President Biden’s daycare minders in the White House had a project with high degree of difficulty to complete yesterday. They were required to put their heads together and come up with an explanation of Biden’s belief that Congress had enacted the student loan giveaway he promulgated by royal decree. You see, Biden doesn’t know what he is saying or doing.
How could his minders explain it? It wasn’t easy. Someone running the show slipped a note to Jacqui Heinrich of FOX News. Hey, he was thinking of the fraudulently titled Inflation Reduction Act when he referred to his loan giveaway. It could happen to anyone. And the note slipped to Heinrich required a killer correction. For “millions” read “billions.”
The explanation proffered by or on behalf of our president — whoever he or she may be — is difficult to reconcile with the words Biden actually uttered during the interview (via Isaac Schorr/NRO):
“I’ve just signed a law that’s being challenged by my Republican colleagues, they’re the same people who got PPP [Paycheck Protection Program] loans — in some cases up to five, six hundred thousand dollars — they have no problem with that, the individuals in Congress got those,” said Biden. “But what we’ve provided for is if you went to school if you qualify for a Pell Grant . . . you qualify for $20,000 in debt forgiveness. Secondly, if you DON’T have one of those loans, you just get $10,000 written off. It’s passed. I got it passed by a vote or two, and it’s in effect.”
I used to say that Biden has half a mind to be president. That estimate is obsolete. It is yet another casualty of time’s ravages.
In this Daily Wire graphic analyzing NAEP test score data, the darker red a state is, the worse its scores plunged when it came to the share of 4th graders with basic reading skills.
Academic proficiency plummeted in 2022 to among the lowest on record following the coronavirus school shutdowns, and children in Democrat-run states where teachers union demands led to extended school shutdowns bore the brunt, data released Monday from a national test known as the “nation’s report card” showed.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is administered to fourth and eighth graders every few years, allowing for a comparison of reading and math proficiency by state between 2019 — just before the pandemic — and 2022. The decline in math scores was the sharpest ever since the test began in 1990, and the average math scores were the lowest since 2005. The average eighth grade reading score was the lowest since 1998.
“Today’s NAEP results are the proverbial final nail in the coffin,” Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican who won election in 2021 in a blue-leaning state largely because of fury over Democrats’ education policies, said Monday. “If this doesn’t wake you up, then you’re clearly trying to cover up your own bad decisions. In the business world, if this was your report card, there would be an immediate change in management. You would be fired. And I think that’s what voters did.”
He said leaders kept “schools shut for an unnecessary amount of time, forcing students to learn through a screen and telling them that’s a meaningful education,” and that coronavirus decisions followed decades of similarly bad education decisions.
The map at the top of this article shows how badly the number of fourth-graders who scored at least “basic” in reading fell compared to before the pandemic in each state. Basic is the lowest of the three tiers — basic, proficient, and advanced — and those who do not have even basic reading skills by fourth grade are at risk of serious problems when it comes to employment and higher education later in life.
While almost all schools closed in March 2020, schools in conservative areas were often open for the following 2020-21 school year, while those in areas where teachers unions’ Democrat allies hold power were closed or in some sort of hybrid schedule for much of the year.
In the following chart, The Daily Wire plotted the same drop in reading scores according to how much of the 2020-21 school year the average student spent in actual, in-person school — as opposed to so-called distance learning that often consisted of little actual work, and with significant truancy from students. The state names are colored according to whether it had a Republican or Democrat governor at the beginning of the 2020-21 school year.
Clustered in the lower-left are Virginia, Oregon, Minnesota, Maryland, D.C., Nevada, and New York. That’s because all of them had among the longest school shutdowns — and drops approaching 9%. Only four states saw improvements in this measure of reading: Florida, whose schools remained open, Louisiana and Alabama, whose schools were also mostly open, and Hawaii — an outlier which saw improvement despite closed schools.
