• 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

Note From CJack:


—Measure the Hilde-Beast for Her Orange Suit—

Comrade Putin gave the bizarre Hilde-Beast $145,000,000 to destroy the United States of America and its magnificent Constitution. But it did not happen on the night of November 8, 2016. So, the Hilde-Beast got drunk, cried, and swore all night at the Jacob Javits Convention Center.

But she had a ‘Plan B’ to fund her dirty works to unseat the magnificent ‘Orangeman’ from Queens. With ample Kremlin funds delivered to the Clinton Foundation bank account, she enlisted the liar-for-hire ex-British spy Christopher Steele to produce the infamous “Steele Dossier” of prevarications, to overthrow the US Government. Why is this evil, ugly, vicious, corrupt, un-American ‘little’ woman not in jail? As they say: Money talks; BS walks! Only in America! as the man with the wild ‘Afro’ likes to remind us of.

Best wishes to Ghr, our Minuteman in the Tundra.

Cjack…Fishing for Mullet in the Gulf…March 28, 2022…

What Are Our Today’s Dems UP TO?

March 30, 2022

The Democrats’ New ‘Latino’ Problem: The Ghost of James Monroe

By Robert Oscar Lopez at American Thinker:

On social media, some disturbing maps have circulated showing the globe in terms of which nations have sanctioned Russia over her invasion of Ukraine.  Bolivian writer Ollie Vargas posted this map, which makes clear that sanctions in Russia are seen as an absolute must in Europe, the English-speaking world, Japan, and South Korea.  Everywhere else, President Biden’s requests for economic war against Russia have been rejected.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki recently claimed that we have “basically crushed” Russia’s economy through sanctions, but is this true?  The sanctions can’t work in crushing the Russian economy and forcing the ouster of Putin if only a small percentage of the globe is really sanctioning Moscow.  Despite how important the United States and her allies are, Russia still has a huge playing field in which to recover trade.

Domestically, the Democrats have prided themselves on being the party of inclusion.  They spent half a decade convincing all of us that Trump was racist; Republicans were despised white supremacists; and people of color everywhere would embrace the liberal diversity gestures of Walt Disney, the Clinton Global Initiative, Twitter, Bloomberg, MSNBC, and Harvard University.  It seems black, brown, yellow, and otherwise non-white people have told Biden’s progressive party to take a hike.

Perhaps they see in Biden everything that the Democrats condemned Trump for; they just happen to think Trump does a better job at being Trump than Biden does.  Trump never tried to bully them into starving their citizens of Russian wheat, petrochemicals, fertilizer, barley, rye, gas, and oil.  Apparently this little detail matters a lot more than rumors that Trump once talked about s-hole countries.

It is hard to interpret events as anything other than a massive blow to American credibility abroad.  Around the world, people sympathize with innocent civilians harmed in Ukraine.  But there’s a difference in how people moralize and assign blame.  Europeans, Anglophone nations, Japan, and South Korea take America’s claims and promises seriously mostly because their experience with American credibility has been rather helpful.

On the other hand, now would be a good time for all those Critical Race theorists in New York and California to update their antiquated assumptions.  People outside the tidy U.S. sphere of influence don’t see the Ukraine invasion as a simple bad/good dichotomy.  Many recognize that the 2014 coup d’état that put the current Ukrainian regime in power as a typical Western intelligence operation, something they can recognize from their own histories.  Therefore, they aren’t swayed simply by the idea that Zelensky is naturally the good guy by virtue of being the one holding power before the war started.  A lot of them look at Zelensky and see a puppet, an agent of Western infiltration and subversion, not very different from the countless phonies that the CIA has installed in the four corners of the globe.

Most depressing is the fact that a lot of the world just doesn’t believe us.  They don’t have a lot of reason to believe us because the Biden administration got caught in quite a few recent lies.  Our reason for taking such keen interest in a dispute between Russia and Ukraine looks suspicious, given how many hotspots exist on the globe, which the United States all but ignores.

Americans think the rest of the world sees a nation leading the charge for freedom, democracy, prosperity, and human kindness.  The rest of the world sees some of that glowing idealism, mixed with a great deal of cynicism and hypocrisy.  It used to be Republicans who didn’t want to concede that people abroad had some reason for distrusting the U.S.  Now the Democrats are incapable of considering whether their fascination with green energy, LGBT rights, feminism, race, and Big Tech persuades people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America or just creeps a lot of people out.

Who are the countries that said no?   

That Africa and the Middle East would shrug off Biden’s calls is not that surprising, given that the United States has never treated issues in Africa as a high priority.

After the War on Terror, we did not expect Middle Eastern countries to jump on Biden’s bandwagon, especially since Biden voted in favor of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq.

The high-profile refusals of China and India are disconcerting, to say the least, given their enormous populations (together nearly eight times the population of the U.S.) and the prospects that their continued commerce with Russia could create an alternate world economy from which the United States will have effectively exiled herself.

But perhaps the most underreported, and indeed most dangerous defections from U.S. dominance have taken place in Latin America.  Mexico’s president hails from the Party of the Democratic Revolution and has been celebrated for being the first truly indigenous leader of the tenth most populous country in the world (close to 130 million people).  You would think a man with such lefty credentials would be positively thrilled to work with a Democrat after four years of Trump…but you would be wrong.

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced soon after the imposition of sanctions that Mexico would not partake in them: “We are not going to take any sort of economic reprisal because we want to have good relations with all the governments in the world.”

Let us just say it is less than comforting that we have a 1,900-mile open border with a country that just announced that it wants good relations with a Russian government the U.S. has sworn publicly to crush.

The other powerhouse south of the border is Brazil, where president Bolsonaro is not playing ball with Joe Biden, either.  Besides mocking Zelensky’s status as a comedian, Bolsonaro said Brazil needs Russian partnership to support its agribusiness and feed its population of over 200 million people.  As Reuters reported, “[h]e added that he was against any sanctions that could bring negative repercussions for Brazil, citing Russian fertilizers which are crucial for the country’s giant agribusiness sector.”

