways that matter, save for the naked force of the law, we are already divided into two nations, just as much as in 1861.”

I hesitate to spoil the ending, but it is probably worth noting that in the end, despite his warnings and various scenarios of how the divorce might happen, Buckley turns out, again like most (but not all of us) to be a unionist. The United States may be too big and too powerful for its own or anyone else’s good, but might, while it doesn’t make right, does or at least conduce to stability. 

And consider the alternative world orders on offer: Communist China? Islamic fundamentalism? European socialism? 

No thank you. 

At the same time, some current events lead me to suspect that some of the scenarios Buckley imagines have a lot of divisive life left in them. At one point, he observes, “A state that uses every means at its disposal to neuter a federal law might render it unenforceable within its jurisdiction, at least until the Supreme Court is able to rule on the matter. That might be years later, however, and that may be all it takes, if during the interim a new president has been elected and the new administration takes the state’s view of the question.” 

But that’s not the only eventuality. What is happening right now, today, in Texas with respect to the Southern border makes me wonder whether even the Supreme Court will have the final say if the volume and the animosity there increase. A recent news story tells us that the Texas attorney general has asked a judge to intervene against the Department of Homeland Security’s refusal to enforce the “remain in Mexico,” Trump era policy that allowed immigration to return “newly arrived illegal immigrants back across the border into Mexico to await their immigration court proceedings.” 

But imagine this. Imagine that the Supreme Court rules for the Biden Administration and Texas ignores the ruling. What then? Would Biden then seek to send federal troops to Texas to enforce the order? How do you suppose that would go down? (And how many troops do you suppose would obey the order?)

I do not expect it to come to that. I am not in favor of secession; but I do think we are rapidly approaching the situation described by those overused lines from Yeats’s “Second Coming”: “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;/ Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, . . .” 

And then? 

The Improved Science of Politics

Thinking about our situation puts me in mind of Walter Bagehot’s cheery but clear-eyed masterpiece Physics and Politics (1872), a copiously annotated edition of which I edited and published some years ago. Bagehot traces the evolution of civilization from its rude and violent beginnings to his age, what he calls “the age of discussion,” when making a point typically counted for more in political life than the point of one’s sword. 

The many centrifugal forces contending in our society today prompts me to reprise some thoughts about Bagehot’s recommendations for the preservation and extension of social comity. 

By “discussion,” it should go without saying, Bagehot did not mean idle chitchat but robust, untrammeled inquiry about what Aristotle called “the good life for man.” What sort of regime is most likely to nurture the human attributes we value? How should we lead our lives? Where do our fundamental allegiances lie? 

Serious talk—and serious thought—about such matters is integral to the metabolism of a free society. It provides the space where choice can blossom. Which is why strategies to quash discussion are inimical to freedom. 

Given the astonishing recrudescence of multifarious efforts to disrupt the free flow of discussion—from the astringencies of political correctness to the minatory dicta of woke ideologues—it is worth stepping back to ponder the career of this subtle but enlivening pillar of liberty.

Let me start with the mouthful that is Bagehot’s subtitle for Physics and Politics: Thoughts on the Application of the Principles of “Natural Selection” and “Inheritance” to Political Society. By “physics” Bagehot meant not “physics” in our contemporary sense, but something closer to what the Germans mean by Wissenschaft: science, inquiry in its broadest sense. (Classicist that he was, he doubtless also had in mind the Greek word φύσις, “nature.”) By “politics,” Bagehot meant not only partisan politics in the modern sense but also, more broadly, the arrangements men make in order to live together with a modicum of peace. 

Liberty, Bagehot points out, is not a static endowment. What we mean by it changes or evolves over time. The notion that human beings—and, by analogy, that advanced human societies—developed out of more primitive forms had been in the air for decades by the time Bagehot wrote Physics and Politics. Evolution—often called “descent with modification” or simply “development” in the early 19th century—was part of the mental furniture of the age long before Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The point to bear in mind is that, despite his talk about “natural selection” and “inheritance,” Bagehot was writing not as a biologist but rather as a sort of rhetorical tuning fork, vibrating to ideas that were “in the air.” He was, as he observes early on in the book, merely “searching out and following up an analogy.” It was clear that one generation of organisms both resembled but also differed from the parent stock: It seemed clear that the same was true of human societies as well. Bagehot’s subject was not “natural selection” in any technical sense but rather “the political prerequisites of progress, and especially of early progress,” where by “progress” Bagehot meant both advancement in knowledge and technical know-how and advancements in the institution of liberty.

Accordingly, a lot of Physics and Politics is concerned with beginnings: with the slow, hard first chapters of civilization. It is difficult for us, the beneficiaries of many centuries of political ingenuity, to imagine with what difficulty a polity of any sort was forged and maintained. In early times, Bagehot wrote,

the quantity of government is much more important than its quality. What you want is a comprehensive rule binding men together. . . . What this rule is does not matter so much. A good rule is better than a bad one, but any rule is better than none. . . . How to get the obedience of men is the hard problem; what you do with that obedience is less critical.