For the percent of time in-person, The Daily Wire drew from COVID School Data Hub, which tracked schools’ status across the country — though the average figure isn’t perfect since some decisions about remote learning varied across school districts and grade levels. Four states are also missing.
Here we have the same thing but for Grade 8 math. This time, we look at the drop in the percent who scored “proficient.” The even larger drops in this tier highlights that school shutdowns did not only harm students who were barely hanging on even before the pandemic, but were also devastating to previously good students.
Deep-blue states including Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Washington had drops of 12% — far more than states that spent more of the year in-person. Every state saw declines, but deep-red Alabama saw the smallest decline.
Though the scores are mostly at the state level, results are also provided for certain large cities. In Miami-Dade, Florida, 71% of 8th graders scored at least “basic” in reading, and in 2022, that actually rose to 72%. Meanwhile, in Chicago, the 2019 figure of 64% dropped to 61%. While Gov. Ron DeSantis ordered Florida’s schools open, the Chicago teachers union refused to work, claiming “The push to reopen schools is rooted in sexism, racism and misogyny.”
I have to wonder how George Zimmerman felt upon reading about the shooting death of Kansas City firefighter Anthony Santi, 41.
Ten years ago, after getting his head pounded into the concrete for a minute or more, Zimmerman famously shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Although Martin attacked the much smaller Zimmerman without provocation, and eyewitness evidence supported Zimmerman’s claims of self-defense, the media and the woke mobs frightened state prosecutors into charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder and ruining his life.
Santi’s shooter, by contrast, faces no consequences whatsoever, not even a review before a grand jury. According to the Kansas City Star, Jackson County prosecutor Jean Peters Baker, a liberal Democrat known for her racially sensitive leniency, “decided not to move forward with a second degree murder charge against the woman because it could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was acting outside of Missouri’s self-defense law.”
The Star article compares the case to Zimmerman’s and mistakenly argues that he was cleared on Florida’s “Stand Your Ground.” He wasn’t. The Zimmerman case was pure self-defense. Unlike with Zimmerman, the local media did not rail against self-defense laws in the Santi shooting. This is curious in that just a few months before the shooting, the media were widely denouncing a pending Missouri Stand Your Ground bill as the “Make Murder Legal Act.”
Although admittedly not an attorney, I think a good case could be made that Santi’s shooting involved neither self-defense nor stand your ground. I think an excellent case, however, could be made that the critical variables were the same as they were in the Zimmerman case: race and politics.
Here’s what happened. On the afternoon of October 6, 23-year-old Ja’Von Taylor started a ruckus in an Independence, Missouri, liquor store. (Independence borders Kansas City.) Upon being told the store did not have the kind of cigars he wanted, he cursed out a female clerk. When the clerk asked him to leave, Taylor acted up. Santi backed the clerk and asked him to leave as well.
Taylor should never have been out on the streets. In March 2022, he pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree robbery in Jackson County Circuit Court and was sentenced to ten years in prison. The judge granted him a suspended execution of sentence and placed him on probation. Seven months later, Taylor was out riding around with a loaded gun in his possession.
After threatening Santi, surveillance video shows Taylor retreating to his SUV and retrieving a firearm with an extended magazine. A subsequent cell phone video clip shows Santi restraining the armed Taylor on the ground while Taylor violently struggles to break free. At one point, Taylor hands off the gun to the unnamed woman. While waving the gun around, she screams at Santi to get off Taylor while she pulls on his shirt and pounds on his back. Santi turns to her and says, “What are you doing?”
“Get off,” she yells. “I’ve got a kid in the car.” According to bystanders, the struggle lasted as long as ten minutes. From the video, it seems clear that Santi is simply trying to restrain Taylor until the police arrive. He is not punching him or banging his head on the pavement.
The video clip does not show the gun being fired, but the woman admittedly shot Santi in the back, killing him. After shooting Santi, she and Taylor took off in the SUV. While the police were processing the crime scene, the shooter returned and was taken into custody. Taylor was later arrested on federal gun charges.
Under current Missouri law, a person may “use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person.”