Countries with smaller populations are not holding back, either.  President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador loves to needle the United States government on Twitter now that Biden is in office.  In response to calls for a united front against Russia, Bukele wrote: “The real war is not in Ukraine, it’s in Canada, Australia, France, Brussels, England, Germany, Italy.  They just want you to look the other way.”  Nowadays he seems emboldened to use Bitcoin as an alternate currency despite the United States Congress issuing statements strongly opposed to such a move.  In response to criticisms over currency, Bukele asked on Twitter whether El Salvador deserves “sovereignty” the same way Ukraine does.

In nearby Nicaragua, still led by the now older superstar of Reagan-era geopolitics, Daniel Ortega, that rejection of sanctions is the least of Biden’s worries.  Ortega has openly sided with Russia and supports her latest moves, saying: “If Ukraine gets into NATO they will be saying to Russia let’s go to war, and that explains why Russia is acting like this.  Russia is simply defending itself.”  Recently, Russia’s deputy prime minister, Yuri Borisov, visited Venezuela and Cuba, both nations that have ironically survived U.S. sanctions against them, though not without pain.

We could go from Guatemala to Argentina, with each nation having its own flavor and specific angle on the issue.  But the continent is not going to sanction Russia.

That is not good for the United States for a lot of reasons, but for one reason, especially: Joe Biden publicly and aggressively asked all the countries of the world to sanction Russia and make her a pariah state.  By saying no to such an important request, our neighbors have made Biden’s America a pariah state instead.

The Monroe Doctrine Comes Back as a Zombie

If it were just Brazil and Mexico, we could blame the right-wing president in the former and/or the left-wing president in the latter.  But everyone seems to hate Biden’s America and what it represents in Latin America.  The left will have to grapple with this for years to come.

Democrats and Republicans alike would love to shrug off Latin America’s response and say, “Well, who needs them anyway?”  I am not so sure that’s a viable position to take.  Our border with Mexico is gaping.  If Biden’s recent slip-up (“Putin cannot remain in power“) spoke unintentional truth and our secret goal is regime change in Russia, we are looking at a war that will last a long time, in which Russia will defend her home turf against a foreign aggressor.

In the defender role, Russia will probably count on support from China and India.  Our military and intelligence operations are going to be stretched thin.  If the war goes on, we will probably need a draft to staff our military efforts.  We will simply not be able to defend our homeland from Russian and Chinese assets that find their way into the many nations of Latin America.  Put simply, we cannot place ourselves at war with Russia, China, and India, while conducting a sprawling intelligence and covert operation in all of Latin America to keep all those countries out of alliance with Russia and China.  And unlike the Middle East, the Latin American countries live right next to us.

Despite the posturing of the two parties, both Republicans and Democrats have inherited the Monroe Doctrine as their default framework.  On December 2, 1823, President James Monroe gave an address regarding the Latin American republics that had recently gained independence from Spain.  The 1820s was a time of excitement and rapid change in the Americas, especially with the colorful figure of Simón Bolívar in the middle of it all.

Speaking to the spirit of the age, James Monroe balanced conflicting sentiments.  On the one hand, many Americans were delighted that Latin American revolutionaries like Bolívar emulated Washington, Jefferson, and Adams — and indeed patterned their movement after the spirit of ’76.  On the other hand, the United States was already almost fifty years old and needed to contend with certain political realities.  The Americans had recently struck a deal with Spain and acquired Florida.  It was in the interests of the United States not to make an enemy of Madrid by allowing the independent republics to sign treaties with Spain’s rival, England; the Spaniards, ruled by the same dynasty as the French in the eighteenth century, had sided with the Americans against the British in the Revolutionary War.

Ideology was not so dear that we would pay any price to assist other democracies if it meant endangering our own.  It was one thing to have a far-flung Spanish empire led by weak Bourbon kings to the south of us.  Quite another thing was to have a quarrelsome clan of republics afire with idealism and of questionable stability.  American leaders feared that the volatility of independent Latin America, combined with the meddlesome influence of England, France, Spain, and possibly Russia (then advancing her interests in the Pacific Rim), would make the continent a breeding ground for groups subversive of U.S. interests.

Monroe delivered an address on December 2, 1823, balancing these competing sentiments and baking a policy scheme known as the Monroe Doctrine, which determined American policy in Latin America from Monroe’s presidency until the 1990s.  Monroe laid out three principles, which would prove pliable and subject to wildly different interpretations by later presidents who invoked it:

1. The Latin American republics, once freed, were not to be subject to recolonization by any foreign power.  [This essentially grew into the principle that the United States had the right to intervene if Latin American countries entered into treaties with other countries that did not serve our interests.]

2. Any foreign power attempting to exert influence over the Latin American republics would and should be viewed as a hostile action toward the United States and must be addressed as such.  [This grew into the Roosevelt Corollary, allowing the United States to interpret Latin American republics’ own pursuit of alliances as de facto acts of war, and grounds for U.S. intervention.]

3. In exchange for the European powers’ abstaining from Latin American affairs, the United States would abstain from European disputes.  [This was actually an idea that some Latin Americans liked, because it meant they would be recused from dangerous obligations to hostile combatants outside the hemisphere, but the clause was all but abandoned in the twentieth century as the United States pressured Latin Americans to pick sides in struggles such as the Cold War.]

Through the 1990s, with the exception of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor” policies during one limited period of time, U.S. presidents respected the Monroe Doctrine and cited it affirmatively.  In 1947, during the negotiations that led to the formation of the United Nations, the Truman administration cited the Monroe Doctrine as the justification for forming a separate multinational league, the Organization of American States, even naming it in one of the founding articles of the OAS.

Three articles I can recommend if you want an overview of this policy that goes deeper than Wikipedia are listed at the end of this article.  When I do a deep dive into the long history of the Monroe Doctrine, I find an enormous trove of scholarship about it from around the world because it went through several phases, all of which impacted other countries.

Russian scholars, like scholars everywhere, have studied the Monroe Doctrine because it stands out as such an important principle in the development of global politics.  Unfortunately, all the doctrine’s clauses look and sound exactly like Russia’s rationale for invading Ukraine.  If we try to talk around the parallels or dismiss such comparison as “whataboutism,” we aren’t going to win friends and influence people.  We just undermine our own credibility and look like hypocritical clowns.  Without the Monroe Doctrine, Los Angeles and Dallas would be part of Mexico.  That’s not a small, irrelevant detail.

