With Biden Rudderless on Ukraine, Fox News Reporter Asks the Question That’s on Everyone’s Mind

What the hell is going on? Katie wrote this up earlier today, but Biden’s presser was a disaster. He admitted that the sanction doesn’t scare Russia. We’re deploying another 7,000 troops to Germany. Yet, the one move that could be a gut punch move is booting Russia from the SWIFT banking system which will prevent them from doing international commerce. Why are we holding that card in reserve? Biden says the new sanctions he’s going to roll out are just as devastating. I don’t know about that, but we seem to be stuck in neutral. More troops to Europe and more sanctions. None of this is stopping the war which obviously is the top aim for the United States, NATO, and the rest of Europe. 

We’ve accused the Russian of engaging in kabuki theater on the diplomatic front, which is true, but we’ve been a pile of word salad on Ukraine. This notion about sanctions being a deterrent is laughable, and then we also deliver these overtures that we don’t want to fight Russia or have this situation boil down into unpleasantries. We’re going to slap you with economic pain, or at least that’s the intention, but we don’t want to become enemies. It’s poorly executed, to say the least. Additionally, when Russian troops started rolling into the rest of Ukraine, Biden was AWOL. He only emerged this afternoon to deliver remarks and answer some questions. One thing is clear: we have no idea what we’re doing. India is a major security partner, and we’re not on the same page. Also, it’s clear the Hillary Clinton ‘reset’ was an abject failure, another ghost of the Obama foreign policy has come to haunt us. It also seemed that the core figures of the White House press corps are also not convinced by the response to Russia from Biden. 

Peter Doocy to Biden: “Did you underestimate Putin?” pic.twitter.com/8GQwHcMUBb— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) February 24, 2022

Peter Doocy: Mr. President, you’re confident these sanctions are going to be as devastating as Russian bullets, tanks, and missiles.

Biden: Yes, yes I am.— Election Wizard ???? (@ElectionWiz) February 24, 2022

Pres. Biden responded to a question from Fox News’ Peter Doocy on if he underestimated Russian Pres. Vladimir Putin pic.twitter.com/YaZYWg6F4T— NowThis (@nowthisnews) February 24, 2022

Doocy: “[Y]ou’re confident that these devastating sanctions are going to be as devastating as Russian missiles and bullets and tanks?

Biden: “Yes. Russian bullets, missiles, and tanks in Ukraine. Yes, I am.” pic.twitter.com/TSHrJl5N1Q— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 24, 2022

Indian reporter @LalitKJha: “India is one of your major defense partners. Is India fully in sync with the United States on — on Russia?

Biden: “We’re going to be — we’re in consultation with — with India today. We haven’t resolved that completely.” (14/14) pic.twitter.com/JbTeBcLLUi— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 24, 2022

NBC’s @PeterAlexander: “You detailed…sanctions today & said…the impact it will have over time, but given the full scale invasion, given that you’re not pursuing disconnecting Russia from…SWIFT…or other sanctions…respectfully, sir, what more are you waiting for? pic.twitter.com/8twykr5FP5— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 24, 2022

CNN’s @KaitlanCollins: “If sanctions cannot stop President Putin, what penalty can?”

Biden: “I didn’t say sanctions couldn’t stop him.”

Collins: “You’ve been talking about the threat of these sanctions for several weeks now.” pic.twitter.com/LeJFxYpXol— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 24, 2022

CNN’s @KaitlanCollins to Biden: “You said in recent weeks that big nations cannot bluff when it comes to something like this. You recently said that the idea of personally sanctioning President Putin is on the table. Is that a step that you’re prepared to take[?]” pic.twitter.com/95WTBY2YfP— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 24, 2022

ABC’s @CeciliaVega to Biden: “Sanctions clearly have not been enough to deter Vladimir Putin…What is going to stop him? How and when does this end? And do you see him trying to go beyond Ukraine? And…is he threatening a nuclear strike?” pic.twitter.com/xpc2cNFAiW— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 24, 2022

Fox News Reporter Peter Doocy triggered liberal America by asking if Biden underestimated Putin. Given some of these answers, it sort of looks like he did. Also, other media members asked pointed questions that seem to touch upon why this administration appears to be dithering on Ukraine.

 

Truth Social’s Opportunity

 

Facebook (Meta), Twitter, and other legacy social media platforms were once powerhouses of Free Speech. Opinions from various sources and perspectives made the platforms lively, engaging, exciting, and for many, profitable. Many were made millionaires and billionaires during the ascension of social media into our lives. Yet, today, those who built these platforms seem intent on destroying them by limiting the Free Speech that made them great in the first place.

The ban on Donald Trump was a big step in the slide, but far from the only reason why Meta and Facebook are failing. Meta lost nearly half a million users in the last three months of 2021, contributing to a significant crash of its stock price. As Twitter reported its earnings in early February, its stock price also significantly fell due to lackluster user growth and engagement. It will not be long before the exodus from the platforms gains more momentum and users flock to something new.