This law justifies the shooting only if the force used by Santi against Taylor was “unlawful.” It wasn’t. Santi was the one standing his ground. He had no real choice. Had he let Taylor up, he had every reason to believe Taylor would have shot him.
The Missouri law contains several caveats under the rubric “unless.” The first of these is “unless the actor was the initial aggressor.” In this case, Taylor was the initial aggressor. Unless Taylor faced “death” or “serious physical injury,” the woman had no right to shoot Santi. As seen on the video, he made no apparent effort to kill Taylor or inflict serious physical injury although he was in position to do both.
The prosecutor’s decision not to press charges of any sort against the shooter is, I believe, a consciously racist misreading of the law. Although Taylor has been charged in federal court with one count of a felon in possession of a firearm, Baker could have charged him under state law with “exhibiting in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner.” The shooter saw her boyfriend take the gun and brandish it. She aided and abetted him in the commission of this apparent felony.
Then, too, there is the universally applied felony murder doctrine: “Any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder.” Although the Missouri interpretation of this principle is complex, what is clear is that the underlying felony “need not be inherently dangerous.”
Missouri law did not lead Jean Peters Baker to decline filing charges or even sending the case to a grand jury. What surely inspired her was the race of the perp and the race of the victim. Santi was white. Taylor and the shooter were black. Predictably, local media — all of them — refused to mention the race of any of the principals.
The media exercise this discretion, of course, only when it suits the larger political agenda. Consider, for instance, this Star headline from earlier in 2022: “Ex–Kansas City officer sentenced in black man’s killing.” The local NPR station took the same tack: “Kansas City detective convicted in killing of Black man will remain free even after he’s sentenced.” The Associated Press added further clarification: “White Missouri officer convicted in Black man’s 2019 death.”
The 2019 shooting followed a police pursuit of a vehicle involved in a high speed chase with another vehicle that ended in the garage of the vehicle involved. One officer fired at the suspect, Cameron Lamb, after he saw Lamb reach for a weapon. The case hinged on the fact that his partner did not see the gun, although a gun was found on the scene. The case went before a grand jury, which handed down an indictment for involuntary manslaughter.
In the years between the shooting and the death, Cameron Lamb was publicly mourned, defended, even celebrated. Anthony Santi, a good Samaritan to the core, will be quickly forgotten save by friends and family. Ja’Von Taylor, meanwhile, will soon be back, wandering the streets, armed and dangerous. Such is justice in America’s lawless Democrat-controlled jurisdictions.
Jack Cashill is the author of If I Had A Son: Race, Guns, and the Railroading of George Zimmerman. To learn more, see http://www.cashill.com.
If the mainstream media had any self-awareness or integrity at all, the latest Gallup findings on trust in the news media would prompt intensive soul-searching. As Gallup puts it, trust in the media is at a “record low.” Here’s the headline chart:
Note that the largest plurality of trust in the media is “none at all.” From low single digits back in the 1970s to 38 percent today. Nice job media. I’m sure CNN, the NY Times, and the rest will blame it on Fox News.
One more level of refinement: Democrats like the media. Why would that be? Only the media won’t be able to figure it out.
This is not one of the lies that Joe Biden likes to spin. This is scary delusional incompetence on the part of a president of the United States. Joe Biden did most assuredly not get a law passed by Congress by any vote when he unilaterally signed an executive order canceling $10,000 of student loan indebtedness for people earning up to $125,000 a year, and $20,000 for those who received Pell Grants.
Yet, addressing a group of younger people, he claimed that he “got it passed by a vote or two.”
Keep in mind that this is one of his major initiatives, not some minor program whose details he plausibly might have forgotten, even if of sound mind. It was also just enjoined by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals because a president does not have the constitutional authority to spend hundreds of billions of dollars without congressional appropriations.
This issue is, to use a phrase recently employed by the inimitable Karine Jean-Pierre, “top of mind.” And since “top of mind” allegedly preoccupies Biden, according to KJP, this means that the man has slipped the bonds of rationality and now is living in a fantasy world when it comes to the principal affairs of state.