The list of American interventions into Latin American affairs is long and bloody.  Virtually every nation in Latin America has been subject to invasion or other kinds of domination by the United States.  Not everyone in Latin America harbors a grudge against the United States, but most people in Latin America will not be receptive to the moral argument that they should back the United States against Russia based on principles of international law.  It would be extremely offensive for President Biden even to try to make such an argument.

Aside from the moral argument, the United States has no other argument beyond threats and bullying that a crisis with Russia would leave America too weak to enforce.  No country in the region has any reason to believe that Biden could sanction them for not sanctioning Russia; Biden’s hurried overtures to the despised government in Caracas prove that.

Latin America has no military interest in propping up Ukraine’s corrupt government and has an enormous economic interest in keeping trade lanes open with Russia and China.

Like Frankenstein’s monster coming back to kill the scientist who created him, the pestilent and tattered Monroe Doctrine walks among us again.  Monroe stands vindicated, in one sense: he was right that Latin America’s allegiances with foreign powers undermine the United States’ political position at home.  The difference between 1823 and 2022 is stark, however.  In 1823, the republics wanted to stay on good terms with the United States and build their countries up as best as they could.  In 2022, they look at America and see her led by someone they don’t respect.

The problem for President Biden is that he inherits all the debts and guilt that come with two hundred years of Monroe’s doctrine while he possesses none of the strength or political know-how to put it in motion.  That’s a problem he may never solve.  The Biden Corollary might simply be to lose everything, everywhere, all the time.


Gilderhus, M. T. (2006). The Monroe Doctrine: Meanings and Implications. Presidential Studies Quarterly36(1), 5–16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27552742

Kasturi, N. (1941). THE MONROE DOCTRINE. The Indian Journal of Political Science3(2), 176–181. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42743711

Sessions, Gene A. “THE MULTILATERALIZATION OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE: THE RIO TREATY, 1947.” World Affairs 136, no. 3 (1973): 259–74. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20671521

Grassley: “Hunter Biden and James Biden, brother of Joe, have traded on the Biden name and Joe Biden’s political position for years.”

Senators bring receipts to the Senate floor of Hunter’s payment from ‘arm of Chinese government’

KAREN TOWNSEND Mar 30, 2022 8:41 AM ET 

(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson delivered floor speeches Monday focused on a September 2020 report that they are now releasing showing details of the financial connections between Hunter Biden, China, Ukraine, and other countries. Democrats describe the report as Russian disinformation but the two Republican senators claim they have the receipts and will be providing evidence over the next few days.

The corruption of Biden, Inc. has generally been ignored. Hunter Biden and James Biden, brother of Joe, have traded on the Biden name and Joe Biden’s political position for years. Democrats and their partners in the press have conveniently brushed off concern that Joe Biden is compromised, even after an email on Hunter Biden’s laptop stated that the Big Guy always gets ten percent. The Big Guy is Joe Biden. Senators Grassley and Johnson now say that they have evidence of ” troubling financial entanglements” between Hunter and the Chinese government. Johnson calls any previous lack of reporting on the September and November 2020 reports a classic media cover-up.

“Over the course of our investigation into how Hunter Biden used his father’s position and name to enrich himself and his family, the dishonest press published countless stories reporting on the Democrats’ false charge that we were soliciting and disseminating Russian disinformation,” Johnson said on Monday. “Once we issued our September and November 2020 reports, which were based almost exclusively on U.S. sourced documents and interviews with U.S. citizens, the media largely ignored it. When they did write a story on it, they declared that our reports found nothing new. A classic media cover-up.”

During their floor speeches, the senators came forward with evidence previously not made public. For the first time, we saw a document that shows money from CEFC Energy, described as an arm of the Chinese government, going directly to Hunter. CEFC is a state-controlled Chinese energy company. The senators provided a receipt showing CEFC paid Wells Fargo Clearing Services $100,000 with “further credit” to to Owasco, Hunter Biden’s firm.

“CEFC operated under the guise of a private company but was for all intents and purposes an arm of the Chinese government,” Grassley said. “Hunter Biden and James Biden served as the perfect vehicle by which the communist Chinese government could gain inroads here in the United States through CEFC and its affiliates.”

“Bank records like this piece of evidence are pretty hard to deny and sweep under the rug. Our reports were chocked full of irrefutable evidence like this. And yet, the media buried those details, in an attempt to keep it hidden from the American people,” Johnson said.

Both Hunter and Joe Biden (as well as James) have denied wrong-doing for years. In 2020, Grassley and Johnson released an interim report on a months-long joint investigation by the Senate Homeland Security and Finance Committees into Hunter’s role with Burisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company. Democrats largely ignored it and it didn’t deter Joe Biden’s win in November of 2020. Both senators say their investigation has faced obstacles, including executive agencies failing to comply with document requests.

Now that the New York Times has confirmed the legitimacy of the Hunter Biden laptop story, it is going to be difficult for Democrats to continue to pretend that there is no corruption in the Biden family’s activities. When their report was released in 2020, the senators said that their investigation was ongoing. Now it seems they are prepared to expose their evidence of corruption. Chinese oligarchs are involved.

Grassley and Johnson previously tied Hunter Biden to Chinese oligarchs in their 2020 Senate report including an instance where he allegedly “opened a bank account” which “financed a $100,000 global spending spree” for the former vice president’s brother, James Biden, and his wife, Sara Biden.

Grassley’s involvement adds some heft to the claims coming from the investigation. He’s known for his midwestern-style common sense and honesty. Grassley says that Hunter and James Biden have been used by the communist Chinese government to gain inroads into the United States through CEFC Energy. The energy tycoon leader of CEFC Energy, Ye Jianming, is now imprisoned. He was linked to the Chinese military.

“CEFC operated under the guise of a private company but was for all intents and purposes an arm of the Chinese government,” Grassley said. “Hunter Biden and James Biden served as the perfect vehicle by which the communist Chinese government could gain inroads here in the United States through CEFC and its affiliates.”

Grassley’s floor speech included a poster showing a newly public bank record of an August 2017 wire transfer from CEFC through Wells Fargo Clearing Services to Owasco. The amount of the money transfer was $100,000. Grassley and Johnson say they will produce new records over the next few days. Their proof of Biden, Inc. corruption, the records, will show “additional connections between the Biden family and the communist Chinese regime.”

