“But like The Wizard of Oz, it is all show and no substance.”

Why globalism is the enemy of freedom

Like The Wizard of Oz, it is all show and no substance

December 29, 2022

(Photo by FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images)

Written by:

Roger Kimball at the Spectator:

Iwas recently asked to say a few words about “Globalism and Freedom” at a conference sponsored by Hillsdale College in Boise. Globalism, I said, is the enemy of freedom. Why? Because globalism systematically attacks and undermines the moral and political filiations that make genuine freedom possible.

In order to understand why this should be so, we must begin by pondering the word “globalism” and its adjectival personification “globalist.” Neither occurs in my thirteen-volume edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, which dates from the early 1960s. What does that tell us?

For one thing, it tells us that the term “globalism” and its cognates are neologisms. Neologisms come into being for a couple of different reasons. Sometimes they are invented to describe new states of affairs brought about by social or scientific innovations. Sometimes, however, neologisms are confected not so much to describe new realities as to help bring them about. Such, I believe, is the case with “globalism.”

“Globalism,” that is to say, is the name of an aspiration not yet a reality. At the center of that aspiration are two impulses, one critical or negative, the other constructive.

The negative side can be summed up in the great antithesis of globalism, which is national loyalty. The constructive side of globalism can be summed up in a single word, and that word is utopia.

Utopian fantasies are as perennial as they are vain. They insinuate themselves everywhere in the economy of human desire, not least in our political arrangements. Noticing the imperfection of our societies, we may be tempted into thinking that the problem is with the limiting structures we have inherited. If only we could dispense with them, we imagine, how much better things might be.

What a cunning, devilish word: “might.” For here, as elsewhere, possibility is cheap. Scrap our current political accommodations and things might be better. Then again, they might be a whole lot worse. Consider the host of tyrannies inspired by that disciple of airy possibility, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. “Man was born free,” Rousseau declaimed, “but is everywhere in chains”: two startling untruths in a single famous utterance.

Rousseau was keen on “forcing” men to be free. But we had to wait for his disciples Robespierre and Saint-Just to discover that freedom in this sense is often indistinguishable from what Robespierre chillingly called virtue’s “emanation,” terror.

Something similar can be said about Karl Marx, that other acolyte of unfettered possibility. How much misery has he underwritten, promising paradise but delivering tyranny, oppression, poverty and death?

It wasn’t so long ago I had hopes that the Marxist-socialist rot — outside the insulated purlieus of humanities departments at Western universities — was on the fast track to oblivion. Has any “philosophy” ever been so graphically refuted by events (or the number of corpses it created)?

Maybe not, but refutation, like reason, plays a much more modest role in human affairs than we might imagine. In fact, the socialist-inspired utopian chorus is alive and well, playing to full houses at an anti-democratic redoubt near you. Consider the apparently unkillable dream of “world government,” a sort of farm-team try-out for what we now call “globalism.” It is as fatuous now as it was when H.G. Wells infused it with literary drama toward the beginning of the twentieth century.

A sterling contemporary example is the Great Reset, recently proposed by the Davos-based World Economic Forum, which seeks — and I quote — “to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.” Exploiting the panic caused by the Covid-19 crisis, the WEF demands that “every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.”

Here at last was an opportunity to enact a worldwide tax on wealth, a far-reaching (and deeply impoverishing) “green-energy” agenda, rules that would dilute national sovereignty and insinuate politically correct attitudes into the fabric of everyday life. All this was being promulgated for our own good, of course. But it was difficult to overlook the fact that the WEF plan involved nothing less than the absorption of liberty by the extension of bureaucratic power.

The true political ends of such elite enterprises are generally swaddled in emollient rhetoric about freedom and democracy — what we have recently been taught to call “our democracy.” Thus the PR surrounding the WEF’s Great Reset is festooned with talk of “stakeholder capitalism,” “equality,” “sustainability,” and other emetic items from the lexicon of socialistically oriented political obfuscation. The reality is far darker.

