Playing Soft WITH GREEDY FASCIST RUSSIA A PLAN?

October 11, 2022

The Madness of America’s Ruling Class

By J. Robert Smith at American Thinker:

The ruling class has failed immensely.  The last two years are proof, but with each passing day, one wonders: Are America’s elites plunging into madness?  That’s a dead serious question.  With their madness may go our lives.  That’s dead serious, too.

Joe Biden spoke the other day about the possibility of nuclear “Armageddon.”  With cataclysm in mind, Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services spent $290 million on anti-radiation drugs.  Uncle Sam makes plenty of wasteful expenditures, but is this one?    

Said our doddering president, AP, October 7:

Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser, Biden said Thursday night that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “a guy I know fairly well” and the Russian leader is “not joking when he talks about the use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons.”    

Is Biden sounding the alarm to try to rally Americans and stave off midterm election losses for congressional Democrats?  Crass politics from Biden wouldn’t surprise, yet… 

Jordan Schachtel, writing at The Dossier on Substack, says that Volodymyr Zelensky’s call to bomb Russia (now being walked back by the Ukrainian government) has no support from NATO. 

But what if a direct attack on Russia isn’t what ignites major conflict with the Russians?      

Retired General Jack Keane, a regular on Fox News programs, appeared on “Fox & Friends” last Friday.  Keane is a war hawk.  He’s pushed for a more aggressive U.S. military posture in Ukraine since the Russian invasion. 

Keane said that if Putin uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the U.S. would have to respond.  No other choice.  Not in kind, mind you, but conventionally with a “comprehensive air and military attack” inside Ukraine.  The aim would be to destroy the Russian army there.  Putin loses, says Keane.  But what he omits matters greatly.

If the U.S. strikes at the Russians in Ukraine, what assurance does Keane have that the war stays there, particularly if the U.S. is trying to annihilate the Russian army?  There’s no risk of Putin expanding the war throughout Europe and to the U.S.?  Russian missiles can’t reach America?  Russian saboteurs can’t, for example, enter the U.S. — if they aren’t here already — and wreak havoc?  Maybe take out power grids? 

If Putin loses his army in Ukraine, his regime likely collapses.  That’s what the ruling class wants.  What that destabilization does to Russia and how that may adversely impact the rest of the world isn’t discussed. 

Hillary Clinton and NATO grandees had no problem engineering Moammar Qaddafi’s killing.  Libya has been torn by strife ever since.  Acknowledging the possible consequences of destabilizing Putin’s regime may only make Americans more wary of being dragged into conflict.     

If Putin is a goner, what does he have to lose by broadening the war?  Why would the Biden administration gamble by attacking the Russian army in Ukraine? 

Keane was never asked those questions by Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade.  Regardless, there’s an underlying conceit about wanting to topple Putin.  The conceit: war will be contained to Ukraine.  A desperate Vladimir Putin would never escalate the conflict.  Why worry?  Yet two nations armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons have never warred.  American military engagement in Ukraine is fraught with many perils.  Disaster spreading well beyond Ukraine’s borders is realistic.  If not, why buy hundreds of millions of dollars in anti-radiation meds?            

Some say Putin’s back is to the wall, or near enough.  The war hasn’t resolved as he hoped.  Yet, one must account for the fog of war and propaganda, which makes war foggier. 

Putin has announced the annexation of Ukrainian territory: Luhansk and Donetsk (republics) and two areas in southern Ukraine, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.  All are under Russian control.  The spin that Putin is losing may just be spin.  Col. Douglas Macgregor, a dissenting voice and a regular guest on Tucker Carlson’s show, thinks so.  

Who trusts “U.S. intelligence sources” (Deep State) and corporate media anymore?  We hear that American intelligence is backdooring Russian generals.  Putin is hamstrung, unable to unilaterally use nuclear weapons.  We’re to believe this based on unidentified sources? 

Having been misled by U.S. intelligence about “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq and given virtually no heads up about the looming defeat in Afghanistan last year, we shouldn’t be skeptical? 