Nick Arama of RedState says that it’s “Time for the 25th.” I strongly suspect that if voters decisively repudiate the Democrats on November 8, we’ll see Democrats start to talk about the 25th as they want to distance their own political futures from Biden.
Since at least the 1920s, American Jews have been among the most reliable supporters of the Democratic Party. Half of American Jews self-describe as liberal. But more tellingly, they vote Democratic at a rate of 70%. Jews are successful in many pursuits, yet they frequently seem to work against their own economic and political interests through their strident liberal leanings. The question is “why?”
What you need to know about Jews (and I’m proud to be one) is that most of us believe that our successes in the arts, education, politics, business, philanthropy, and other areas require us to give back to the society that enriched us. We should also lead the fight to improve the lot of the poor and powerless. Jews lay claim to more Nobel prizes, patents, more economic success, and likely more doctors than any other ethnic or religious group in the world. That merely proves we are smart. That still does not explain why we collectively lean toward liberalism. So let’s dig deeper.
American Jewry is tied to America’s twin social problems of antisemitism and race relations. On balance, Jews in other areas of the world, particularly Israel, tend to be conservative. I think it can be said that for Jews, the threat and reality of antisemitism in the U.S. made the suffering of blacks, particularly in the South, a sympathetic and emotional pull to the left that put both groups seemingly on the same team. However, Jews were in a position to do something about it. Blacks, not as much. This desire culminated in the founding of the NAACP in New York, largely with the support of Jews.
In my hometown of Atlanta, the president of Rich’s, which was, our largest department store chain, plus the president of National Linen were the two most important backers of the Atlanta branch of the NAACP. It was this group that introduced the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. to the world.
Without Jewish support, you may never have ever heard of MLK. America did not welcome Jews who were escaping Nazi Germany before the war. Jewish influence here was not as great as it is today. Jews kept their heads down even in the U.S. as antisemitism predominated. Jews were excluded from American society on many levels — social clubs, business, and housing. Such exclusions caused Jewish communities to become insular. Other Jews simply hid their Jewishness.
Post-war, all this helps to explain why Jews still felt persecuted, even in America. They tended to align themselves with liberal causes which often promised an end to injustice. Sadly, the last vestiges of these threats still exist as we witness recent attacks on Jewish houses of worship and schools.
I attended an Atlanta public school in the mid-60s. A couple of times a week, a Hebrew school bus would pick me up after school to take me to my religious study class. One particular day, a group of adults surrounded my bus and shouted epithets at us. One window was broken. My parents were devastated, but I was back on that bus the next time it came by. Thankfully, that incident never repeated itself. Interestingly, my parents were conservative as well. Perhaps conservative values run in families?
There is a growing gap between American Jews and Jews in other countries. While Jews are always “on guard” for real or imagined threats, they largely depend on the government to right wrongs and to protect them. While in Israel and quite a few other countries, that may seem naive. The refrain “Never Again” is more of a reflex action when spoken by American Jews. It means something quite different elsewhere. I can’t recall who said “To live in this world, not in the world of the politically Utopian or the religiously messianic,” but I think it capsulizes an important sentiment. Without the threat of imminent demise, American Jews, who vote reliably Democrat and align themselves with every liberal social cause, have lost perspective.
Every day, the divisions within our country on any social or economic line you can think of, are enhanced by a lack of logical thought as to the long-term consequences that flow from liberalism. The central premise of liberal thinking, as expressed by Barb Cortez, a former HHS Department Head, states:
“From my observation of liberals, I would say they notice the disparities in society and would like to close the gaps. They would like bigotry not to be accepted in society. Liberals would like every human to be treated with the same respect. Liberals would like the basics of life or the basics of a good life to be afforded everyone especially since we can afford to do it. The basics of life are food, housing, health care, education, a living wage, justice, and a clean environment.”