The globalist alternative dangled before us is a version of utopia. But like The Wizard of Oz, it is all show and no substance. Or rather, the substance is an erosion of traditional sources of strength and identity together with an assault on the middle class and its “deplorable” values as an impediment to the realization of beatitude.

Increasingly, Western societies are reverting to a species of bifurcated society in which a tiny group of elites rules over a docile but imperfectly contented mass. What happens when the engines of prosperity falter is anyone’s guess. The commentator John O’Sullivan has spoken of the advent of “sacrificial utopia.” Only someone innocent of the writings of Orwell, and the machinations of communist despotism, will think that an ironical designation.

This article was originally published in The Spectator’s January 2023 World edition. 

“The Black Hebrew movement absurdly claims blacks are the real Biblical Jews”

GREAT AMERICA

The New, New Antisemitism

Black antisemitism is spreading in strange, dangerous ways. Why?

By Victor Davis Hanson at American Greatness:

December 28, 2022

The old antisemitism was more a right-wing than a left-wing phenomenon—perhaps best personified by the now-withered Ku Klux Klan.

A new antisemitism followed from the campus leftism of the 1960s. It arose from and was masked by a general hatred of Israel, following the Jewish state’s incredible victory in the 1967 Six-Day War. 

That lopsided triumph globally transformed Israel in the leftist mind from a David fighting the Arab Goliath into a veritable Western imperialist, neocolonialist overdog. 

On campuses, Middle-East activism, course instruction, and faculty profiles are now virulently anti-Israel—and indistinguishable from anti-Jewishness. 

When columnist Ben Shapiro spoke at Stanford University in 2019, left-wing posters were plastered around campus depicting Shapiro as an insect menace. A “BenBGon” bug spray bottle in Nazi fashion unsubtly suggested that a chemical agent is the best remedy to make sure Jews “be gone” from the premises. 

The avowed socialist Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) retweeted the old propaganda boast, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” 

Tlaib knew well “to the sea” could mean only the extinction of Israel itself and its 9 million Jews. She deleted her tweet—but only after an outcry of protest. 

Anti-Zionists and leftist Palestinian activists Linda Sarsour and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)—“it’s all about the Benjamins”—often made no effort to hide their antisemitism. 

Yet now a dangerous new, new antisemitism is trending, predominantly among African-Americans—especially prominent politicians, celebrities, and billionaires. 

The old trope that blacks inordinately were prejudiced against Jews due to past inner-city stereotypes of exploiting Jewish landlords has been recalibrated. It is now repackaged by black elites claiming that their careers are overly profitable to and orchestrated by “the Jews.”

It has been difficult to find any major black leader who has not trafficked in antisemitism, whether Jesse Jackson (“Hymietown”), Al Sharpton (“tell them to pin their yarmulkes back”), Louis Farrakhan (“gutter religion”), or Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright (“Them Jews”). 

Yet what is different about the new, new antisemitism is the open defiance, often even or especially when exposed. 

Kayne West was met with pushback after warning, “I’m going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE.” Yet he trumped that by soon praising Adolf Hitler. 

The Black Hebrew movement absurdly claims blacks are the real Biblical Jews, Jews the imposters. Black Lives Matter clumsily disguised its antisemitism when claiming Israelis were committing mass genocide in the Middle East.

When novelist Alice Walker was chastised for praising virulent antisemite David Icke (he claimed that Jews formed a cabal of “lizard people”), she too was unremorseful. Walker retorted that Icke was “brave” for publishing his nutty rants. 

Rappers from Public Enemy and Ice Cube to Jay-Z and Kanye West all spouted anti-Jewish venom. And billionaires, from the late Michael Jackson to LeBron James, dabbled in antisemitic talk, the first in lines from lyrics, the second in retweets. 

In the hate-crime statistics, blacks as perpetrators are overrepresented, and, as victims, Jews and Asians are overrepresented. “Knock out the Jew” occasionally resurfaces as a common sport among New York city black youth.