Biden speaks casually of Armageddon.  Armageddon because of a localized conflict.  Let that sink in.  A war where no vital American interest is at risk.  A war that’s limited to Ukraine and poses no threat to the homeland.  A war, though, that the ruling class and military-industrial complex conflates with U.S. security. 

Why?  Because of mindsets that are trapped in the Cold War.  Why?  Because Democrats have made Russia a whipping boy.  Democrats, who pawn off lies about Trump’s collusion with Russia to fix U.S. elections (Democrats don’t need Russians for that).  Why?  Because conflict is how the war industry ups profits.   

A war that apologists for increased American and NATO military engagement have claimed is required to “protect democracy.”  That’s a dubious claim, given that democracy and our rights are under assault here.  Dubious because of Ukraine’s extensive corruption and checkered history with democracy. 

Are we ready to sacrifice our sons and daughters for an abstraction?  Do we dare court bringing destruction to our shores?  Innocent American blood must be spilled to “make the world safe for democracy?”  Is Ukraine really the hill that Lord knows how many Americans must die on?   

When will we as a nation jettison Wilsonian sanctimony for a return to Washingtonian sensibility?  Our military is for defense; it’s not a galivanting righter of wrongs.  We haven’t enough challenges at home?  Our cities are increasingly lawless.  Big, Democrat-run cities might as well be called war zones.  We don’t have a border that’s been blown wide open by Biden administration policy? 

If our military is to engage, deploy it along the U.S.-Mexican border — or what’s rumored to be a border.  That’s where the real threat to America’s welfare and security lies.  4.5 million illegals have entered our country, bringing crime, fentanyl, illness, and poverty.  Cartels menace.  More “migrants” come daily.  And who knows how many enemy agents are among the diaspora?    

Edging toward war with Russia is eerily reminiscent of World War I’s beginning, though this time substitute Ukraine for Serbia.  History may not repeat itself, but it can approximate. 

Anyone with a basic understanding of WWI knows that it was pure folly.  It squandered tens of millions of lives and devastated Western and Central Europe — without nuclear weapons.  It gave rise to communist Russia, opened the way for fascism, spawned WWII, and finished with the Cold War.  Austria needn’t have attacked Serbia because of the assassinations of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie.  Redress there had to be, but Austria’s aggression set off a chain reaction. 

The Germans, Russians, French, and English could have pushed for restraint… could have sought to mediate, insisting that Gavrilo Princip and his fellow conspirators be dealt swift justice while keeping Serbia free from Austrian reprisals.  Yet, the great powers followed their respective allies into war, automatically.  WWI set in motion the decline of Europe, a decline that continues. 

Do we hear calls among the ruling class for American diplomacy to end hostilities in Ukraine?  Where are the peacemakers?  Ending hostilities would entail recognizing Russia’s legitimate security concerns (NATO advancing again to Russia’s border) and acceptance that Ukraine be nonaligned, though free from Russian domination.         

There are certainly no calls for diplomacy and peaceful resolutions in Washington, D.C.  Not from the Biden administration, not from Congress, not from mainline defense and foreign policy thinktanks.  Not in corporate media.  Instead, relentless belligerence.  A march toward war is their way. 

Madness?  You bet.  If the madness isn’t checked, it’s we the American people who’ll pay a most horrific price.

J. Robert Smith can be found regularly at Gab @JRobertSmith.  He also blogs at Flyover.                

MN DEM’S UNFAIR TRIAL AGAINST DEREK CHAUVIN COMES TO SURFACE AGAIN!!

OCTOBER 11, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON IN CONSTITUTION, LAW, MEDIA, MINNESOTA, POLICING

IN THE CHAUVIN APPEAL

Derek Chauvin could not afford an attorney to appeal his convictions in the case of George Floyd. Chauvin’s insurance did not extend to appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied him a public defender. Although I thought Chauvin could not have received a fair trial in Hennepin County, it looked like he wouldn’t be able to raise the issue on appeal either.

I put out the call on Power Line for some member of the Minnesota bar to represent Chauvin on appeal. In the best tradition of the American legal profession, my friend Bill Mohrman answered the call. Chauvin’s legal defense fund is here at GiveSendGo.