There is obvious user fatigue in traditional social media companies. It comes as a direct result of its censorship and bias. Appetite is strong for a legitimate social media platform that will truly allow Free Speech. With so much censorship and bias in the legacy companies, it has become little more than an echo chamber for the radical left. This is surely why former President Trump is launching Truth Social.

It is entirely fitting that on President’s Day the new social media application was made partially available to some users. There is so much happening in the world where a robust marketplace of ideas is required to solve problems. Inflation, mask mandates, supply chain issues, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and more present opportunities for a robust debate. By limiting the discussion, we all lose. 

The demand for Truth Social is strong. The application had the most downloads of any app, spending multiple consecutive days at number one in the app store. There is a waiting list for those once they register. The barrage of interest has made it difficult for the Truth Social to keep up – but some are getting in early, and more are getting admitted.

The strong excitement and remarkable patience people are exhibiting has less to do with Donald Trump’s involvement, and everything to do with a forum where Free Speech can thrive. No one should have the power to limit Free Speech – not the government, not the media, and certainly not social media platforms that enjoy protections (Section 230) against getting sued.

We all should enjoy the same opportunities to advocate for a position or share a message and seek to influence opinions or support candidates for office. Unfortunately, just like so many in the traditional media, social media executives decided to limit so many activists, or worse, like in the case of former President Trump, eliminate the possibility to share information, opinions, or perspectives. 

It is easy to see the opening for a successful business opportunity here. It looks like now, with the launch of Truth Social, President Trump will have a new platform to share his voice and the voices of those who disagree with him – and surely make a profit doing so.

As Truth Social gains more members and users, we are likely to hear less about it than we do now. The anticipation is obvious, and the downloads and waitlist cannot be ignored.  The less we hear, however, the more likely the app will be successful – and once it is, everyone, regardless of political leanings, will enjoy a much more diverse political dialogue, robust debate, and solutions to benefit all Americans. It will surely be a victory for conservatives and liberals, and more importantly, the First Amendment. 

Truth Social will not be the direct cause of the end of the legacy social media companies, they destroyed themselves long ago. Now that there is an alternative emerging, their decline will be accelerated.

Trump and his Truth Social team understand that embracing woke culture at the expense of Free Speech ultimately fails. They know that many open-minded individuals are hungry for a fair platform that welcomes all ideas and ignores the cancel culture. When information from multiple perspectives is shared, better ideas and action result – and it is more exciting, too. Hopefully, that is exactly what Truth Social will become. 

Shaun McCutcheon, a Free Speech advocate, is an Alabama-based electrical engineer and inventor. He was the successful plaintiff in the 2014 Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. FEC.

The US Should Recognize the Khojaly Massacre as an Act of Genocide

 

The United States has done much to keep alive the memory and learn the lessons from the genocides of the 20^th century. The Jewish Holocaust, the Tutsi Genocide in Rwanda, Srebrenica, and the Armenian Genocide – most recently recognized by the Biden administration – are seared in the minds of us all.  

When discussing genocide, commentators typically focus on terrifying headline numbers – thousands, sometimes millions of victims.  But the definition of genocide is not a numerical one.  The United Nations defines this crime as “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group”.  The benchmark for genocide is not metrics, but morality – and design. 

Those who applaud the United States for its recognition of genocides around the world would do well to recall this fact.  It means that massacres smaller in number, but with equally destructive intent, deserve the same acknowledgment which our government and society grant to the better-known violations of humanity. Shining a light on some of the less understood corners of human infamy of the last century should be a duty of journalists, historians, and politicians. 

As Americans, we watched with a victor’s satisfaction the collapse of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, with those same eyes we became blind to the appalling human fallout from that chapter of history just as it produced an eruption of inter-ethnic and cross-border violence of unprecedented brutality.

Of all these, the first and most vicious was between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Azerbaijani region of Karabakh – whose majority ethnic Armenian citizens had lived in peace for decades alongside their Azerbaijani neighbors. Terror reigned across the region, culminating in the horror of the Khojaly massacre. This week marks the 30^th anniversary of this atrocity. International media did bear witness and report their findings. It is our shame that the world failed in both proper acknowledgement at the time and, in turn, allowed those ultimately responsible to escape accountability.

Brutal eyewitness reports carried by the Times of London, Reuters, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and others spoke of beheadings of children, of mass graves, of journalists walking through streets littered with dead civilians.  The victims were Azerbaijani civilians; their attackers were the Armenian Separatists’ Army. For Americans, this echoes the Sand Creek Massacre where the Colorado militia slaughtered and mutilated innocent Cheyenne villagers of all ages and genders.

In subsequent weeks and months, following the Khojaly massacre, further eyewitness accounts and forensic investigations emerged. Human Rights Watch reported it as the largest massacre of the entire period. Yet again, the messages went primarily to an unhearing audience.

Today, Azerbaijan has regained control of the greater part of its lost territories.  But nearly 1 million people, driven from their homes a generation ago, remain as internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Azerbaijan; 4,000 civilian dead remain missing and unaccounted, including a number of the missing among the 600 victims of Khojaly.