In our “woke” age, race is seen as an indemnity policy for any self-described victim. Thus even elite blacks, as the still oppressed, cannot be seen as oppressors against “white” Jews. 

Wokeism’s competitive victimization often embraces Holocaust denial. That way, the systematic slaughter of 6 million Jews in industrial fashion does not overshadow the need for a reparatory legacy to atone for slavery and Jim Crow. 

When Whoopi Goldberg claimed the Holocaust was not about race and was, for a while, suspended from her morning chat show, she only temporarily apologized. Goldberg this week returned to claiming that the Holocaust was only a crime by white people against white people.

In her ignorance, she was oblivious that Hitler and the Nazis did not believe Jews to be fully human at all.

Among black elites in professional sports and entertainment, the belief that Jews inordinately are represented as agents, executives, or commissioners is considered proof of exploitation—and often ridiculously reduced to master-slave psychodramas. 

Marquee professional athletes like Kyrie Irving, DeShawn Jackson, and the retired Stephen Jackson only reluctantly backed off their blatant anti-Jewish messaging.

Apparently, if the athletes of the NFL and NBA are approximately 60 percent or more African American, then they are merely diverse. But if Jews in the entertainment and sport hierarchies appear more frequently than their 2.4 percent demographic, then as a “cabal” they supposedly pose a threat to black livelihoods. 

Black antisemitism is spreading in strange, dangerous ways. 

Why? Woke orthodoxy offers cover by insisting supposed victims can never be victimizers. A leftist-dominated media hides or contextualizes the hatreds promulgated by its own constituents. 

Jewish-American groups remain predominately liberal. And too often, they conveniently overlook black antisemitism, given the demands of left-wing intersectional solidarity. 

So, expect the new, new antisemitism to grow more common—and more toxic.

About Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare.

The Dem America Of Our Past?

December 29, 2022

Black Lives Matter Lauded Fidel Castro, Domestic Terrorists

By Civis Americanus at American Thinker:

I reported previously how Dean Eduardo Peñalver of Cornell’s famous law school used an official Cornell University web page to condemn Legal Insurrection’s William Jacobson for disparaging Black Lives Matter.  This page, which is still online as of December 27, 2022, says in part (emphasis is mine),

In light of this deep and rich tradition of walking the walk of racial justice, in no uncertain terms, recent blog posts of Professor William Jacobson, casting broad and categorical aspersions on the goals of those protesting for justice for Black Americans, do not reflect the values of Cornell Law School as I have articulated them. I found his recent posts to be both offensive and poorly reasoned.

I also reported how Hardin-Simmons University apparently forced out a student for posting a TikTok video that disparaged Black Lives Matter.  HSU is already facing declining enrollments due to other reasons, and, in light of the following discovery, its treatment of this student should be an absolute disqualifier in the absence of rapid corrective action by HSU (including, for example, a public apology to the student in question).  Less expensive public universities in Texas cannot discriminate against students for political views, and if students want education with a Baptist focus, there are plenty of Baptist churches and other organizations on or near the public universities in question.

I am also not sure why prospective law students should pay Cornell roughly $75,000 in annual tuition when SUNY Buffalo is closer to $25,000 a year for New York residents in the absence of corrective action by the university’s administration or trustees.  This corrective action should, as I see it, consist of removal of the web page in question along with a public apology to Professor Jacobson.

Black Lives Matter Eulogized Fidel Castro and Praised Domestic Terrorists

I came across the following eulogy for the murderous Cuban dictator Fidel Castro while looking for more information on “Mama Assata,” as BLM calls the convicted cop-killer and domestic terrorist Assata Shakur, AKA Joanne Chesimard.  This is straight from BLM Global Network itself and not from any of its detractors.