This first step—inaugurating law, custom, and habit—is the hardest, but history proper begins with the next step: “What is most evident,” Bagehot observes, “is not the difficulty of getting fixed law, but getting out of a fixed law; not of cementing . . . a cake of custom, but of breaking the cake of custom; not of making the first preservative habit, but of breaking through it, and reaching something better.”

Bagehot traces the vicissitudes of this dialectic between stasis and innovation through various stages from “The Preliminary Age”—that is, the rude time of prehistory when “the strongest killed out the weakest as they could”—to modern times and “The Age of Discussion.”

Necessity and War

Along the way, he has many politically incorrect things to say about the civilizing—or at least order-inducing—effects of violence and the hard road any population faces in forging a national identity. The perennial problem—and the admonitory theme of Physics and Politics—is that man, the strongest and smartest of the animals, “was obliged to be his own domesticator; he had to tame himself.” Consequently, Bagehot says in an observation that I often quote and that ought to make us pause and think, “history is strewn with the wrecks of nations which have gained a little progressiveness at the cost of a great deal of hard manliness, and have thus prepared themselves for destruction as soon as the movements of the world gave a chance for it.” This was an insight that Kipling expanded upon in his great poem “The Gods of the Copybook Headings.”

            . . . They promised perpetual peace.

They swore, if we gave them our weapons,

         that the wars of the tribes would cease.

But when we disarmed They sold us and

          delivered us bound to our foe,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings

          said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

Bagehot is a mild and companionable writer. But as his observation about the perils of progressivism suggests, there is a great deal in Physics and Politics to shock readers inclined to a pacific view of human development or a politically correct understanding of life. “Let us consider,” he writes in a famous passage,

in what sense a village of English colonists is superior to a tribe of Australian natives who roam about them. Indisputably in one, and that a main sense, they are superior. They can beat the Australians in war when they like; they can take from them anything they like, and kill any of them they choose. As a rule, in all the outlying and uncontested districts of the world, the aboriginal native lies at the mercy of the intruding European. Nor is this all. Indisputably in the English village there are more means of happiness, a greater accumulation of the instruments of enjoyment, than in the Australian tribe. The English have all manner of books, utensils, and machines which the others do not use, value, or understand. And in addition . . . there is a general strength which is capable of being used in conquering a thousand difficulties, and is an abiding source of happiness.

In fact, the importance of military prowess in binding a population into a society is a leitmotif in Physics and Politics. Bagehot notes that the progress of military art is the “most conspicuous, I was about to say the most showy,” fact in human history. “All through the earliest times,” he writes,

martial merit is a token of real merit: the nation that wins is the nation that ought to win. The simple virtues of such ages mostly make a man a soldier if they make him anything. No doubt the brute force of number may be too potent even then (as so often it is afterwards): civilization may be thrown back by the conquest of many very rude men over a few less rude men. But the first elements of civilization are great military advantages, and, roughly, it is a rule of the first times that you can infer merit from conquest, and that progress is promoted by the competitive examination of constant war.

Bagehot was undeceived about the exigencies that face a nation at war. “So long as war is the main business of nations, temporary despotism—despotism during the campaign—is indispensable.”

The point is, Bagehot argues, that “war both needs and generates certain virtues; not the highest, but what may be called the preliminary virtues, as valor, veracity, the spirit of obedience, the habit of discipline.” That is to say, war, and the martial virtues it requires, makes certain valuable things possible, including civilization itself: “Civilization begins,” Bagehot writes, “because the beginning of civilization is a military advantage”—an unflattering thought that many will find shocking.

Above all, Bagehot was writing against “the old idea which still here creeps out in conversation, and sometimes in writing” that

politics are simply a subdivision of immutable ethics; that there are certain rights of men in all places and all times, which are the sole and sufficient foundation of all government, and that accordingly a single stereotype government is to make the tour of the world—and you have no more right to deprive a Dyak of his vote in a ‘possible’ Polynesian Parliament, than you have to steal his mat.

The difficult insight that Bagehot is everywhere at pains to communicate is that not all things are possible at all times and all places. If political liberty is a precious possession, it is forged in a long, painful development of civilization, much of which is distinctly, and necessarily, illiberal. Hence the advantage of binocular vision, which allowed the young Bagehot, even as he was extolling Louis Napoleon’s coup in 1851, to risk his life helping the republicans build barricades to resist him. This was not an expression of irony or inconstancy on Bagehot’s part; it was an expression of political realism. As he put it elsewhere, Louis Napoleon’s Second Empire was “an admirable government for present and coarse purposes, but a detestable government for future and refined purposes.” One must live in the present; one can help prepare for the future.

All such “hard” observations constitute the strophe of Bagehot’s argument. The antistrophe, the opposite movement—the movement toward which Physics and Politics as a whole tends—is that “the whole history of civilization is strewn with creeds and institutions which were invaluable at first, and deadly afterwards.” Slavery is one such institution. And ultimately, he suggests, the widespread dissemination of the martial sensibility may be as well.