I spoke to Bill this morning about the appeal. The state’s brief was written by a team of lawyers led by Neal Katyal, volunteering his and his firm’s services to the prosecution of Chauvin. Katyal is easily one of the most prominent appellate lawyers in the United States. I asked Bill if he didn’t feel like he was up against Goliath. He laughed, which I interpreted in the affirmative. He said he thought that “everyone is entitled to an attorney representing him.” He added, “If we’re getting away from that in this country, we’re in big trouble.”

Briefing of the appeal was completed last week. Bill anticipates that oral argument will be scheduled before a panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals in January. I should note that they are elected judges who must be cognizant of the consequences of decision requiring retrial at a venue outside Hennepin County. It wouldn’t be pretty.

The Hennepin County District Court page on the Chauvin case is here. It affords access to each of the appellate briefs including Appellant’s Brief (Chauvin), Respondent’s Brief (the state or the prosecution), and Appellant’s Reply Brief.

Virtually every time I wrote about the trial on Power Line I noted the riots that preceded it, the riots that occurred during it, and the concrete and barbed-wire construction around the courthouse that gave visible form to the lynch-mob atmosphere of the proceedings. National Guard troops were stationed outside the courthouse along with two armored personnel carriers.

Security concerns were such that the jurors assembled at an undisclosed location each morning during the trial and were driven to and from the courthouse by Hennepin County Sheriff’s officers in unmarked vans. The Star Tribune reported: “The unprecedented effort aimed at protecting jurors from danger and outside influence cost $21,905 in van rentals.”

One more thing. Governor Walz began deploying National Guard troops around Minneapolis and St. Paul as early as Wednesday, April 14, 2021-before jury sequestration-in the event riots occurred “post verdict,” as Bill puts it at page 29 of Appellant’s Brief. “Post verdict” should be translated as “in the unlikely event of a not guilty verdict.” Everyone in his right mind understood the secondary effects of a not guilty verdict.

Bill does a good job of leading with the pretrial publicity, security issues, and other events that precluded a fair trial. Bill relies on the two-tier analysis set forth in the United States Supreme Court’s Skilling case to argue that prejudice should have been presumed under the circumstances of this case. Turning to the state’s brief, this statement leaps out at me on page 17 (footnote omitted):

The United States Supreme Court has likewise cautioned that a presumption of prejudice applies only in “the extreme case”—such as those involving “kangaroo court proceedings,” “bedlam,” a “carnival atmosphere,” or a disturbing lack of “judicial serenity.” Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 379-381 (2010) (cleaned up).

Again, that is the state speaking in Respondent’s Brief on the law applicable to Chauvin’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial under controlling case law.

This is me speaking. If this wasn’t the extreme case, there never was one and there will never be one.

No Room For Dem Dictators IN A FREE SOCIETY!

October 11, 2022

Americans Must Permanently Marginalize the Perpetual Adolescents of the American Left

By Steve McCann at American Thinker:

As the United States careens out of control and left-wing hysteria over the impending red wave in the 2022 mid-terms reaches a crescendo, the irrationality, obliviousness, and immaturity of the followers of American Marxism has been on display for the world to see.  These are the underlying characteristics of the clueless army of foot soldiers who dwell in a state of perpetual adolescence as they profess allegiance to those few who devoutly believe in a unique amalgamation of Marxism, Social Darwinism and oligarchism and are presently hellbent on transforming the nation. 

Marginalizing this gaggle of oblivious disciples through the use of ridicule and isolation will cause the Marxists to crumble as there are so few of them.  Without their legions of foot-soldiers they will be unable to transform the nation.  However, the American people must first understand what motivates and animates these perpetual adolescents.

The Marxists can manipulate these fatuous acolytes as they are well-aware that among the traits of those that never escape their adolescent years is the conviction that they are always right, and the rest of the world is wrong — that they are, in fact, much smarter than those silly and inane adults (i.e., conservatives or independents) around them. 