The first thing to note is the call for “revolution,” which uses civil rights as a means rather than an objective.  This reinforces the position that the only real difference between BLM icon George Floyd and Nazi icon Horst Wessel is that Floyd was Black and Wessel was Caucasian.  Both were violent thugs; Floyd was convicted of a gun-armed robbery, and Wessel belonged to extremist paramilitary organizations.  Both were later killed unlawfully, Floyd by Derek Chauvin, who, with the benefit of hindsight, had a badge and a gun he should not have had, and Wessel by communists.

What follows is even worse than anything I and many others had previously imagined despite BLM’s long track record of encouraging civil unrest, credibly alleged misuse of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt resources to influence the 2020 presidential election, anti-Semitic hate speech, and anti-Semitic denial of the right of Israel to exist.

As a Black network committed to transformation, we are particularly grateful to Fidel [Castro] for holding Mama Assata Shakur, who continues to inspire us. We are thankful that he provided a home for Brother Michael Finney Ralph Goodwin, and Charles Hill, asylum to Brother Huey P. Newton, and sanctuary for so many other Black revolutionaries who were being persecuted by the American government during the Black Power era.

The article ends with “Fidel Vive!” (Fidel Lives), so let’s take a look at what BLM supports.

Thousands of Cubans have died in front of Castro’s infamous “paredón” (the wall). There was no discrimination, as far as sending people to the firing squad was concerned. Young and old, black and white, rich and poor were sent to “el paredón.”

Always Turn Over the Rock

I doubt that this is what either Hardin-Simmons University or Cornell’s Law School supports, but this is why you should always turn over a rock to see what is crawling around underneath it.  I recall seeing an attractive home page for the Council of Conservative Citizens, which showed a middle-class Caucasian family and talked about “our way of life.”  The website seemed to be about preserving the American way of life, which sounded fine to me.  Then I turned over the rock to discover that this organization is also called the White Citizens Council.  Rep. Bob Barr, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul were taken in by it as well, but when they also turned over the rock, they distanced themselves from this organization very quickly.

We have so far turned over the BLM rock to find support for a murderous dictator and human rights–violator.  We know that “Mama Assata” is on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for murdering a New Jersey state trooper.  Now let’s look at “Brother Michael Finney Ralph Goodwin, and Charles Hill.”

CNN’s Patrick Oppmann reports that Charles Hill is an admitted hijacker, and it goes downhill from there.

All three men were members of the Republic of New Afrika, a black power militant group that sought to break off Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina into a separate nation for African-Americans. They were on the way from California to the South with a car loaded with weapons to support the cause.

One of them then killed a New Mexico State Police officer, and then all three carjacked a tow truck and stormed an airliner, where Hill held a knife to the throat of a flight attendant.  Finney then menaced the airplane’s crew with a gun and told them he had already killed a man, which seems to be his admission to the murder of Rosenbloom.  That was how they ended up in Cuba to be welcomed by Fidel Castro.

BLM Supports Cop-Killers, Carjackers, Terrorists, and Hijackers; Do You Still Support BLM?

We have therefore seen, from BLM’s own words and not those of its critics, that this organization supports cop-killers along with violent Black separatists, carjackers, and hijackers.  BLM also supports convicted terrorist Rasmea Odeh, who murdered two Jews with a bomb and tried to murder more with a second bomb, which, however, the Israelis disarmed in time.  Note by the way that Facebook’s so-called Community Standards, which forbid glorification of dangerous individuals, do not seem to apply to Rasmea Odeh.

Cornell’s Law School, Hardin-Simmons University, and also various corporations that have given money and/or public relations support to Black Lives Matter* now need to ask whether this is still something with which they wish to associate their names or, as Bob Barr, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul did when they turned over the rock called the Council of Conservative Citizens, rescind that support publicly and unequivocally.  Noting that the Democrat party also put its support behind BLM in 2020, the Republicans need to make this a foremost talking point in 2024.

Civis Americanus is the pen name of a contributor who remembers the lessons of history and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way.  The author is remaining anonymous due to the likely prospect of being subjected to “cancel culture” for exposing the Big Lie behind Black Lives Matter.