Liberalism’s end game lies exposed. Food security, housing security, healthcare, guaranteed, education, guarantee of a living wage, together with a justice system that supposedly works for everyone.
Who wouldn’t want to make a more perfect world? But one just doesn’t exist. It’s been tried, but to accomplish it, we’d have to become a nation of drones. We’d have to drive out the very features of Man that have given so many of us prosperity and longevity. Lust, avarice, greed, and some other powerful human emotions and drives, often accompanied by the opposite of egalitarianism predominate in a free society.
Another wise philosophy, as I mentioned above, was expressed in this way; “Live in this world, not in the world of the politically Utopian or the religiously messianic.” I completely agree. Liberals have had their chance, and while they think they have changed the world, the change they think they’ve brought us is even more poverty, suffering, and a contrived economy where the government almost always makes the wrong calls.
Liberals wage phony wars (foreign and domestic) to right the wrongs they see as an impediment to a better world. Conservatives build on what works. If they stick to their philosophical guns, that is.
American Jews make up a disproportionate share of our political leaders. There are 37 Jewish members of Congress and the Senate which represents about 7% of both bodies. Only 2.4% of our population is Jewish. Jews are motivated to serve in disproportionate numbers by their desire to make our world better. Unfortunately, their persuasive positions overwhelmingly lean left.
Please don’t misunderstand the intent of today’s missive. At my core, I believe in the value of conservative Jewish theology and the power we, as a group, have to make our world better. However, our human DNA will not support a Utopia. I wish that every Jewish leader from whatever walk of life would realize the limitations of good intentions. They must remember, every day of their lives, how close the clarion call of “Never Again” still is and hew to a conservative approach to all things in life.
Too often, our desires to make us believe we can change fundamental human behavior, and by extension the world, will never materialize.
l’chaim! To Life!
God bless our country.
Allan J. Feifer is an author, businessman, and thinker. Read more about Allan, his background and his ideas to create a better tomorrow at www.1plus1equals2.com
The Republicans were always going to win big in November, regardless of what biased pundits professed.
There was likely never a sudden “blue resurgence” or “red collapse” of late summer.
Those fantasies were mostly Democratic Party talking points. They were readily regurgitated by the fusion media and biased pollsters. The ruse was transparently designed to dampen conservative turnout and fundraising, while fueling interparty squabbling over supposedly “unelectable MAGA candidates.”
As it turns out, all the late infusions of millions of dollars of Silicon Valley dark “cabal” money will be to no avail.
All the last-minute Joe Biden giveaways like student-loan forgiveness, marijuana pardons, and COVID relief checks will be too little, too late.
All the Trump-derangement syndrome psychodramatic distractions from the January 6 committee to the Mar-a-Lago raid will be too transparently desperate.
And all the shrill 11th-hour warnings of a new variant of racism from the multimillionaire Obamas on the stump will be just that—shrill.
Yes, the Democrats will soon chant democracy is dying because they are terrified it is thriving as never before. And that grass-roots resurgence is mostly because Republicans are no longer so easily stereotyped as the out-of-touch party of aristocratic Mitt Romneys and condescending Bill Kristols.
Instead, supposedly “racist” conservatives are now empowered by minority voters worried more about shared class concerns than skin color. They are concluding that if there are American racists, they are most likely the rich bicoastal elites, never subject to the consequences of their selfish agendas, and their own self-appointed, self-interested, and ossified diversity industry.
So as the election nears, to save reputations, pollsters will now become just a bit more honest. Thus, they will be off on the final tally by only 2-3 percentage points rather than midsummer’s 5-8. That way, they save their eroding reputations by claiming post facto that at least their final polls “were within the margin of error.”
In the last few days, pundits will cease talk of an unappreciated “real” Democratic late surge. Instead they will turn on the electorate for its “stupidity.”
We will read all sorts of “What’s the Matter with Kansas?”-like screeds against those who voted “against their interests,” with ample fillips of “whitelash,” “voter suppression,” and Stacey Abramsesque denialism—even as Republicans win record numbers of minority voters.