Bagehot had some equally piquant observations about the moral limitations of the unbridled philanthropic impulse. “The most melancholy of human reflections,” he writes,

is that, on the whole, it is a question whether the benevolence of mankind does most good or harm. Great good, no doubt, philanthropy does, but then it also does great evil. It augments so much vice, it multiplies so much suffering, it brings to life such great populations to suffer and to be vicious, that it is open to argument whether it be or be not an evil to the world, and this is entirely because excellent people fancy they can do much by rapid action—that they will most benefit the world when they most relieve their own feelings.

There are two things to note about this passage. One is Bagehot’s observation about those “excellent people” who believe, mistakenly, that they benefit the world most when they flatter their own feelings of virtue. How much pain and misery this spirit of do-goodism has spread throughout the world! And the second, an important theme throughout Bagehot’s writings, concerns the advantages of what he calls elsewhere “slow government.” It was the American socialist Norman Thomas, I think, who cheerfully described communism as “democracy in a hurry.” Socialism’s velocity, Thomas thought, was a major part of what recommended it. Bagehot disagreed. “The essence of civilization,” he wrote in an essay on Matthew Arnold, “is dullness.”

In an ultimate analysis, it is only an elaborate invention . . . for abolishing the fierce passions, the unchastened enjoyments, the awakening dangers, the desperate conflicts, . . . the excitements of a barbarous age, and to substitute for them indoor pleasures, placid feelings, and rational amusements. That a grown man should be found to write reviews is in itself a striking fact. Suppose you asked Achilles to do such a thing, do you imagine he would consent?

Bagehot’s point was that, in an advanced civilization, deliberateness, circumspection, and adherence to process are virtues that save us from the myopia of impulsiveness.

A Government by Discussion

He is not, I hasten to add, advocating quietism or inaction. If the English had mastered the art of slow, deliberate government, that mastery did not hinder their energetic pursuit of their own interests. The achievement was moderation, yes, but it was what Bagehot called animated moderation, moderation chastened by deliberateness but underwritten by energy. “When we have a definite end in view,” Bagehot writes, “we can act well enough. The campaigns of our soldiers are as energetic as any campaigns ever were; the speculations of our merchants have greater promptitude, greater audacity, greater vigor than any such speculations ever had before.” But all that action takes place in a framework of circumspection.

Bagehot’s insight is something that Daniel Hannan echoed in his book The New Road to Serfdom. In 2008, when the Great Recession was just beginning, Rahm Emanuel, then Barack Obama’s chief of staff, gleefully said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” What he meant was that a crisis makes people anxious and therefore vulnerable, and that it is easier in periods of crisis to exploit that vulnerability and push through initiatives to enlarge government and usurp freedom. Which is why, Hannan cautions, in periods of crisis one should, if one is prudent, exercise double diligence about acting hastily. “Most disastrous policies,” Hannan observed, “have been introduced at times of emergency.” How often have you heard a politician or government bureaucrat tell you that “Doing nothing is not an option”? In fact, as Hannan rightly observes, “Doing nothing is always an option, and often it is the best option.” This was something that Calvin Coolidge, one of my favorite presidents, acknowledged when he said to a busybody aide: “Don’t just do something; stand there!”

Bagehot would have liked Coolidge. Born into a banking family, Bagehot is said to have stolen down from his apartments above the bank when he was anxious, to run his hands through piles of gold sovereigns. He found the contact soothing, and he would, I think, have approved of Coolidge’s habits of fiscal restraint as well as his wary view of hyperactive government.

Bagehot’s contention is that, for us, progress in civilization is measured by increasing deliberateness. Parliamentary government is valuable not only because it facilitates action but also, and increasingly, because it retards it. “If you want to stop instant and immediate action,” Bagehot advises, “always make it a condition that the action shall not begin till a considerable number of persons have talked over it, and have agreed on it. If those persons be people of different temperaments, different ideas, and different educations, you have an almost infallible security that nothing, or almost nothing, will be done with excessive rapidity.”

The habit of discussion is the handmaiden of this process. In this sense, the spirit of free discussion is not only a condition of scientific inquiry, it is also an adjunct to the virtue of tolerance and guarantor of intellectual freedom. Bertrand Russell once made the sad observation that “people can only agree about what they’re not really interested in.” (What I think that really meant is that Bertrand Russell couldn’t really agree about anything that interested him.) Some favored nations—preeminently, perhaps, some nations that are part of what James Bennett calls the Anglosphere—have had a more beneficent experience of discussion. A look at our history shows that Bagehot was right: If we ask what has nurtured liberty where it has prospered and what has denied it where it has failed to prosper, a large part of the answer is talk—not idle chatter but rather a situation in which government was “to a great and a growing extent a government by discussion, and where the subjects of that discussion were in some degree abstract, or, as we should say, matters of principle. . . . A free state—a state with liberty—means a state . . . in which the sovereign power is divided between many persons, and in which there is a discussion among those persons.”

Alarm Bells

There are two sides to Bagehot’s argument in Physics and Politics. One side is celebratory. The story of civilization’s rise is a success story, all the more bracing because the road was hard. At first, progress was slow. There were many failures along the way. At last, though, liberty, undergirt by the “slow government” of discussion, won out in lucky polities like the U.K., the United States, and Australia.