Additionally, the dyed-in-the-wool Marxists understand that being part of the in-crowd is really, really important to these dupes.  Thus, these permanent adolescents look for guidance from the cool guys (which the Marxists willingly portray themselves to be) to establish what they are supposed to believe in. 

Further, the Marxists unabashedly portray themselves to be the superheroes whose control of government will ensure joy and happiness as many of these same gullible permanent adolescents have an unhealthy enthrallment with supernatural comic book heroes and refuse to cope with reality.

Membership in the American left as a foot soldier is easily attained.  All one needs to do is to mindlessly believe, accept, and live by the following:  

1. Those at the top of the pyramid, the self-anointed leaders and promoters of American Marxism, claim to always be the smartest and most sophisticated people in any room.  Therefore, to envision oneself as part of this gaggle, all one has to do is to robotically spout preapproved talking points and espouse leftist ideology without having the foggiest idea of what it means or its veracity.  Therefore, any and all innuendo regarding Trump, or false narratives of Russian collusion, or accusations of Republican duplicity, or the systemic racism purportedly running roughshod throughout America is unquestioningly believed and regurgitated.
2. In a corollary to (a) above, the rank-and-file leftists believe all the really cool people are on the left since the self-proclaimed leaders of the movement have decreed there are no moral absolutes and Christianity is calculatingly oppressive; therefore, one can party on having a supposed endless and uninhibited good time.  The modern American Marxists are the current in-crowd corralling those mesmerized with celebrity and self-indulgence.  Those that expound on the consequences of an unfettered secular and hedonistic lifestyle are condemned as oppressive proselytizers. 
3. Americans are, by and large, obsessed with finding “meaning” in their lives.  For the radical left and their acolytes, the easiest way to achieve that meaning is either to be a victim or vociferously champion the cause of those the enlightened leaders of the radical left christen with exalted victim status.  This has the dual endgame of not only self-righteousness but blaming the cause of the victimhood on a repressive and unfair society.  However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to be a victim in 21st Century America; therefore new categories of victimhood must constantly be fostered, and the old categories never resolved.  
4. The latest classifications of victimhood: 1) what heretofore was considered a serious mental health problem — transgenderism or Gender Dysphoria — has been declared normal behavior and is now eligible for victimhood on a par with racial discrimination and 2) any self-declared emotional trauma brought about by the utterings of others, particularly on the right, endows the aggrieved with victim status.          
5. Government, that great and infallible monolith behind the green curtain, can solve all of mankind’s problems.  Its primary function is to make certain the people are taken care of and assured of equal outcomes — as long as it is dominated by the leaders of the radical left — who are equally infallible. 
6. Those on the right are mean and determined to take away not only the good times but make certain government — see (e) above — will not take care of everyone and too many true-believers may actually have to find meaningful work.  Thus, the American right is the declared and unquestioned enemy and must be defeated by any means possible.
7.  It is mandatory, when confronted with an alternative point of view, to throw a tantrum, as one used to do on a school playground, and call conservatives (i.e., adults) any conceivable name or accuse them of anything since the left’s cause is just and those on the right are Neanderthals who could never be correct about anything. 
8. Guilt is the ultimate weapon.  (Remember it worked with one’s parents.)  There is always something in the United States to be guilty about and that guilt requires restitution or public humiliation.  Besides, just as there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, there is a bottomless pit of wealth in America, but only the government in the proper hands — see (e) above — can distribute this never-ending bounty.

These traits and peculiarities do not prevail among the left in the many countries of Europe or elsewhere who have socialist leaning governments or citizenry.  Dependence on government in varying degrees is a common trait but the spoiled child approach to ideology and the opposition is not.  It is the sole preserve of the American Marxist foot soldiers.

Perhaps growing up in a nation that has not experienced any national adversity in over seventy-five-plus years or living in a country that has enjoyed the greatest period of peace and prosperity in the history of mankind has abetted the evolution this mindset. 

Currently in the United States, less than 8% of Americans identify as very liberal or essentially Marxist and another 11% identify as liberal.  Yet this small subset (19%) of Americans dominates the culture, entertainment, education, the federal bureaucracy and most importantly, the Democrat party.  In November of 2022, the 81% of Americans who do not identify with the left must begin the process of permanently defeating the radical left and their fatuous acolytes if the nation is avoid the precipice toward which it is headed.  