It will be interesting to see if Grassley and Johnson can connect real dots between Hunter’s worldwide grifting schemes (alleged) and his father, now president. If so, Joe Biden is clearly compromised to be dealing with China or any other foreign government from which Hunter or James received sweetheart deals – the Big Guy always gets ten percent.

A November 2020 follow-up GOP report said that in 2017, Ye was “actively working to build CEFC by making investments around the world” and “these efforts involved cultivating ties with Russia and actors connected to Russian President Vladimir Putin.”

In 2017, ex-business partner Tony Bobulinski worked with Hunter Biden to create a business dubbed SinoHawk to establish a joint venture with CEFC. The Senate GOP report concluded millions of dollars were instead sent by CEFC to accounts linked to Hunter Biden.

“A question to the liberal media and my Democratic colleagues who accused us over the last two years of distributing Russian disinformation — is this official bank document Russian disinformation?” Grassley asked Monday.

It isn’t just a $100,000 wire transfer being exposed. That’s small potatoes in Hunter’s world. There are millions of dollars involved. AG Merrick Garland is allegedly involved in trying to throw off Grassley and Johnson from pursuing their investigation. One of Ye’s lieutenants says Hunter agreed to represent him as part of a liquefied natural gas deal worth tens of millions of dollars with Ye. Patrick Ho was charged by the Justice Department in 2017, indicted, and convicted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He was convicted of global money laundering and bribery.

In August 2017, CEFC Infrastructure Investment “wired $5 million to the bank account for Hudson West III,” which was linked to Hunter Biden. In March 2018, a $1 million payment was sent from Hudson West III to Owasco, with a memo line for “Dr. Patrick Ho Chi Ping Representation.” Grassley and Johnson said “Hunter Biden was well aware of Patrick Ho’s links to the communist Chinese government.”

It’s quite an involved web of corruption that is emerging with these newly exposed receipts. Grassley and Johnson show no signs of giving up, likely feeling vindicated now that the Democrats and their friends in the media can no longer deny the legitimacy of the laptop story. It’s not Russian disinformation.

I’ll end with this as we wait for more shoes to drop from Grassley and Johnson on the Senate floor. Remember all the Democrats in the media used the same talking points in the reporting of the laptop story? Good times.

In What Country Does Its President FAIL TO HAVE A WORKING BRAIN? IT STARTS WITH A ‘U’!

MARCH 30, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at PowerLine:


We’ve sought to follow a variety of “walkbacks” from President Biden’s logorrhea over the past week. Biden has a chronic case of the malady, but he aggravated it in Europe. That logorrhea — as in Jimi Hendrix’s “Manic Depression,” it’s a frustrating mess.

Speaking with the 82nd Airborne in Rzeszów, Poland, on March 25 — White House transcript here — Biden sought to excite them over the sights they would see in Ukraine:

And — so, you know, with the Ukrainian people — Ukrainian people have a lot of backbone. They have a lot of guts. And I’m sure you’re observing it. And I don’t mean just their military, which is — we’ve been training since back when they — Russia moved into the — in the southeast — southeast Ukraine — but also the average citizen. Look at how they’re stepping up. Look at how they’re stepping up.

And you’re going to see when you’re there. And you — some — some of you have been there. You’re going to see — you’re going to see women, young people standing — standing the middle of — in front of a damn tank, just saying, “I’m not leaving. I’m holding my ground.” They’re incredible. But they take a lot of inspiration from us.

Back home at his March 28 press conference– White House transcript here — Biden denied he meant what he said. Biden “explained” with his accustomed eloquence: “I was referring to with — being with and talking with the Ukrainian troops who are in Poland.”

So the 82nd Airborne is training Ukrainian troops in Poland? At yesterday’s press briefing — White House transcript here — White House communications director Kate Bedingfield was asked whether Biden “accidentally reveal[ed] a previously unknown effort for the U.S. to be training Ukrainian forces.”

Bedingfield “explained,” so to speak: “The troops that he met with in Poland routinely interact with Ukrainians. That is something that’s known. Many of you were, again, on the trip with us. That is something that’s known. That is in no way revealing compromised information. That being said, there’s nothing further that I have to say on that beyond what the President said yesterday.”

Senator Tom Cotton followed up with General Tod Wolters at the Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday. General Wolters is the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. He knows what he is talking about. The Washington Examiner has a good story on his testimony here. The Daily Mail posts video with its story here.

General Wolters testified: “I do not believe we are in the process of currently training military forces from Ukraine in Poland. There are liaisons that are there that are being given advice, and that’s different than I think you’re referring to with respect to training.”

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby fluently translated the answer into bureaucratese at his press briefing yesterday: “It’s not training in the classic sense that many people think of training. I would just say it’s liaising.” Reuters features the bureaucratese in the headline “U.S. liaising with Ukrainian forces in Poland, Pentagon says.”

Liaise with me, baby. It’s almost funny.




 This is clearly the feel good story of the day:

Harvard drops out of top 3 in annual law school rankings

(Reuters) – Harvard Law School was ranked No. 4 in law school rankings published Tuesday by U.S. News & World Report, marking just the second time in more than three decades that the elite school was not among the top three on the annual list. . .

A Harvard Law spokesman declined to comment on the rankings.

No doubt slipping the U.S. News rankings (which are stupid, but some other time) is causing consternation and many many meetings at HLS this week. Heh.

The bad news is that Yale Law School remains Number One in the rankings, though it clearly ought to be downgraded in light of recent events.

Meanwhile, The Free Beacon’s intrepid Aaron Sibarium continues to cover the rapidly decaying intellectual scene in law schools with news of the latest ideological “anti-racist” predations at Georgetown Law. Turns out that Georgetown will no longer teach the foundations and history of property law in its basic property class, but will go full oppression mode instead:

At most law schools, the first few weeks of property law are spent on foundational cases of British common law. At Georgetown University, they are spent on structural racism and cultural appropriation.