That is not the end of the story, however, for, as Bagehot notes, if government by discussion is “a principal organ for improving mankind,” it is also “a plant of singular delicacy.” The question of how best to nurture this delicate plant is Bagehot’s final problem. Part of the answer is in facing up to the unpalatable realities about power that make civilization possible. The other part lies in embracing that “animated moderation,” that “union of life with measure, of spirit with reasonableness,” which assures that discussion will continue without descending into violence or anarchy. It seems like a small thing. But then achieved order always does—until it is lost.

As we look around at the many assaults on free discussion today, the prospects for the continuation of our regime of liberty seems up for grabs in a more fundamental way than at any time since World War II. It was only a few years ago that the United Nations pondered an international law against blasphemy—against blasphemy!—to defend Islam against its detractors. A bit later, representatives of the United States met in London with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to discuss whether speaking about religion can violate international law. Yes, that’s right. Around the same time, Egypt convicted eight Americans in absentia for blasphemy; if apprehended, they could face the death penalty. Meanwhile in Afghanistan, the Taliban has just announced that it is reintroducing barbaric punishments like stoning and amputation for offices against the faith.

I think Bagehot was right: free discussion is an integral ingredient, a veritable pillar of liberty. But that freedom is under serious threat today by religious fanatics, overweening government bureaucrats, and a complacent populace. David Hume once observed: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” It seems to be that we have alarm bells going off all around us. The oddity is that so few people seem to hear them. No wonder secession is once again in the air. 

Fascists Everywhere and All Of The Time CREATE COUNTLESS TONS OF DIRT! WHAT ELSE IS NEW?

Critical Race Theory and the Many Piles of Dirt It Creates

By Chuck Berk at American Thinker:

I grew up in the ’50s and ’60s on a quiet cul-de-sac on Long Island.  Playing by myself one day I noticed the dirt that had accumulated in the gutter and commenced with great enthusiasm to clean the street with my sandbox shovel.  I started in front of Mrs. Tissenbaum’s house who soon noticed what I was doing and stormed out of her front door to reprimand me for shoveling dirt onto her lawn.  The naïve good intentions of a seven-year-old failed to consider some important questions:  Was it really necessary to clean the whole street?  What about the problem of leaving piles of dirt on everyone’s lawns?   Clearly, I was trying to fix a problem that didn’t need fixing while making matters worse.  Mrs. Tissenbaum helped me learn an important lesson that day.

The quixotic goal of ridding the world of racism is as unattainable and wrought with unintended consequences.  Yes, racism remains among us, but America’s laws and practices have unquestionably helped our country evolve over the centuries and decades since slavery and Jim Crow were defeated.  In fact, America, despite its flaws, remains a shining beacon of hope for millions of people of all races and nationalities from around the world wishing to live a better life.  Certainly, we should all strive for self-awareness and improvement in our interactions with people of different backgrounds.  But, in the process of seeking perfection, we are creating more destructive piles of dirt than the ones we initially tried to fix.

As woke clergy use their pulpit, prestige, and resources to promote “Racial Equity and Justice” training in order to help us become “more aware of our own bias and privilege” allow me to offer a different perspective.  Critical Race Theory, the academic umbrella under which all such training is based, seeks to end racism with racism.  Based on skin color and gross generalizations about white people, CRT relies on the same bigotry that it claims to abhor. 

Despite obvious evidence of progress throughout our society, CRT teaches black people to believe that they remain victims of racism and white people through false narratives such as the 1619 Project.  Indeed, CRT claims that whiteness itself is evidence enough of our implicit and unconscious bias.  Despite the virtuous actions of the vast majority of whites in America such as: advocating for civil rights, hiring regardless of race, engaging in interracial relationships, welcoming non-white neighbors, holding in high esteem blacks in business, government, armed services, medicine, academia, media, sports and throughout pop culture, twice electing a black man president and articulating these values to our children, CRT claims to know the unspoken thoughts, and unconscious biases that live within us, which must be exorcised in an interminable “healing” process.

CRT is based on the myth of systemic racism despite volumes of evidence to the contrary.  As Heather MacDonald wrote in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal shortly after riots broke out following the death

of George Floyd.

“In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.  The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.”

Nevertheless, CRT has created martyrs of George Floyd, Michael Brown, and many others who were not killed by alleged acts of racism but by their own poor choices and violent resistance to the police.  However brutal the death of George Floyd was at the hands of Derek Chauvin, there was no evidence of racism on Chauvin’s part or the police department he worked for.  Yet, a summer of riots in over 200 cities involving massive looting, billions of dollars of damage, and the loss of over two dozen lives resulted.  These riots were not the reaction to police brutality but the false narrative of systemic racism. 

Critical Race Theory, and its precursor affirmative action, relegate the presumed victims of systemic racism to long-term failure by artificially granting accommodations, quotas, money, and status, thereby robbing a class of people of their sense of personal responsibility and self-esteem.  Imagine a first-year black kid at a university, accepted based on his skin color despite his under-performance academically.  How would he and his peers look upon this accomplishment?  How does this affect the view of the black student who earned her way in through actual achievement?  How does she overcome the stigma that this system creates? 