The United States must not be destroyed by the American Marxists and their attendant gaggle of egotistical and perpetual adolescents; therefore, the counter strategy is to denigrate these buffoons by never missing an opportunity to call them out, and above all by ignoring their infantile tactics as they have no weapon other than words and idle threats.  In other words, treat them as the adolescents they are.

Democrats Are Afraid to Debate GOP Opponents

by David Catron at the AMERICAN SPECTATOR:

Some are simply refusing to defend their own records in public forums.

Americans have long since come to expect debates between candidates for major public office. For many voters, these encounters provide the only opportunity to see how competing candidates comport themselves in a venue that is nominally beyond their control. In close contests, these debates can sometimes be crucial to the final outcome. Yet, as the November midterms rapidly approach, many Democrats have been extremely reluctant to meet their Republican opponents face-to-face on a debate stage. Indeed, in several high-profile contests, they have flatly refused to do so.

U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) is the latest Democrat to back out of a public debate with a Republican challenger. The NH Journal reports that the senator’s campaign contacted the Nashua Chamber of Commerce, which was to have hosted the debate, and announced that Hassan would pull out of the event if she would be required to appear on stage alongside retired Brig. Gen. Don Bolduc. According to Chamber President Wendy Hunt, both campaigns had previously agreed to participate in this standard debate format. Now, Hassan’s campaign presumably believes it can run out the clock because she seems to be leading in the polls.

But an email to donors from the Senator’s campaign manager, Aaron Jacobs, warns that “the polls are sugar-coated for any Democratic candidate.” His email, which was originally reported by Axios, adds the following: “Our own internal polling shows that Don Bolduc is quickly consolidating the Republican base and is rapidly making up ground against Senator Hassan.” This is particularly significant because, due to New Hampshire’s late primaries, Bolduc has been the official GOP nominee for less than a month. The Bolduc campaign responded to Hassan’s refusal to debate him with the following statement:

Senator Hassan’s refusal to stand on stage beside General Bolduc is perfectly understandable but also entirely unacceptable.… Public officials owe it to the people they are seeking to represent to make the case directly and answer their questions, not hide behind attack ads sponsored by special interests in Washington. This is the action of a desperate politician who knows she is going to face the music from voters in a few short weeks and her time in politics is running out.

Another high-profile contest that features a debate-shy Democrat is the Arizona gubernatorial race. Secretary of State Katie Hobbs justifies her refusal to face off with Republican nominee Kari Lake with this word salad: “Unfortunately, debating a conspiracy theorist like Kari Lake — whose entire campaign platform is to cause enormous chaos and make Arizona the subject of national ridicule — would only lead to constant interruptions, pointless distractions, and childish name-calling.” Lake is a former television journalist who excels in the cut and thrust of political combat. This is, of course, the actual reason Hobbs won’t face her.

Hobbs’ refusal to debate Lake is particularly risky, considering that the latter holds a slight lead in the polls, according to the RealClearPolitics average. Hobbs is clearly counting on the corporate media to provide her safe spaces where she can accuse Lake, who has been endorsed by former President Trump, of extremism without being questioned about her controversial tenure in the Arizona Senate. Hobbs, as it happens, was found guilty of racial discrimination against staff while she was Minority Leader of that body. Lake reminds Arizona voters of that sordid episode in a video response to Hobbs’ refusal to face her in a debate:

For the first time in the history of our state there will be no Clean Elections gubernatorial debate. Bucking state tradition my opponent, Katie Hobbs, made it official: She will not share a debate stage with me under any circumstance. To be honest, I’m not thrilled with the idea of sharing a debate stage with a twice convicted racist like Katie Hobbs. I have made it abundantly clear that I would do so because the Arizona voters deserve nothing less than to hear from both of us.