* Some donations may have gone to Robert Ray Barnes‘s Black Lives Matter Foundation, which is emphatically not the same thing as BLM Global Network.  Barnes’s organization seeks to improve police-community relations and has absolutely nothing to do with the activities depicted above.  Further research on the companies listed by the Washington Examiner shows, however:

• Sprite (a Coca-Cola brand) donated half a million dollars to BLMGN.
•  Airbnb says it donated to the BLM Foundation, but the hashtag seems to link to BLMGN, so this needs clarification on their part.
•  Ritz Crackers, Oreo, Trident, and Chips Ahoy (all the same company) cite BLMGN (@blklivesmatter) in their tweet of support.
• While Microsoft also says “Black Lives Matter Foundation,” the link goes directly to BLMGN.
• Amazon also posted a link to BLMGN.

“Justice Gorsuch is right on all points, but one.”

BORDER CRISIS

Here’s A Better Reason To Cheer For The Supreme Court’s U.S. Border Reprieve

BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND

DECEMBER 28, 2022

The SCOTUS victory here is not mandating immigration policy, but addressing the manipulative use of consent decrees and settlement agreements.

MARGOT CLEVELAND

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled the Trump-era suspension of entry at the Mexico border must remain in place while the high court considers an appeal filed by 19 states that sought to intervene in the case to defend the policy. The order in Arizona v. Mayorkas prompted cheers from Americans frustrated with the Biden Administration’s failure to defend our country’s borders. But it is not the justices’ job to make or enforce immigration policy, and conservatives applauding the stay for that reason should re-think their response.

And yet, there is a legitimate reason to celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeal in Arizona v. Mayorkas, as it provides the high court the vehicle to end the abusive use of friendly settlement agreements to sidestep the political or administrative process.

In response to Covid-19, in March 2020, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), issued a regulation immediately suspending entry at Canadian or Mexican ports of entry of individuals lacking proper travel documents or whose entry would otherwise be illegal. Informally called the “Title 42 system,” after the title of the United States Code that authorized the CDC to suspend admission into the country to prevent the spread of a communicable disease, the rules established in March 2020 were extended several times, with the final rule issued on Sept. 11, 2020.

Aliens subject to expulsion from the country under Title 42 filed suit in Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas in January of 2021 in a federal court in D.C., alleging the Trump Administration’s CDC expulsion rules violated various federal statutes. While the Huisha-Huisha case was pending, in April 2022, the CDC, now under the Biden Administration, entered an order terminating its previous Title 42 orders. In response, a coalition of states filed suit against the Biden Administration in a federal court in Louisiana, alleging the order terminating the Title 42 system violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the CDC issued the rule without the required notice and comment period, and also because the rule was arbitrary and capricious.

The states’ lawsuit argued that the CDC’s termination order was “‘plainly at war with other policies of the Biden Administration,’ such as refusing to lift the mask mandate on airline travelers, refusing to repeal vaccination mandates, and insisting on discharging members of the military who sought religious exemptions from those mandates.”

The states also argued the “CDC utterly failed to consider the consequences of the Termination Order on the States, which even Biden Administration officials acknowledged would lead to an ‘influx’ of migrants, inflicting a ‘surge on top of a surge’ that would irreparably harm the States.”

A federal judge in the Louisiana case concluded the Biden Administration violated the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the ADA and entered a preliminary injunction preventing the CDC’s termination order of Title 42 from going into effect. The Biden Administration filed an appeal of the Louisiana district court’s decision with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Three months later, on November 15, 2022, in Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, the federal court in D.C. ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in their challenge to the Trump Administration’s Title 42 system. Specifically, the D.C. federal court declared the regulations and all decisions issued by the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services suspending the right of entry under Title 42 were “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the APA.

Within hours of the federal court in D.C. declaring invalid the Trump Administration’s Title 42 system, the Biden Administration filed an “Unopposed Emergency Motion for Temporary Stay,” seeking a temporary delay in ending the Title 42 system to allow the federal government “to resolve resource and logistical issues” related to the ending of the Title 42 order. The court granted that motion, staying its decision striking Title 42 until midnight on December 21, 2022.