Students in professor Madhavi Sunder’s mandatory first-year course learn on day one that the history of American property law is “the history of dispossession and appropriation,” according to videos of the course reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon. Lecture slides from the first month of coursework trace the “birth” of modern property law not to English courts, but to “Native dispossession and the enslavement of African Americans.” “Possession,” one slide asserts, “is a legal term of art for a settler capitalist society.”

I can see it now: before long, every basic transaction to buy a house will have to include a “land acknowledgement” that the land underneath was stolen from someone else.

 MIT has announced that it will restore requiring the SAT and ACT for admissions. MIT had suspended the test requirement during COVID. Most universities have been rushing to abandon traditional admissions tests in order to get ahead of a likely adverse ruling in the Harvard-UNC case coming up next term, in order to continue discriminating against Asians and in favor preferred underrepresented groups. COVID gave them the perfect excuse to accelerate the process.

“Our research shows standardized tests help us better assess the academic preparedness of all applicants,” he said. The decision will affect first-year students or transfer students who want to enroll at M.I.T. in 2023.

In a Q. and A. posted by the M.I.T. News Office, Mr. Schmill said the office’s research had shown that the university “cannot reliably predict students will do well at MIT unless we consider standardized test results alongside grades, coursework, and other factors.”

The move bucks the trend seen at other elite colleges and universities, which have waived standardized testing requirements amid criticism that wealthier students can afford prep coaching and have an advantage.

M.I.T. “is definitely an outlier,” said Bob Schaeffer, executive director at the National Center for Fair and Open Testing. He called M.I.T.’s reinstatement of standardized test scores “an unfortunate decision.” . . .

The choice to reinstate the requirement is “a very M.I.T. specific decision,” Mr. Schmill said. “I’m not saying that this is the right decision for any or every other school. But for us, we think this is the right decision.”

I have a hunch that MIT’s decision was driven by competitive pressure, namely, that its arch-rival for science supremacy in academia—CalTech—might start to leave MIT conspicuously behind if MIT continued down the road to politically correct admissions practices. CalTech has never embraced affirmative action admission dogma, and hence has a larger Asian student body than peer universities. (I’ve also heard rumors that a few MIT trustees are restive about creeping wokery in MIT’s prestige science departments, which would be rare if so, as college trustees are selected precisely for their spinelessness as much as college presidents are.)

A reminder of just how much an outlier CalTech is:

Chaser from the New York Times story:

Andrew Palumbo, the vice president for enrollment management at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, said on Monday that while he didn’t “begrudge any individual institution for making any decision that’s right for them,” he viewed standardized testing as having “classist, racist, sexist overtones.”


Will The GOP Establishment Enable Another Disastrous Iran Nuclear Deal?

BY: JONATHAN S. TOBIN at the Federalist:

MARCH 29, 2022

With corporate media focused almost exclusively on the war in Ukraine, the country is largely ignoring another impending foreign policy disaster with consequences that are potentially as great, if not greater, than what’s happening in Eastern Europe. The United States is on the verge of cutting another nuclear deal with Iran that is, if anything, even more wrongheaded than the one that was the signature foreign policy accomplishment of the Obama administration.

The poor performance of American negotiators isn’t the only similarity between what’s happening now and the original deal that former President Barack Obama struck with Tehran’s theocrats. The Republican establishment in Congress appears to be just as unwilling to take effective action to try to stop the Biden administration’s appeasement of Iran as they were in 2015.

While the details haven’t been officially released and last-minute disputes have caused delays, multiple legacy media outlets have been reporting for weeks that the United States and their P5+1 diplomatic partners (China, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, and Germany) are close to reviving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that former President Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018.

Trump’s goals were to strengthen Obama’s deal by eliminating the sunset clauses that give Iran a path to a legal nuclear weapon by 2030, and to rein in Iran’s illegal missile building and support for international terrorism. There’s no way to know if his “maximum pressure” campaign of re-imposed sanctions could have succeeded had he been re-elected.

Dangerous New Deal

Former Secretary of State and current climate czar John Kerry advised the Iranians to simply sit tight and wait for Democrats to win in 2020. Now the Iranians have exhibited the same tough negotiating tactics that led to Obama and Kerry giving away their store in the 2015 deal.

The problem is that all of the restrictions the JCPOA imposed on Iran came with sunset clauses. At best, it kicked the nuclear can down the road to the following decade. The West was going to have to try to renegotiate it or face up to the fact that Obama had guaranteed that Iran would get a bomb.

But the U.S. team, led by special envoy and veteran Iran appeaser Robert Malley, not only failed to get Iran to give up the sunset clauses, reports from the negotiations indicate Malley has made further concessions. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps — an organization that controls a significant portion of the country’s economy and guides its efforts as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism — would be delisted as an officially designated terror group by the U.S. government under one of the concessions that Malley offered in order to entice the Iranians to consent to rejoining the accord.

On top of that, in a development that has similarly attracted little corporate media attention, Biden has undermined his stand against Russian President Vladimir Putin by agreeing to demands that the new accord exempt Moscow’s business with Iran from the sanctions that Western nations have imposed on it as punishment for its invasion of Ukraine.

Republican Response

The question then is what, if anything, Republicans will do about this. The answer is that they are as helpless to stop Biden as they were to halt Obama’s efforts.

Since the Obama administration didn’t go through the constitutional process of submitting the Iran deal to the Senate as a treaty where the Constitution would have required the assent of two-thirds of the Senate, they say that, regrettably, Biden also can’t be stopped. The subterfuge employed by Kerry, who openly mocked the GOP by boasting of evading the treaty ratification process as well as the executive branch’s control of foreign policy, will be the excuse in 2022 just as it was in 2015. But this preemptive surrender is just as indefensible now as it was then.

Demonstrating the appalling weakness in dealing with the Democrats that would lead a year later to the GOP electorate choosing Trump as their presidential nominee, both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and then Foreign Relations Committee Chair Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., allowed themselves to be bamboozled into accepting a process by which the pact would theoretically be given congressional oversight.

The GOP leaders should have thrown down the gauntlet to Obama and told him that they would defund the State Department and refuse to confirm any diplomatic appointments until he respected the Constitution and submitted the deal for a treaty confirmation. But instead they agreed to pass the Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 that allowed the deal to go into effect so long as one-third plus one member of either house of Congress approved it.