Yet another high-profile race in which a Democrat refuses to face a Republican opponent involves Pennsylvania’s gubernatorial contest. Democratic Attorney General Josh Shapiro is running against GOP State Sen. Doug Mastriano, who has challenged the former to debate him in a venue where the media can’t run interference (à la Candy Crowley). Mastriano has instead proposed an arrangement whereby he and Shapiro would pick moderators of their own choice and field questions from both during an October debate. Shapiro refuses to consider any such arrangement, and dismisses any suggestion that the legacy media is biased.

That claim was debunked last Friday during a debate between GOP Sen. Ron Johnson and Democratic challenger Mandela Barnes. The event was broadcast from the studios of Milwaukee PBS, and the first question asked had nothing to do with top voter issues like inflation, the economy, crime, or illegal immigration. It was about, as the questioner phrased it, “the topic of marijuana legislation.” The next question was about the exigencies of cash bail. By that point it had become clear that the event was little more than a media showcase for Mandela Barnes. This is what Democrats expect, and usually get, in a “debate.”

Some Democrats have tried to avoid even this kind of softball tournament. In Pennsylvania, Democratic Senate candidate John Fetterman used every dodge in the book to avoid debating his Republican opponent, Dr. Mehmet Oz. Fetterman finally caved under public pressure and will allegedly debate Dr. Oz once on October 25. Likewise, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) stalled as long as possible before agreeing to a single debate with GOP challenger Tiffany Smiley. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) temporized as long as he could before finally accepting a single debate proposed by Republican challenger Herschel Walker on October 14.

Sadly, the above list of Democrats by no means exhausts the list of those who don’t want to stand next to their GOP opponents on a stage and discuss the issues that voters care about. This is not, as some have suggested, because debates are “going out of style.” It is an artifact of Democratic ineptitude from President Biden and Congress down to blue state governors and big city mayors. These people have not merely failed to solve the myriad problems facing most Americans, they have in many cases created them. Think about it. Would you like to stand on a stage and defend the dumpster fire that passes for Democratic governance?

(Published at realclearpolitics.)

Welcome Tulsi Gabbard!

OCTOBER 11, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at Power Line:

TULSI GABBARD QUITS DEMS

Former Democratic Congressman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has just announced that she is leaving the Democratic Party via the tweet below. I think I agree with everything she says but the warmonger thing. Putting that to one side, however, she makes me think of Robert Frost’s comment in “A Considerable Speck.” Frost concludes that poem:

I have a mind myself and recognize
Mind when I meet with it in any guise
No one can know how glad I am to find
On any sheet the least display of mind.

She is a thoughtful woman who demonstrates considerably more than “the least display of mind” as she resists the stifling orthodoxies of the Democratic Party. Good for her.

What next? She doesn’t say. It sounds like she has some kind of a third-party venture in mind. Maybe she will let on when she keynotes the Center of the American Experiment’s Fall Briefing this coming Saturday.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=powerlineUS&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1579788950696185859&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2F2022%2F10%2Ftulsi-gabbard-quits-dems.php&sessionId=4358c3b32cd090e4815e07dd9782a2b8f925e5b2&siteScreenName=powerlineUS&theme=light&widgetsVersion=1c23387b1f70c%3A1664388199485&width=550px

“Purging Of The Immigration Bench Is An Abuse Of Power.”

October 10, 2022

White House purge of immigration judges must end

By Dale L. Wilcox at American Thinker:

The Biden administration, through Attorney General Merrick Garland, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and other management officials in the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, continue to politicize and weaponize our governmental agencies to promote their partisan, anti-borders, progressive agenda. Their most recent targets have been immigration judges whom they see as not supporting the administration’s political directives, case management objectives, and more lenient policies toward illegal aliens.  

This purging of the immigration bench is an abuse of power which oversteps the legal authority of the executive branch.

Immigration judges appointed by the Trump administration have received special scrutiny and may be subjected to unfair performance evaluations, charges of misconduct, intimidation, and removal from their positions. The Chief Immigration Judge recently resigned in protest against the political agenda imposed on the court by Biden officials. Two other top court officials were reassigned and two others were pressured into resigning.

In addition, at least six immigration judges have been terminated. One of those Judges, Matthew O’Brien, had nearly thirty years of both public and private sector experience in immigration law, including service as the chief of the National Security Division at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate. He was dismissed after being deliberately targeted by progressive immigration lawyers who bragged about their smear campaign on social media.