The Biden Administration then turned to the Louisiana court, notifying the judge who had frozen the CDC’s newly adopted rule terminating the Title 42 system that the federal court in D.C. had struck the Title 42 system. Thus, come December 21, 2020, the Biden Administration stressed, there will “ be no legal authority for the government to continue to enforce the Title 42 policy.” In other words, it no longer mattered whether the Biden Administration’s CDC properly terminated the Title 42 system because a federal court had declared the Title 42 system illegal.

At that point, fifteen states, led by Arizona, filed a motion in the D.C. federal court in Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas seeking to intervene in the case as an interested party. Four additional states joined the motion soon after, with the states all requesting permission from the court to enter the case to defend the legality of the Title 42 system, as the Biden Administration appeared unwilling to defend the earlier rules to effectuate a termination of the Title 42 system —something it had tried to do by regulation but that was enjoined by the Louisiana federal court.

After the states filed the Motion to Intervene, the Biden Administration filed an appeal in the Huisha-Huisha case to the D.C. Circuit Court, leading the states to request permission to intervene from the federal appellate court. The D.C. Circuit denied the state’s leave to intervene, which prompted the 19 states to seek a stay from the Supreme Court of the trial court’s order in Huisha-Huisha striking the Title 42 system. Following a temporary stay granted by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed to hear the state’s appeal of the D.C. Circuit’s denial of its Motion to Intervene. The Supreme Court further held the lower court’s decision striking the Title 42 system could not take effect until the high court resolved the issue of intervention, which would be done on an expeditated basis with a hearing to proceed during the February 2023 argument session.

The four justices dissenting from the Supreme Court’s stay included the three liberal justices, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, joined by Justice Gorsuch. And in a brief two-page dissent, joined by Justice Jackson, Justice Gorsuch explained his opposition to the stay and the decision to take the appeal.

“Reasonable minds can disagree about the merits of the D. C. Circuit’s intervention ruling,” Justice Gorsuch wrote, before stressing “that case-specific decision is not of special importance in its own right and would not normally warrant expedited review.” Rather, “the D. C. Circuit’s intervention ruling takes on whatever salience it has only because of its presence in a larger underlying dispute about the Title 42 orders.”

But, even then, “it is unclear what we might accomplish,” Justice Gorsuch added. “Even if at the end of it all we find that the States are permitted to intervene, and even if the States manage on remand to demonstrate that the Title 42 orders were lawfully adopted, the emergency on which those orders were premised has long since lapsed.”

“And it is hardly obvious why we should rush in to review a ruling on a motion to intervene in a case concerning emergency decrees that have outlived their shelf life,” the dissenting justice posited.

“The only plausible reason for stepping in at this stage,” Justice Gorsuch opined, was that we “face an immigration crisis at the border and policymakers have failed to agree on adequate measures to address it.” Justice Gorsuch then continued with a passage every conservative should study:

“The only means left to mitigate the crisis, the States suggest, is an order from this Court directing the federal government to continue its COVID-era Title 42 policies as long as possible—at the very least during the pendency of our review. Today, the Court supplies just such an order. For my part, I do not discount the States’ concerns. Even the federal government acknowledges ‘that the end of the Title 42 orders will likely have disruptive consequences.’  But the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis. And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.”

Justice Gorsuch is right on all points, but one.

More on that one point shortly, but for now consider what celebrating Tuesday’s order represents — applauding the judiciary acting as legislators. That is most assuredly not a conservative response. Yes, our borders need protecting. Yes, the Biden Administration, Congress, Democrats, and Republicans have failed. And yes, the damage to the country and ordinary Americans is great. But the answer is not five justices sticking their fingers in the morass.

Yet of the solidly conservative court, only Justice Gorsuch spoke out. Why?