(Remember, minorities who vote conservative are excommunicated from the Left and no longer considered genuine minorities, as adjudicated by wealthy white professionals).
History Was Always Obvious
We always knew that any president in his first midterm historically loses about 28 seats in the House and four Senate seats. Voters realize the prior promises of a presidential candidate are not the same as the actual policies of a president. It is one thing for a loud candidate to point out that an incumbent president is responsible for all that goes bad. But it is quite another two years later to be that “bad” president who bears out that truism.
Hubris also plays a role for cocky majorities—whether Democrats printing $4 trillion to spread around even as the economy faced a dearth of supply and near-record labor nonparticipation, or Republicans in 2017 ending the state and local tax exemption that enraged independent swing voters in purple states.
When the generic party ballot favors the out party in a president’s first term and his polls hover at or below 40 percent, then a normal 20-30 seat loss can become a 40-60 seat tsunami.
Moreover, in 2022, the Republicans start dead even in the Senate. They are only eight down in the House. So, their natural pickup will be force multiplied by the fact they will surge way ahead rather than coming from way back to achieve a modest majority.
Joe Biden is not just an obnoxious, off-putting, snarly, and enfeebled president. He is also captive of the most radically destructive, left-wing agenda in the White House since 1933. On energy, inflation, the border, debt, crime, racial relations, and foreign policy, the Left’s project has proven an utter disaster that has hollowed out the middle class and embarrassed the nation in under two years.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Leftists Will Be Leftists
Yet, there will not even be a futile, last-minute progressive attempt at correction.
Leftist ideologues never backtrack from their long-march agendas. Instead, as religious nihilists they would rather be purist in their destructive policies that alienate the voters—rather than win them over as apostates by moderating their views.
However, do not even expect the Left to brag on their “successes.” For example:
“We gave you a wonderful, welcoming open border and 3 million new Americans!”
“We worked to get gas up to $5 a gallon in a way Barack Obama only dreamed!”
“We finally have fewer felons in jail and prisons than ever before!”
“We ended the war in Afghanistan and on our terms!”
“We really spread the wealth with an 8 percent plus annual inflation rate!”
Instead, they will fall silent on the very policies they enacted on their age-old principle that the opiated masses never know what is good for them.
Given these realities, expect the Republicans to end up with a near historical majority in the House and firm control of the Senate.
What then should we expect after the midterms?
Again, we will be told that democracy is now in its final stages. Voter “suppression” was rampant, even as turnout hit near record levels.
When those leftist talking points don’t convince voters, pundits will lament the stupidity of the American people, the malevolent MAGA surge, the racist nature of the country—any excuse other than the new Democratic Party is the domain of the hyper-rich, the bicoastal white professional elites, the subsidized poor, and affluent and privileged minorities. And it is increasingly despised by the white working class, by nearly half of the Hispanic population, by more and more independents, and by a growing minority of African American males.
Why? Because on issues that count, the Left insults middle-class critics as it destroys them, pushing green, inflationary, open-borders, racially obsessed, and elitist agendas without voter support.
In pathetic attempts to distract the electorate to support policies contrary to their interests, it grows hysterical in demanding late-term abortion, mainstreaming transgenderism in all its drag manifestations, and racialist indoctrination, insulting all who demur as bigots and racists.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Democrats Fear Republicans Might
Do What They Would Do
But there are other reasons the Left will become livid and terrified when they lose the Congress.
They fear not what Republican majorities may actually do, but what they would do if they were Republicans and suddenly gained the Congress after being smeared by the party in power.
That is, the Democrats fear that the Republicans might remember what the Left did while in legislative control and would see that as the new model for an incoming majority.
Consequently, will a Republican Senate simply refuse to confirm Biden’s ultra-left appointments and judges, on the theory they will inevitably do the damage of a Merrick Garland or Alejandro Mayorkas or prove sanctimonious nincompoops like a Pete Buttigieg or Xavier Becerra?