Such personnel actions likely constitute violations of federal civil service law and should be investigated by inspector generals of these departments and congressional oversight committees. At the very least, politically motivated purges of immigration judges on ideological grounds violate the spirit of America’s judicial tribunals. American judges apply the law and rule accordingly, they do not make policy and should not play politics.

The integrity of the immigration court is at stake and responsible officials should be held accountable for illegal actions or other management misconduct. Americans have a right to expect executive branch officials to obey the laws they were sworn to uphold and to discharge the duties of their office in an honest and upright fashion.

Immigration judges preside in formal quasi-judicial removal hearings. They exercise discretionary powers as provided by law and are required to exercise independent judgment in reaching final decisions. These decisions are critical to immigration enforcement as they determine who should be admitted, who should be removed, and which aliens should be granted protection and relief from removal.

The politically-motivated actions of Attorney General Garland in this matter are of great concern, as they make it impossible for immigration judges to make independent judgments in conformity with the law and the requirements of their positions. To maintain the integrity and credibility of the court, immigration judges must be neutral arbiters of the law. They cannot perform this function if they must – like Soviet bureaucrats – ignore the law in order make politically sanctioned decisions in order to keep their jobs.

The Civil Service Reform Act and the Department of Justice’s hiring policies prohibit political affiliation bias discrimination in exercising personnel actions. The Department of Justice is an Equal Opportunity/Reasonable Accommodation Employer and, as such, no discrimination because of political affiliation is allowed. There will always be a certain amount of politics associated with the legal process. Cases are brought before a tribunal to resolve some type of controversy, that is the essential function of the courts.

But under our system, we attempt to minimize the effect that politics exerts on legal decision-making, because we as a society view the law as representative of fundamental principles that should not be altered capriciously. The extent to which this administration has injected extreme political ideology into the immigration adjudication process is truly unprecedented.

As we know from current news, federal law prohibits intimidation of Supreme Court Justices by those who politically oppose their judicial opinions. The same restrictions must apply to other judges and to immigration court adjudicators. Immigration Judges should not be threatened or intimidated for resisting the administration’s political agenda or failing to support case management and enforcement policy directives which are not in conformity with the law.

The Biden administration has blatantly politicized the immigration adjudication system and established a toxic and hostile work environment for immigration judges who are not allowed to perform their duties independently without retribution. Ousted judges complain that, although they received positive feedback from supervisors, they were terminated for unspecified “performance and/or misconduct” reasons. It is alleged that upon termination they were unceremoniously ushered out of the building without being allowed to collect their personal property.

The White House’s corrupt purging of immigration judges for their perceived failure to carry out the president’s agenda is particularly reprehensible considering this administration’s flagrant refusal to enforce the law as it presently exists. Normal inspection and admission procedures at the border no longer exist. Illegal aliens who are inadmissible are not denied entry, but are paroled into our country for later processing under current “catch and release” policies.

The Biden administration gives no regard for the costs of illegal immigration. It continues to promote policies that serve as magnets to encourage the onslaught of even greater numbers of illegal aliens and to subsidize their presence in our country.

An impartial investigation of the personnel practices of the Executive Office of Immigration Review is necessary to restore the integrity and credibility of the immigration court system. It would be appropriate for the Department of Justice Inspector General to conduct that investigation. In addition, Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Jim Jordan of Senate and House Judiciary Committees, respectively, have expressed concerns about the injection of politics in the immigration system and are likely to call for oversight hearings.

Attorney General Garland, as the chief enforcer of the nation’s laws, must ensure that he and all employees of his department set the standards and serve as models for complying with the rule of law.

Dale L. Wilcox is executive director and general counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative effects of mass migration.

“Leftists are, as a rule, psychologically simple creatures.”

Inside The Child Psychology Driving Michelle Goldberg And Other Leftists To Angry Tears Over Twitter

BY: EDDIE SCARRY at the Federalist:

OCTOBER 10, 2022

The drama over Twitter stems from the child-like mentality of liberals who can’t tolerate coexisting with the other half of the country.