Like so much of what the GOP establishment has done on a variety of issues that are important to the conservative base but not a priority for officeholders solely interested in retaining power, that act was a sham intended to make voters think congressional Republicans were doing something while, in fact, they were doing nothing.

Republicans Must Act

But now that Democrats are back appeasing Iran again, the response from congressional leaders is just as ineffective. Even though, unlike the case in 2015, the GOP doesn’t control the Congress, Republicans can still make a lot of trouble for Biden if they want to.

They can use their leverage in a 50-50 Senate to undermine funding for the State Department and to put a hold on all diplomatic appointments so long as Biden is flouting the Constitution by concluding a treaty without submitting it to the Senate.

But as they have at virtually every point when Obama or Biden stood their ground, Republican swamp-dwellers are showing again that they prefer to let their opponents get their way rather than act in a way that might cause themselves to be inconvenienced or called irresponsible.

In 2015, that meant allowing Iran to be enriched and empowered by a dangerous nuclear accord. But in 2022, it’s even worse, since we are far closer to the moment when the sunset clauses in the deal will expire and a terrorist-supporting state intent on achieving regional hegemony in the Middle East with the aid of Russia will be allowed by the West to get a nuclear weapon.

If that isn’t enough to jolt the congressional Republican leadership into taking drastic action, even if it means they will be branded as obstructionists (as was the case when many of the same leaders backed down and let Obamacare become law), then rank-and-file Republicans may be forgiven for asking why they are being asked to give the same people control of the House and Senate in the midterms later this year.

Jonathan S. Tobin is a senior contributor to The Federalist, editor in chief of JNS.org, and a columnist for the New York Post. Follow him on Twitter at @jonathans_tobin.

How Will America Educate ITS 5,000,000 Biden INVADERS CROSSING THE RIO GRANDE?

March 29, 2022

We Must Make America Our Own

By Christopher Chantrill at American Thinker:

Back in 2020 Joe Biden said he was running to save the world from Climate Change and Systemic Racism. How’s that coming along Joey? What? Can’t hear you down in the basement! What? You’re too busy saving the world from Putin? O-Kay.

Climate Change is the way the global elite proves to you that they are saving you from a fate worse than death. Fighting Climate Change gives their lives meaning, like Maurice Strong, the Canadian who went from oilman to environmental wacko and founder of the UN Environment Programme and saving the world.

Systemic Racism is the way that our nation’s elite deals with the fact that its rule of the last 100 years has Made Things Worse: for the white working class, for blacks, and for women — gays and transgenders next up. But that can’t be true. It just can’t!  So everything our elite is doing today, from de-policing our neighborhoods to de-grading our schools, to automatic bail for everyone except armed insurrectionists, is about convincing themselves that it’s all the fault of the enemy, malevolent white supremacists. And It’s Not Our Fault.

I don’t know about you but I consider Climate Change a recipe for economic disaster and I consider Systemic Racism a crime against humanity.

But how do we make it stop?

The simple answer is: we can’t, because We the People don’t get a voice. I just read a piece quoting our noble Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen saying — even now — that we are not doing enough on fighting Climate Change. See? The usual suspects are still repeating the Climate Change narrative as though nothing had happened and we aren’t in the middle of a serious energy crisis because of the convergence of Russia-Ukraine and the German Energiewende. And you don’t get to disrupt Yellen’s narrative because you aren’t a student at Yale Law School with an unlimited Protest Pass from teacher. Hey even Jim Geraghty at National Review is into climate change, because cracking building foundations in the melting permafrost in Russia.

But if the Climate does Change, I vote for Elon Musk — using his unrealized gains from SpaceX — rather than Maurice Strong and his adepts to show us how to adapt to a changed world. What? President Biden wants to tax billionaire unrealized gains?

And we don’t get a voice on Systemic Racism. Don’t you dare say a word against the highly-qualified Kentanji Brown Jackson, because you are not a biologist. Don’t you dare sympathize with police trying to arrest drugged-out criminals, because you are not a police violence specialist. Don’t you dare kick the homeless out of our parks and sidewalks, because you are not a marginalized people expert. Don’t you dare kick disruptive kids out of school; you don’t understand their lived experience.

Right now, the British opinion site UnHerd.com is writing about “The Fall of Seattle” and how the police are totally demoralized and “longtime small businesses [are] closing their doors for good or leaving our city.” But I live in liberal North Seattle and the Biden-Harris signs are still out, the BLM signs are still out, the #WeBelieve signs are still out and tech-dads are taking their 18-month-olds out on the sidewalk for a first look at the neighborhood and nice liberal ladies are still voting Democrat. You think Seattle liberals will ever vote for change? Did the blacks ever stop voting Democrat as the city of Detroit descended into Hell?

In other words, neither the “over” or the “under” in the Democrats’ political coalition can imagine a world outside the narrative. And it doesn’t matter what the narrative is. One year it’s civil rights. Another year it’s women’s rights. This year it’s trans rights and it’s “don’t say gay” if you don’t toe the line. So we just have to work around them. Even though we aren’t allowed a voice.

We want a better America. It’s an America where ordinary middle-class values are at the center: work, marriage, family, children, and a home of your own. Oh, you can be a noble activist if you want, or get creative with sex if you must, but don’t expect us to celebrate you and put you on a pedestal.

And you can be a helpless victim, if that’s your thing. But remember that almost every immigrant group that came to America came from a bad place. Almost everyone started out as a second-class citizen, sneered at for their lack of skills, their dirty habits, and above all, their difference. Then they just sucked it in, and made America their own. You could too.

That’s the point about America. It’s up to each of us to make it our own.

Whatever stupidity our educated elite gets up to next week.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

“Unquestionably serious cardiovascular, thrombotic and neurologic adverse events!”

March 29, 2022

FDA, CDC Guilty of Clinical Malpractice and Scientific Fraud by Inaction and Omission on mRNA Vaccine Safety Warnings

By David Gortler at American Thinker:

Today, unquestionably serious cardiovascular, thrombotic and neurologic adverse events related to the vaccine have occurred around the world. The FDA’s own vaccine adverse event tracking system (the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System or VAERS) shows substantial and serious risks from the vaccine, even though the FDA only collects an estimated 10% of all adverse events.