These same concerns apply to blacks once reaching the workplace.  Below the surface naturally exist the questions of who achieved and who received accommodations. And, as Jason Riley discusses in Please Stop Helping Us, placing students and job seekers at higher levels than their ability suggests, actually exacerbates the failure rate.  This is a pile of dirt we should not be creating.

Conversely, CRT rejects the values of hard work, achievement, merit, colorblindness, and assimilation into our shared culture.  As a result, worthy non-black college applicants, job seekers, and professionals attempting to move up are intentionally overlooked in the name of equity.  Not only does this illegally discriminate against people based on skin color but it reduces the quality of results from the positions now held by lower achievers.  Highly technical positions in healthcare, R&D, and science, to name just a few fields, are now being filled by less capable people because of skin color.  (I am, of course, not suggesting that all or most blacks are incapable of filling high professional positions.)  Reducing the hiring standards of these important positions in the name of racial equity threatens the innovation and discovery we would otherwise hope would result by hiring the best and brightest among us, regardless of their skin color.  Another pile of dirt.

Rather than indoctrinating people with training sessions on newly-defined terms like racial equity, white rage, white fragility, unconscious bias, and microaggression, we should be willing to discuss the root causes of the many hurdles facing black children growing up in fatherless homes and in crime-ridden cities across the country.

Furthermore, it is important to consider the roots of Critical Race Theory.  An inquiring and open-minded person would see its alarming connections to Marxism as expressed by the founders of CRT, Black Lives Matter, and the academicians who support these movements.  Where Marxism in America failed over the last one hundred years to attract the “proletariat” in a thriving middle class, today’s Marxists seek to overthrow capitalism through the divisiveness of identity politics and the reduction of the entire society to two classes: privileged/oppressor and victim/oppressed. 

Naïve solutions like reimagining and defunding the police, reduced prosecution of crime, liberalized bail and reduced incarceration have only made matters worse.  Crime is skyrocketing in cities across the country.  We now find ourselves avoiding urban shopping districts.  Drag racing on our streets and highways apparently no longer receives attention from the inert police.  This is the “Ferguson Effect” where police are reluctant to do their job when another violent encounter deemed “racist” might result.  Wave off these thoughts as conspiracy theories but those wishing to destroy America from within are enjoying witnessing the chaos.

In Exodus Chapter 33, following the crisis of the Golden Calf, God tells Moses, effectively: I’ll send an angel to help you but you’re on your own now.  Moses pleads for God to reconsider in 33.16: “For how shall it be known that Your people have gained Your favor unless You go with us, so that we may be distinguished, Your people and I, from every people on the face of the earth?”  The key point being that Jews like me are distinguished from all other people.  Yet, here we Jews are, despite our many ethnicities, languages, customs, cultures, and histories within the Jewish people, being indoctrinated to believe that, based solely on the pigment of our skin, we are indistinguishable not only from each other but also from a 19th-century slave owner or the hooded, white supremacists of the early 20th century. 

Critical Race Theory is the modern manifestation of the Golden Calf.  It is a false idol built on godless myths that aims to replace our history with a new “truth”.  CRT seeks to fundamentally change the world by subordinating common sense and wisdom, eliminating age-old societal structures such as the nuclear family, and establishing manmade ideologies of dubious authority and destructive intent.   This is a very large pile of dirt!

Mrs. Tissenbaum was the adult on the cul-de-sac that needed to show me the foolishness of my street cleaning project.  I pray there are adults willing to stand up to a destructive movement that is based on falsehoods, is making matters worse, and fails to confront the real problems facing blacks in America today.

Photo credit: Colin Grice (cropped)  CC BY-SA 2.0 license

Do Biden Creeps Rule USA?


by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

Chinese Communist Party leaders believe that their country will soon dominate the world. I don’t know: maybe it already does. I am not sure when or how we decided to have China do our manufacturing for us, but the implications of that decision–if in fact it was ever consciously made–continue to unfold.

China’s utter dominance in metals production is documented here.

According to The Visual Capitalist, global steel production has more than tripled over the past 50 years despite the fact that nations like the U.S. and Russia have seen declining domestic production and a rising reliance upon imports.

The most stunning aspect of the chart is China’s absolute dominance in the industry. China now produces about half of all of the steel in the world.

Click to enlarge:

China has similar dominance in processing other metals. According to the International Energy Agency, China processes 40 percent of the global copper supply, more than 50 percent of the global lithium supply, and more than 80 percent of rare earth metals.

One of the many reasons why transitioning to “green” energy is almost unfathomably stupid is that it would put America’s entire energy system at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party. (They make our wind turbines and solar panels, too. They dominate solar panel production in part because they save on costs by using slave labor.) But maybe our economy is pretty much in China’s hands already.


Why Your Otherwise Smart Friends Think Stupid Things?

By Clarice Feldman at American Thinker:

So many of our friends and family live harried lives, working, keeping households, caring for family members that they have no time to question the news accounts they hear on their car radios while chauffeuring the kids to school, shopping, for essentials, and commuting. And if they get newspapers delivered or watch the news, they get only enough for a header and a couple of graphs or a quick byte before other more pressing things require their attention. Those of us with more time and interest in the news get an entirely different picture and that makes our discussions with them so fraught. We live in two different realities.