EDDIE SCARRY at the Federalist

Leftists are, as a rule, psychologically simple creatures, animated by easily identified, unsophisticated emotions and thought patterns. That fact explains the reaction seen to potential changes in Twitter, the default platform for national political debate.

New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote an entire piece last week explaining her hope that should billionaire Elon Musk prove successful in purchasing Twitter and subsequently dismantling the pro-censorship structure that governs it now, he will effectively render it unusable.

“I have a shred of hope … that if Musk makes Twitter awful enough, users will flee, and it will become less relevant,” said Goldberg. “I’m usually wary of arguments that declining conditions are a catalyst to progress. … I’m going to make an exception for Twitter, though. The best thing it could do for society would be to implode.”

Despite admitting that she, like other influential figures in the corrupt national media, is a highly engaged user of Twitter — “it’s useful for my job” — Goldberg cheered for its demise in the event that new ownership moves the platform in a direction more open and tolerant of views and activity she doesn’t like. “Musk’s politics are shaped by a fondness for trolling and a hatred of wokeness, and he’s likely to make the site a more congenial place for racist demagogues and conspiracy theorists,” she added. “Given Twitter’s outsize influence on media and politics, this will probably make American public life even more fractious and deranged.”

There are a few different psychological tendencies at play here, but nothing more complex than the standard foul mood a child experiences when he’s been told to share, or the word “no.”

By asserting that Twitter is only valuable and worth existing when the left determines who can say what on the platform, Goldberg is exhibiting what three scholars in 2020 called the “sour-grape effect.” Hallgeir Sjastad of the Norwegian School of Economics, Roy Baumeister of the University of Queensland in Australia, and Michael Ent of Towson University described that phenomenon as “a systematic tendency to downplay the value of unattainable goals and rewards.”

Because Goldberg feels that she and her political allies are hopelessly failing on Twitter — namely, in retaining power to censor political dissent or alternative information she opposes — she maintains that the platform isn’t that good anyway. Musk has never publicly said he would diminish the voices of journalists such as Goldberg, but by removing her preference for censorship of others, she would have her readers convinced that Twitter’s value would be cheapened, if it were ever truly worth something (the place she visits and uses daily).

Goldberg also predicted that a Musk-owned Twitter could attract new users, “but at the price of repelling others.” By “others,” she of course means people like her.

Ryan Bailey and Jose Pico, two doctors of family medicine, published work earlier this year on “primitive defense mechanisms” in individuals, one of them being avoidance, or “keeping away from people, places, or situations associated with uncomfortable thoughts or feelings.” True, most people would understandably rather not willfully submerge themselves in unpleasant environments. But we’re not talking about a smelly restaurant or a long road trip with Goldberg. We’re talking about a place where, in a democratic republic, opposing points of view can be considered and confronted. A place where alternative information or even new opinions that challenge the professional consensus can be shared by everyone. Pursuing and grappling with such an environment is an activity formerly known as “journalism.” Now it’s something the left instinctively opposes on a base psychological level.

Lastly, consider how truly angry the thought of loosening its grip on Twitter has driven the Goldbergs, to the point where they use words such as “destroy.” They never seemed truly happy having their power, but that’s another phenomenon of the mind, something called loss aversion, described by behavior economist Dr. Shahram Heshmat as “an expression of fear” related to a tendency by individuals to “focus [more] on setbacks than progress.” In essence, Goldberg enjoyed enough being on the side of the current pro-censorship Twitter, but she has far more hatred for the idea of that side losing its status. And thus she ended her piece with this: “Twitter can’t be saved. Maybe, if we’re lucky, it can be destroyed.”

If I can’t have Twitter, no one can.

All of this is to say the hysterics and drama over Twitter and new ownership aren’t because there’s a legitimate fear of “the spread of misinformation” or a worry that “ultra MAGA Republicans” will take over. It stems from the emotional, child-like mentality of liberals who can’t tolerate coexisting with the other half of the country.

Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of “Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks Joy Out of Everything and Everyone.”