Will the Republicans subpoena an array of left-wing activists and Democratic functionaries? Will jail sentences await any who retry the Eric Holder gambit of congressional defiance?
Will they adopt the January 6 committee protocols?
That is, will Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announce he is following the precedents of Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and therefore reluctantly must:
Automatically deny “extremists,” such as members of “the squad,” from any congressional committee appointments;
Sometimes veto any Democrat minority leader’s recommendations for House committee assignments;
Run simultaneous congressional investigations of 1) politicized leadership at the wayward FBI and Department of Justice; 2) the labyrinth of conflicts of interest within our federal health bureaucracy, starting with National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci; 3) the tax liabilities, false statements, and sources of income of the Biden family; 4) “insurrections,” starting with the role of social media, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter during the 120 days in 2020 of uninterrupted rioting, looting, and arson.
Undertake a real probe of the entire January 6 riot and its aftermath, using newly inherited operating procedures to subpoena high-ranking bureaucrats, left-wing pundits, Democratic National Committee operatives and elected officials to discover: 1) why the breakdown in Capitol Hill police security; 2) why the suppression of information about the officer killing of Ashli Babbitt, and the death from natural causes of Officer Brian Sicknick; 3) why all videos, emails, and communications concerning the riot have not been released; 4) what was the role, if any, of FBI informants; 5) why were dozens of the accused held without bail, without charges filed, and subject to nonstop jail harassment?
Would Democrats—if they were Republicans in January 2023—vote to end the filibuster?
Will Joe Biden, who all summer long blasted the filibuster as a racist relic, flip in 2023 and claim it is the bastion of the republic when the Democrats are in the senate minority?
Will Democrats object if the Republican House becomes impeachment-hungry, following the 2019-2021 precedent?
Is the rule now established that an unpopular president should face first-term impeachment when he loses the House?
Or is the new legacy automatic impeachment when a president clearly warps the national interest to further his own political viability—such as ruining relations with Saudi Arabia while draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a last-ditch effort to avoid a midterm wipeout?
Or is impeachment warranted when a president does not faithfully execute the laws, such as destroying the entire corpus of federal immigration law to enhance a future political constituency?
Does impeachment now extend to former presidents as private citizens? Should Joe Biden expect an impeachment writ while retired to his Delaware retreat?
Will impeachment include cabinet officials such as Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for his open border, or Attorney General Merrick Garland for unleashing the FBI against political enemies? Will the petty become institutionalized, such as Kevin McCarthy scowling and tearing up one of Biden’s rambling and incoherent State of the Union addresses in front of cameras on national television?
Will the Congress call in Ivy-League mental health professionals to tele-diagnose Joe Biden as they clamor for 25th-Amendment investigations and demand a presidential Montreal Cognitive Assessment?
Will Biden be subpoenaed to testify before a House congressional committee investigating the Biden quid pro quos and his own former brag about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired who apparently got too rambunctious in investigating Burisma?
Alex Wong/Getty Images
A Final Question
It should be a fascinating post-midterm fall and winter.
But one question remains: will the Left now blame Biden as the perfect scapegoat for its midterm implosion—even after using him as the reputable empty vessel to carry through an otherwise disreputable agenda?
If so, expect plenty of leaks, but arising from the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Democratic National Committee—and spread by the left-wing network news and mainstream media.
The subtext will be “Good ol’ Joe from Scranton dutifully played the useful idiot, but now is to be properly scapegoated and sent packing, given what lost the election was not our extremist agenda but the doddering fool who was identified with it.”
As hard as it will be to believe, after all the excuses are exhausted (voter suppression, racism, MAGA extremism, right-wing news, etc.) the Left will blame their erstwhile savior Biden for sullying their message. That way they can conclude they lost only because of the inept messenger and so can escalate their revolutionary but otherwise toxic agendas.
MN Prager Discussion Group 
You must be logged in to post a comment.