I give you four examples from this week’s news stories. The anti-Semitism of the Squad (and a not insignificant part of the Democratic party), horse patrols in Del Rio, the Arizona election audit, and the Hunter Biden emails.  In three of the examples, one can see how if the error was not inadvertent, the effort to correct the record was either feeble or nonexistent, giving rise to a reasonable assumption that the publishers did not mind leaving readers with an utterly false impression for the benefit of Biden and the Left.

The Anti-Semitism of the Squad

To those of us paying attention, the shift to anti-Semitism from a not insignificant part of the Democratic party is unmistakable. But, probably because they share that view, the publishers of the New York Times have gone to some pains to disguise this. This week, the effort by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, her squad, and their hangers-on to strip from the budget funds for Israel’s Iron Dome, a major defensive weapon against rocket attacks, went down in defeat. The Times carried a quote from her on the loss in their print edition, which they later renoved from the online editions: “NYT Removes Line Saying AOC Changed Iron Dome Vote Because of “Influential Lobbyists and Rabbis.” From the Jewish Journal:

The article stated that Ocasio-Cortez “tearfully” decided to change her vote after a meeting with her fellow Squad members, which the article initially said “underscored how wrenching the vote was for even outspoken progressives, who have been caught between their principles and the still powerful pro-Israel voices in their party, such as influential lobbyists and rabbis.” It was subsequently changed to say that the matter “underscored how wrenching the vote was for even outspoken progressives, who have been caught between their principles and the still powerful pro-Israel voices in their party.” As of this writing, the article does not provide an editor’s note explaining the change.

Do the Times’ most loyal readers on Manhattan’s Upper West Side ever rebel against the Times’ and AOC’s notions about Israel and the need for such an important defensive measure? Who knows? Maybe they were too busy running to Zabars and posting virtue-signaling Black Lives Matter posts on their lintels to notice. Others did, however:

“As a proud Zionist and Rabbi, I was surprised to learn that we Rabbis have powers far beyond those of mortal men that could somehow cajole AOC to change her anti-Israel vote to ‘present,’” Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean and Director of Global Social Action Agenda at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said in a statement to the Journal. “Another explanation is that The Squad’s anti-Israel tropes had exceeded their weekly quota.”

Stop Antisemitism Executive Director Liora Rez also said in a statement to the Journal, “We’re not sure if we’re reading Richard Spencer’s the ‘Daily Stormer’ or a vintage piece from 1939 Die Wehrmacht! Every time we think the [New York Times] can’t go any lower with their disdain for the Jewish people, they shock us with more antisemitism.”

Representative Ritchie Torres (D-NY) tweeted, “Embedded in the story is the assumption that support for Iron Dome, which defends civilians from relentless rocket fire, can only be explained by power (‘influential lobbyists and rabbis’) rather than principle. The causal Antisemitism never ceases to shock me.”

In any event, to my recollection this is not the first time major newspapers unethically have stealth edited reports, and worse yet, not the first time the publishers have printed the stealth edited material online without alerting the readers of the print edition.

Joe Biden has never before demonstrated the slightest concern about Haitians until thousands crossed the southern border and were camped out under a bridge in Del Rio, Texas. As late as 1994 he said, “If Haiti just quietly sinks into the Caribbean or rose up 300 feet, it shouldn’t matter a whole lot in terms of our interest.” But the picture of the migrant camp certainly riled the open borders fanciers with horrible pictures of destitute illegal migrants camping by the thousands under the bridge. The FAA even momentarily banned Fox News from overhead drone coverage of the scene.

One photographer on the ground, Paul Ratje, captured pictures of horse-riding border patrol members preventing the people from scattering off into the country where they would avoid even minimal processing. City folks who populate newsrooms and left-wing social media may never have seen the split reins the border patrols riders use to control the horses, but seeing them, they rushed to publication Ratje’s shots, claiming the riders were whipping the migrants. Not so, said the photographer, but the fake account spread far and was bought hook, line, and sinker by the administration.

Ratje is a photographer based in Las Cruces and has been in Del Rio since Friday. He said took the photographs from the Mexican side.

“I’ve never seen them whip anyone,” Ratje said. “He was swinging it, but it can be misconstrued when you’re looking at the picture.”

The photos drew immense criticism from many on social media and the White House said it will investigate.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki called images “horrific.”

Vice President Kamala Harris was also asked about the photos, and called them deeply troubling. Harris also said there was a thorough investigation into how agents are treating migrants.

Biden threatened the border patrol agents, saying they “will pay.” 

WhippingGate snowballed with the usual race baiting. California Rep. Maxine Waters and CNN anchor Chris Cuomo invoked slavery. “Even the Biden administration has fueled the narrative with the White House condemning the “horrific” images, and the Department of Homeland Security launching an investigation and removing the horses from Border Patrol.” 