Because on one point Justice Gorsuch was wrong: There is another plausible reason for the Supreme Court, including conservative justices to step in, and that is to address what, in a similar case, Chief Justice Roberts called “the tactic of ‘rulemaking-by-collective-acquiescence.’” In fact, in their motion to the Supreme Court seeking a stay, the 19 states focused foremost on the Biden Administration’s gaming of litigation to achieve its end goal of terminating the Title 42 system, and only secondarily on the harm ending Title 42 will cause.

Here, it is important to note that last term in Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, the Supreme Court had agreed to address a similar question concerning intervention in “another dispute over a Trump-era immigration policy that the Biden administration sought to revoke but that red states fought to retain.” However, in that case the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the “case without resolving the question about state intervention,” concluding it had taken the appeal improvidently.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all concurred in dismissing the appeal in Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, but in doing so highlighted their concerns over the Biden Administration seizing on consent judgments, which are judgments agreed to by the parties, to avoid the notice-and-comment procedures required by the APA: By entering into friendly settlement agreements, the Biden Administration successfully implemented its preferred policy preferences, while immunizing its regulations from legal challenge.

“These maneuvers raise a host of important questions,” the four justices stressed, “the most fundamental is whether the Government’s actions, all told, comport with the principles of administrative law.” Yet because in Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco that issue was tangled with many other questions, such as standing, mootness, and the appropriateness of vacatur, among others, the Supreme Court decided to leave the question for another day.

That day is now, or rather sometime during the February argument session, and the Supreme Court appears poised to address the manipulative use of consent decrees and settlement agreements. It is to answer that question — and not to mandate immigration policy — that the Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed vacatur of the Title 42 system and agreed to hear the appeal by the 19 states which sought to intervene. And while a decision by the high court on the intervention question won’t secure the border, conservatives shouldn’t want the justices to make immigration policy. But putting a halt to the Biden Administration’s abusive litigation strategies is a worthy endeavor and one the Supreme Court seems ready to tackle.

“Wake up, America!”.

December 28, 2022

The End of Free Elections?

By Jay Valentine at American Thinker:

This week, leftists and RINOs admitted, under oath, that they changed the print settings, on election morning, so Republican votes would not be tabulated, on the one day most Republicans vote — and the Maricopa County judge said “…it wasn’t intentional.”

A Republican governor candidate who easily won by multiple points was denied her rightful election.  Several million Arizona voters were disenfranchised.

Not a word from Republican leaders!

Wake up, America. 

Leftists and RINOs have spent the last 40 years transforming election machinery to end your right to vote — and they are about to finish the job.

This week, the governor of Minnesota took the lead by planning to register, automatically, teenagers not old enough to vote.  On election day, there will be tens of thousands of names, with little history, who can be voted by election commissions when needed. 

Democrats are proposing laws making it a felony to question an election.  Of course they are!

Breitbart, Fox News, and about every other mainstream controlled opposition are cowed into submission.

Election commissions regularly add to election rolls, automatically, every person using any state service – even if that person has not requested to be an elector.  Your illegal migrant, getting welfare or a driver’s license can be automatically added to the state rolls.  What could go wrong?

While this is happening, hapless Republicans claim to have found the secret to election victory — get better at ballot harvesting or gathering. 

This is the Republican Party that should provide pushback against industrial-scale, sovereign voter fraud.  Unfortunately, they see the problem of floating ballots; they do not see, or do not choose to see, the problem of ever-expanding voter rolls with people who never chose to vote.

Working with Mike Lindell, we currently run the voter rolls for a dozen states and have the data for several more.  In every case, the number of “voter registration anomalies” is from 5% to 18% of the voter roll.

A voter anomaly? 

Try the 41 voters registered in a hotel in Missouri.  How about the registered voters in the Harris County, Texas prison?  Examples are so numerous we have a website to cover them.

When most, probably all, states have a float of anomalous voters from 5% to almost 20%, an election commission can control the election outcome for any close election.  Elections are mostly close today.