Still, federal agencies and manufacturers aren’t officially warning the American public about these risks, despite having been privy to this information for almost a whole year. Why? Because it would counter the narrative that taking endless vaccines and boosters is your patriotic duty.

It’s pretty clear today there are both safety and efficacy problems with vaccines and boosters. Because all of the FDA’s 18,000-plus employees had access to the same drug safety data we have, one must ask:

  • Where is the updated Covid-19 labeling reflecting the latest safety and efficacy findings in VAERS?
  • Where are the FDA “Dear Doctor” letters giving updated safety guidance?
  • Where are the “Dear Pharmacist” letters to pharmacists who are still daily administering thousands of boosters to kids and other young healthy people?
  • Why isn’t the FDA recommending follow-up symptom tracking to avoid further inflammatory neurologic/thrombotic/cardiovascular tragedies instead of its proposal to extend the dosing interval and cross fingers that it would mitigate risk (as there is no concrete clinical evidence that it will do anything?
  • Why is the FDA ignoring internal drug safety epidemiologists who have stated during official FDA presentations that it only takes a single, well-documented adverse event to justify a safety signal investigation and warning to the American public of the risk?
  • Why isn’t the FDA demanding studies addressing genotoxicityteratogenicity, oncogenicity, the potential for reduced fertility in men and women, the clinical effects of spike proteins in donated blood, and the bioaccumulation of vaccine in women’s ovaries? Why isn’t the agency convening and dedicating a Data Safety Monitoring Board to surveil all these post-marketing effects and others?

Are Americans expected to believe that the $6.5 billion-per-year taxpayer-funded FDA lacks adequate funding to address all these public health issues?

Not Fully Disclosing Safety Risks to Patients Violates Ethics and States’ Licensing Standards

In order for a physician, pharmacist, and nurse, or anyone else with a clinical professional license to work at the FDA or CDC or any other public health agency, that person must have a “current, active, full, and unrestricted license or registration from any state in the US.” Not fully warning patients about the potential dangers from any drug before administering useless and potentially dangerous vaccines and boosters places these professionals’ licenses at risk, regardless of what the CDC, FDA, or White House says.

Physicians, pharmacists, and nurses have always been held to a higher standard. They are expected to think for themselves rather than simply take orders.

As the truth is elucidated about vaccine efficacy and safety, these federal employees and mRNA vaccine manufacturers who colluded to withhold information from the public will be held accountable, and the whole “I was just following orders” excuse will not cut it. Just keeping your head down and cruising through your job, handing out vaccines is not an option when it comes to the lives of your fellow Americans when licensures are held to a higher standard.

Once you see a rash of “early retirements” of federal public health employees (with full federal benefits of course), expect the other shoe will drop and starker evidence of clear malfeasance will come to light. When that happens, the licensed practitioners and scientists responsible for withholding vital health information from the public should be thoroughly investigated by their academic boards and licensing authorities.

Taxpayer-Funded Agency Missions are Being Ignored

Separate from that, not speaking out appears to directly violate the Federal Public Health Vision, Mission and Values regarding its very specific obligations and, specifically, relating to sections labeled “public health” and “accountability” and “communication.” Their silence also contradicts the FDA motto, which is to assure that: “All food is safe; all medical products are safe and effective; and the public health is advanced and protected.” The CDC motto pledges to “Base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data that is derived openly and objectively.”

And you know our federal government has jumped the shark on dishonesty when even the unmistakably liberal New York Times expresses outrage at the CDC’s deliberate omission about mRNA efficacy and safety data.

FDA and CDC Still Pushing the Original, Ineffective COVID-19 Vaccine

In fact, FDA and CDC officials are still pushing a potentially unsafe and seemingly ineffective COVID-19 vaccine by purposely hiding facts from the public. The original strain of COVID-19 has been replaced by mutations. Continuing to promote the original vaccine for the mutated strain of COVD-19 is akin to promoting last year’s flu vaccine for this year’s flu strain. The original, Wuhan, China version of COVID -19 doesn’t exist today.

But that hasn’t stopped the FDA or the CDC: Just look at an archived image of today’s screenshot of the FDA website still pushing boosters onto the American public and even showing images of kids and young adults with bandages from their latest vaccination and/or boosters, despite the latest CDC data saying that there is essentially no benefit in those younger groups.

Future CDC and FDA Accountability

No scientific accountability will ever take place under the existing leadership. It will likely take a combination of courageous whistleblowers, a strong President who actually believe in “following the science,” and an assertive new Congress to call the necessary hearings and issue the necessary subpoenas to uncover the many CDC and FDA civil and executive service malefactors who, along with Anthony Fauci, have taken the American people for fools.

These outrageously political, manipulative, science-ignoring federal officials must be held accountable. Of course, nothing will happen to them while the Biden-Harris administration controls the White House and its pliant allies control Congress.

Even worse: If the republicans somehow gain control again, will anyone other than Sen. Ron Johnson do anything to hold CDC and FDA officials accountable? Or will they just again “reach across the aisle” and try to “find a middle ground” and play the whole “go along to get along” game and conform to general expectations so as not to disrupt or endanger their elected offices, university club memberships, and general belonging as they have done historically? It’s hard to stay optimistic about the odds.

Dr. David Gortler is a pharmacologist, pharmacist, and an FDA and healthcare policy oversight fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington DC. He was a professor of pharmacology.

“We Conservatives Get Libeled A lot”.

MARCH 29, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:


We conservatives get libeled a lot. If you are Donald Trump or Sarah Palin, there is no remedy: it is open season on politicians and former politicians. But most of us are not in that category. My organization and one of our policy fellows were libeled recently, and we fought back. What followed should encourage all who are wrongly maligned by liberals.

I told part of the story here: American Experiment is putting on a series of programs on crime across Minnesota, featuring Policy Fellow Jeff Van Nest along with local law enforcement officials. One of those events was scheduled for March 15 in Rochester, at the Rochester Golf and Country Club. It was canceled at the 11th hour by the club in response to pressure by far leftists. We have sued the club for breach of contract and will pursue that case to a jury verdict.