The Border Patrol, which is doing an incredible job under the administration’s absurd rules of engagement, were slandered by both the administration and most of the media. (Since they were at least temporarily banned from using horses to patrol this rugged landscape, the Babylon Bee satirically suggested they are now to patrol that area of the border on Segways armed with pool noodles

You could say it was an honest mistake, but none of the media “fact checkers“ have checked the  whipping story as fake, and the Washington Post, CNN, NBC, AP, USA Today, and Snopes are silent on the fake tale. From this one can fairly deduce they are happy to peddle lies to advance an open-border agenda.

In the event you hear your friends and neighbors decrying the abusive tactics of the Border Patrol, you know where they get their information from. Be nice, but explain Ratje and split reins to them if you can get a word in edgewise.

Maricopa County

Against enormous pressure, an independent audit was finally concluded on the voting in Maricopa County, Arizona. And the spin has begun. At PJ Media, Matt Margolis details how corrupt the coverage of the audit report has been.

CNN and others concluded the audit proved Biden won Arizona as the hand count matched the official canvass results. Whoa! There’s a lot more to the story. As Margolis observes, the summary of the audit shows a great deal more than that:

He republishes the table showing the vast discrepancies and other troubling issues found by the audit team in a state where Biden barely won. The audits found “There are sufficient discrepancies among the different systems that, in conjunction with some of our findings, suggest that the delta between the Presidential candidates is very close to potential margin-of-error for the election.” The discrepancies demonstrate there was a substantial potential for fraud and Maricopa’s refusal to allow the auditors to vet these 57,734 ballots in which discrepancies were found, means “we’ll never know if the election results were legitimate.”

The Hunter Biden Emails. 

In October 2020, shortly before the election, the New York Post published a scoop about Hunter Biden’s emails.

Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by the Post.

The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.

An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.

The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.

Neither Hunter nor Joe disputed the account. Instead, as the Wall Street Journal reports this week, 

Both men counted instead on the rest of the media to serve as a cordon sanitaire, and did they ever. Twitter barred the Post’s feed for a time lest Americans be able to read about the emails and their content.

A press that was interested in telling the truth about both candidates would have pressed to confirm the Post’s story and examined the emails for themselves. Instead they rose nearly as one to denounce the Post and claim without evidence that the emails might have been Russian disinformation. That was a sorry repeat of the Russia collusion narrative from 2016, which the press flogged for more than two years but we now know was concocted by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

We also now know that the Russian email disinformation story was false. But that didn’t stop 50 former intelligence officials from signing a statement on Oct. 19, 2020, that floated the Russia canard.[snip]The signers included such Russia collusion myth-makers as former Obama officials James Clapper and John Brennan, but former Bush CIA director Mike Hayden and former Obama CIA director Leon Panetta should have known better.

There’s no doubt that the Fourth Estate massively distorts the facts in advancing their agendas. Perhaps the best motto for them would be “News You Shouldn’t Use.”


Biden’s USA: Screwball Country = Screwball President? OR Screwball President = Screwball Country?…..OR BOTH?



The London Times offers a perspective on the Haitian assault on our Southern border that is both weirdly ill-informed and unintentionally revealing: “Joe Biden treats us like slaves say deported Haitian refugees.” The story is told entirely from the perspective of the Haitians who, having left that country years ago for destinations like Brazil, have now been sent by the U.S. to Haiti:

His hands were bound and his ankles tied during the five-hour flight on a US government chartered passenger plane. Junior Ruben was being sent back to Haiti, a country he had left seven years ago, and that he had no intention of returning to of his own free will.
“What do they think? That we are slaves, transported around the world in handcuffs, like in the old days?” he said.

Nowhere in the Times account is there any acknowledgement that the U.S. has immigration laws, and that thousands of uninvited “migrants” can’t just walk across the border. And the central outrage, per the Times, is that the U.S. has sent these would-be illegal immigrants to Haiti, a place they left long ago:

The repatriation programme seems inexplicable and cruel to its victims. None of the returnees I spoke to this week had been in their country of birth for the past three years. Almost all were until recently working in Brazil and Chile, having left Haiti legally.

What the Times reporter either doesn’t know or prefers not to mention is that under American law, you can’t be a refugee from Haiti if you have been living for years in a safe country like Brazil or Chile. This is why the “refugees” who presented themselves in Del Rio, Texas claimed to be fleeing Haiti and, according to news reports, discarded their Brazilian or Chilean identification. Taking them at their word, U.S. authorities have returned some of them to the country from which they falsely claimed to be fleeing.

The Times story, while utterly misguided, contains interesting information about the nature of the Haitian assault on the border:

Like all the deportees, he was back in Haiti because of a dire miscalculation. In Chile, he had begun to escape the grinding poverty that he knew in Haiti. He thought his life could once again be improved by moving to the United States. The 4,000-mile journey from Chile to Texas had cost him every penny of his savings. And now he was back where he began.

Ruben had a similarly disastrous story. He had been in Brazil since 2014, after the Brazilian government offered visa-free travel for construction workers like him. He moved to Mato Grosso, an affluent agricultural state where much of the world’s soybean crop is grown. He was earning good money as a builder, enough to send dollars to his family back home.