We find “sleepers.”  These are the silent voters who never voted before — even though they are on election rolls for a decade — but when needed they jump to life and vote.  After the 2020 election, several states ran the query:  show all voters, on the voter rolls four years or more, who never before voted, yet voted in 2020.

The response, delivered with Fractal technology, was in the hundreds of thousands. 

Nobody claims these were fraudulent.  Neither can anyone claim they were all valid — particularly since so many lived in hotels, churches, prisons, and scores of other addresses which cannot house a valid voter. 

This happened in every swing state. The one constant:  they never win elections for a Republican.  Go figure.

The Fractal team and three state voter integrity teams in Nevada, Florida, and Wisconsin met late in 2022 after realizing that fake voters, found by the hundreds of thousands, in Republican and Democrat states, when challenged, were mostly kept on voter rolls.

In several glaring examples, college frat houses with 106-year-old, active registered voters were just fine with the election judge.  I personally showed dozens of registered voters, each over 1,900 years old, to the Secretary of State of a red state, and he saw no problem.

This, people, is the terrain. 

The end of free, fair elections is in sight. 

We are one national election — 2024 — away from ending election-based choosing of the government and turning freedom over to election commissions with phantom voter rolls and jiggered printers controlled by leftists.

The teams in Nevada, Florida, and Wisconsin spent two years deep in voter rolls and they, and we, are delivering a hopeful solution. 

Paraphrasing Albert Einstein, one cannot solve a problem with the same technology that created it. 

Our teams are building a family of processes to clean voter rolls, real time, daily and weekly, at the county level, using government data to challenge government data.

We ingested the property tax rolls for several large Texas counties and reconciled them with voter rolls.  We showed, with a single click, thousands of registered voters living in clearly invalid addresses — hotels, laundromats, prisons, flower shops, and a Mongolian restaurant.

Armed with government data, election integrity teams go to the county registrar and demand either the county tax record be changed to a residence and taxed as such (lower tax) or the county voter roll be amended and this voter challenged. 

This is called government data reconciliation.  You cannot be one person on a voter roll and a different person on a tax roll at the same time.

This was computationally impossible with current SQL, relational technology. 

Taking tax rolls with thousands to millions of addresses and comparing them to equally large voter rolls would take weeks to process and cost millions.

With Fractal technology, our team does it with a single click, delivering the data to a tablet or phone, in seconds, while the voter integrity person sits in front of the county tax recorder or the voter registration clerk.

We were asked to do an expert witness report for the Kari Lake election.  The attorney told us we could not “…do another Matt Braynard.”  By that he meant, the data had to be perfect, accurate, and not able to be challenged.

Using Fractal technology, we take government data, property tax records, the gold standard in address validation, and compare them with tax rolls.  This isn’t done once.  It is done constantly.  It is impossible to challenge — it is their government data, real time, showing things don’t reconcile.

The result is a constant back and forth of voter registration rolls with property tax records.  Around election times, when leftists add thousands of new voters, the Fractal system checks every one of them against the property tax roll – constantly in real time.

A major bucket for ballot gathering is mailing to undeliverable addresses.  These can be apartment buildings with no unit number designated.  College dorms with mail sent to recently graduated students is another. 

The Fractal system, with local voter teams, builds an ongoing database, updated constantly, of undeliverable addresses.

Voter integrity teams add other government databases. 

The Federal Election Commission database, cross searched, shows “contribution mules.”  Those are the retired person, living in a modest home, making 6,000 contributions a year to candidates.  Want to guess to which party?

We cannot stop election commissions from changing print settings, but we can keep them mostly honest on election rolls by reconciling one government database with another and forcing the government to make them match — constantly.

We are on a journey to ingest the voter rolls and county tax rolls for 3,200 U.S. counties for 2024. 

Let’s see how many counties want to tax that Mongolian restaurant as a residence since their voter registration rolls show 20 voters live there?

Jay Valentine can be reached at www.Omega4America.com.  Jay’s handle on the new Twitter is @jayvalentine99