Meanwhile, the Rochester Post Bulletin ran two stories on our event, one the day before and one on the day when it was scheduled to occur. These stories, evidently written by leftist reporters, were full of inaccuracies. Absurdly, they linked Jeff Van Nest, a 20-year FBI veteran and adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, to a debunked conspiracy theory, saying he was “attached to” that theory, whatever that means. They accused Jeff of holding non-mainstream views and likened American Experiment to a notorious Democratic Party outfit in the South that used to carry out lynchings.

Jeff Van Nest, who has a spotless reputation, was unused to being libeled in the press. So he retained the Upper Midwest Law Center to represent him. His lawyer demanded that the Post Bulletin immediately retract their defamatory articles, on the front page of the paper where the first article appeared.

I think the newspaper’s editor realized that his company had no defense, that there was ample evidence of actual malice, and that a jury verdict for punitive damages could put the paper out of business. (Newspapers often carry insurance coverage against defamation claims, but such insurance does not cover punitive damages, which are recoverable on a showing of actual malice, i.e. reckless disregard of the truth.) In any event, he did the right thing: the paper published a full and unequivocal retraction of the defamatory articles on its front page. This is an image of the page containing the retraction:

This is the text of the retraction:

The Post Bulletin electronically published articles on March 14 (“Are ‘crime wave’ claims out of place in Rochester?”) and March 15 (“Lawsuit filed after Center of the American Experiment event canceled”), which contained a material factual inaccuracy concerning Mr. Jeffrey Van Nest, a 20-year FBI veteran and current policy fellow for Center of the American Experiment (CAE). The articles inaccurately linked Mr. Van Nest to a discredited conspiracy theory with which he has no connection. The March 14 article also included a subheading and a quote from a third party which improperly attributed non-mainstream policy views to Mr. Van Nest and a similarity between Mr. Van Nest and a racist political organization. The Post Bulletin regrets this inaccuracy and these portrayals and unconditionally retracts them in full.

The March 14 article’s subheading and quote also attribute non-mainstream policy views to the Center of the American Experiment and contain an implicit comparison between CAE and the same racist organization. To the extent this subheading and this quote could be interpreted as suggesting that CAE holds policy views out of the mainstream, or that the CAE event was in any away comparable to that racist organization’s meetings, those interpretations are unequivocally false. As noted above, the Post Bulletin unconditionally retracts these portrayals.

More here. The moral of the story is that conservatives don’t have to take defamation lying down. We all know that reporters misrepresent us continually, by commission and by omission. Sometimes the lies cross the line and become actionable. The law can be a potent ally.

Kudos to the Upper Midwest Law Center (you can donate here), to Center of the American Experiment (you can donate here), and to the Rochester Post Bulletin. It is good to see a news organization take responsibility for its reporting and retract when it is obvious that its reporting was wrong and defamatory.

The moral of the story is, if you are defamed, you don’t have to take it lying down. Be prepared to sue.


DHS preparing for unprecedented Title 42 border rush of up to 18,000 migrants per day

JOHN SEXTON Mar 29, 2022 at HotAir:

 Share  Tweet  

AP Photo/Julio Cortez

A couple of weeks ago we learned there was concern within the Biden administration that Title 42, which allows the border patrol to quickly remove immigrants on health grounds, might be allowed to expire this week. And if that were to happen there was concern that the already high numbers of migrants at the border would spike. The situation was worrisome enough that Sens. Sinema and Kelly of Arizona sent a letter asking to see the Biden administration’s plan for dealing with the potential crisis that could unfold if Title 42 were to abruptly end.

The CDC will complete its review of the need for another 60-day renewal of Title 42 tomorrow. In theory this decision is solely up to the CDC but the expectation is that the White House will have input on the outcome. And with coronavirus cases waning and pressure from courts and activists, it seems likely Title 42 won’t be renewed tomorrow.

Today, one day before CDC announces its decision, DHS officials briefed reporters about their plans for dealing with what comes next.

In preparation for a possible post-Title 42 border rush, the Department of Homeland Security has enlisted Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) officials to help prepare for as many as 18,000 migrants per day. That volume would be nearly three times the current pace of arrivals…

The DHS officials who briefed reporters said they did not know if Title 42 would be extended or allowed to lapse. But they described contingency planning for mass migration events similar to the one in Del Rio, Tex., last year that placed severe strains on U.S. agents, holding facilities, transportation networks, humanitarian shelters and border communities…

“Transportation, medical service providers, law enforcement personnel, and holding facilities are all being strained to maintain current operations,” officials said in a planning document, adding that lifting Title 42 “will likely cause a significant increase in arrivals along all United States (U.S.) borders — primarily along the Southwest Border.”

CBS News which was also part of the same briefing has some figures to put those numbers in perspective:

DHS is developing contingency plans for several possibilities, including worst-case scenarios in which 12,000 to 18,000 migrants would enter U.S. custody daily, the DHS officials said during a briefing with reporters, describing migration flows that would overwhelm the government’s processing capacity along the Mexican border.

U.S. border officials, who reported a record 2 million migrant arrests in 2021, are currently encountering an average of 7,101 migrants per day, a DHS contingency plan shows…

According to the strategic DHS plan, the U.S. currently can transport roughly 5,000 migrants by land and 350 by air per day. If the worst-case scenario materializes, the plan calls for officials to double that capacity.

In other words, our border resources are stretched with the number of daily encounters near the peaks we saw last summer, but a CDC announcement that Title 42 is ending could send 2 1/2 times as many migrants to the border in any given day. The border patrol doesn’t have the manpower, transportation capability or holding facilities to deal with all those people.

Of course there are all sorts of caveats here. For one, DHS is saying this is just a worst case scenario not a prediction. Also, there are probably tens of thousands of people waiting on the other side of the border who would try to cross if Title 42 were to end but there may not be enough to sustain levels as high as 18,000 per day (540,000 per month!) for very long. At that rate, maybe the surge would only last a couple weeks before the backlog dies down.

On the other hand, what we’ve seen in the past several years, since at least the Obama administration, is that anytime word goes out that crossing the border has become easier, there is a fresh surge of migrants. So the immediate surge may pass but three weeks or a month after the announcement, but those daily numbers could spike up again.

The big picture here is that we set a record for border encounters in FY2021 and we’re now on track to surpass it even without a change to Title 42. Tomorrow could be the start of a very difficult situation at the border, one that returns this issue to the front pages in the coming months.