Last year, things started getting difficult. …

A person who would like to move to a more prosperous country is not a refugee.

In June, he said, news began to spread among the Haitian community in South America that crossing to the United States had become easier under the Biden administration. Borders across the continent were also reopening as Covid-19 restrictions eased. It seemed that there was a window of opportunity.

Ruben insists that he was not just following rumours. “Lots of people I knew had made it across. I spoke to them. They were in Florida. Some were making the same in an hour that I was earning in a day,” he said.
Arriving, exhausted, at the Del Rio bridge and seeing the United States for the first time, Edouard convinced himself that all the effort he and Maricia had made would somehow be rewarded. “I honestly thought the Americans were going to welcome us,” he said.

The misunderstanding is both understandable and inexcusable. Joe Biden’s professed indifference to the immigration laws and the reality of lax enforcement (“Lots of people I knew had made it across”) lured thousands of Haitians, or former Haitians, to the border.

It is ironic, to say the least, to see Biden portrayed in the international press as an immigration Scrooge:

Biden has been accused of directly following the playbook of his predecessor Donald Trump by taking an unexpectedly aggressive line on immigration.

The administration has been anything but aggressive in enforcing the immigration laws, but the little Biden has done is indeed “unexpected,” since he has consistently portrayed himself as an enemy of immigration law enforcement. To the extent his administration is doing anything now, it is out of political necessity. Along with the American people, the losers include those who were lured to the border because of Biden’s fecklessness.

“There is a body of American thinkers and leaders who view the actual as merely a construct of language”

Leftists force mass Third World immigration by deceiving us into feeling guilty

By M. E. Boyd at American Thinker:

Milton Friedman, the economist, was such a libertarian that he supported open borders. However, there was a caveat to this support: “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” It’s obvious, of course, because having both spells imminent national bankruptcy. But that’s exactly what leftists are selling to America and they’re using false historic narratives to create in native-born Americans a sense of guilt so profound that they’re willingly opening the borders to those who will irrevocably drain the nation’s wealth.

In a recent article, Guilt: The Source of Sorrow in America’s ClassroomsI said that, as long as the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution grants full due process and equal protection rights to anyone who touches the soil of a state, America cannot keep creating massive welfare rights at unthinkable costs without bankrupting the nation.

I used the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 1990, amended in 2004, as an example of rights that must be granted to illegal alien children, even if they’re not claiming refugee or asylum status, if they are physically within the jurisdiction of a state and are deemed children “with a disability.” States have a legal duty to identify such children and make sure that they receive an Individualized Education Plan, including the often expensive “related” services.

To the average American, this makes no sense. How is it that efforts to assist Americans in their personal development (children and/or adults), that American taxpayers fund, are mandated to extend to anyone who simply rams his or her way into the country illegally?

The answer lies, in part, in the serious mental disconnect now popularized in our society between what we see with our own eyes (reality); what we have experienced in our lives (the empirical); what common sense tells us (a type of truth); and what is said that we are seeing, experiencing, and knowing. We are being told that all of this is rightful—an expression of our values. It is no such thing.

There is a body of American thinkers and leaders who view the actual as merely a construct of language. For these persons, 12,000 people under a bridge in Texas sheltered from the sun by sticks and rags do not really exist. The Secretary of Homeland Security stands right there, at the site, in front of a microphone, and says, “The border is closed.” “Do not come to America; you will be deported.” The White House Press Secretary says, at a White House briefing, that “these people have no intention of staying, so do not need COVID-19 tests or vaccinations.”

Many commentators are calling these statements “lies” as they are patently false—but these are not lies to those making the statements. Some human beings are actually capable of constructing a reality by simply saying that the reality exists. At one time, the community assessment would be that a person or persons with this condition might be delusional or laughable. Imagine if the White House Press corps simply started laughing at the notion that 1.5 million people who have illegally entered the United States are “just visiting.”

Many in the Executive Branch of the federal government have been gripped by this out-of-mind condition that translates what they want to see into what they do see. We’ve heard variations of all these statements: “The withdrawal from Afghanistan was very well done—a huge success.” “The Taliban are our Afghan partnersThey have assured us of an inclusive government.” We will leave no American behind.” “Our predecessor made us do it.”

The answer lies, also, in the 14th Amendment’s wording, which cannot be changed except through the constitutional amendment process in Article V. All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States and the state where they reside. This 1868 Amendment meant to attach citizenship to both free blacks and former slaves. It was meant to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford decision that denied citizenship to black Americans.

Just to make that point, rights were extended to “persons” in each state, not just citizens. (“[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”) This language was a deliberate creation of Senator Lyman Trumball of Illinois and ratified by 3/4 of the states still in the Union. The import of the Amendment’s language today is that the enormous welfare state we have created at the federal level, with trillions more proposed, automatically grants non-citizens (“persons”) these same rights. The nation cannot avoid bankruptcy.

Note from GHR: (One could also remind folks that around 60% of American leftists are female voters, now and forever! Countless numbers are ‘single’ and exercise hate and the like by being noisy. Most apparently are fanatic, especially those at schools, universities, libraries.)