The explicit and unambiguous intention was the erasure of Karabakh’s Azerbaijani population, culture, and history. Former Armenian President (and Defense Minister at the time of the massacre) Serzh Sargsyan said so himself: “Before Khojaly, the Azerbaijanis thought that they were joking with us, they thought that the Armenians were people who could not raise their hand against the civilian population. We needed to put a stop to all that. And that’s what happened.”

Despite these traumas in recent living memory, both countries are today slow walking toward a peaceful settlement. Important barriers to peace remain – not least the historical memory of terror and murder ignored by the world; and for that very reason, felt all the more bitterly by the people of Azerbaijan.

In our quest to support the cause of peace, we must recognize our responsibility to remove barriers by properly acknowledging the evils of the past.  The Khojaly massacre was the beginning and headline event in a concerted act of genocide.

The United States has made great strides in identifying and condemning genocide across the world. The Khojaly Massacre deserves that same recognition and condemnation.

White House to Join European Union in Sanctioning Vladimir Putin

he Biden administration will now directly sanction Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and members of the Russian security team. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced on Friday. She also indicated that more information may be made available later in the day. This follows a move from the European Union which Madeline had written about on Thursday morning. The body went with more sanctions on early Friday morning. 

Jen Psaki confirms the US will sanction President Putin and Russian foreign minister Lavrov, a rare step of sanctioning a world leader that follows the EU’s decision to do so.— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) February 25, 2022

BREAKING: U.S. will sanction Vladimir Putin, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, and members of the Russian national security team, White House press sec. Jen Psaki says.

LIVE UPDATES: https://t.co/1c4zPiKUga pic.twitter.com/GRFroAR1Xj— ABC News (@ABC) February 25, 2022

Jen Psaki tells me she believes the new US sanctions on President Putin would bar him from traveling here. Sanctioning a world leader is a rare step, one President Biden decided to take within the last 24 hours after coordinating with allies.— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) February 25, 2022

Just the day before, Biden had stopped short of imposing the most serious sanctions against Russia, a talking point he caused confusion on, during Thursday’s address to the nation. Additionally, the president had illustrated his failure to stand up to Putin.  

When asked on Friday what changed, Psaki’s response seemed to rely heavily on following the lead of others. “The president’s strong view and strong principle from the beginning of this conflict… has been to take action in steps in alignment with our European partners and this is evidence of that,” she offered.

In highlighting such a response from Psaki, Caroline Vakil of The Hill pointed to a poll from The Washington Poll-ABC News released on Friday which found 67 percent of respondents favored sanctions on Russia, compared to 20 percent who opposed them and 13 percent who had no opinion. This includes 79 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Republicans, and 63 percent of Independents.

Many had been calling on Biden to impose sanctions far sooner, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) had introduced a bill last month in the Senate to sanction the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which earned a majority of support with a vote of 55-44, but failed to overcome the filibuster. Earlier this week, during his appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” Cruz charged that Biden had personally lobbied Democrats to oppose the bill and said that “Joe Biden becoming president is the best thing that ever happened, tragically, for Vladimir Putin.”

Biden ultimately imposed sanctions on Nord Stream 2, a move which Cruz praised, on Wednesday, as Katie covered. The move came after German leaders had already imposed sanctions as well.

 

American Marxism

 

It’s Here.”

These prophetic words begin Mark Levin’s newest book, American Marxism. “It” is the ubiquitous Marxist movement that the Left is using to target our kids, our jobs, and our American way of life:

“Once a mostly unrelatable, fringe, and subterranean movement, it is here–it is everywhere. You, your children, and your grandchildren are now immersed in it, and it threatens to destroy the greatest nation ever established, along with your freedom, family, and security.”

The Marxism movement operates as the counterrevolution to the American Revolution. It “seeks to destroy American society,” writes Levin, “and impose autocratic rule,” which is the opposite of the American Revolution that “sought to protect American society and institute representative government.”

This isn’t the first time the award-winning constitutional conservative radio host, Fox News television star, and author has sounded the warning about Marxism. Over the past decade, Levin has written two other books on the Marxism movement–Ameritopia and Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism.

Although he speaks almost daily about it on his radio and television shows, in this book Levin’s urgent warning is not merely to expose the permeation of what he terms “American Marxism” throughout every aspect of American society. American Marxism also puts forth a “daunting and complex mission” designed to expose and ultimately defeat American Marxism:

“The purpose of [American Marxism] is to awaken the millions of patriotic Americans, who love their country, freedom, and family, to the reality of Marxism’s rapidly spreading influence throughout our nation. What is occurring in our country is not a temporary fad or passing event. American Marxism exists, it is here and now, indeed it is pervasive, and its multitude of hybrid but often interlocking movements are actively working to destroy our society and culture, and overthrow the country as we know it.”

Levin expertly explains who today’s American Marxists are, what they believe, and what their true aims are using “specific examples of their writings, ideas, and activities” while also providing his own in-depth “commentary and analysis throughout.”

Yesterday’s social agitators–such as Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, Georg Hegel, Julien Benda, Eric Hofer, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and of course Karl Marx–inform the social activists and disruptors of today through splinter groups and movements like Black Lives Matter (BLM), critical race theory (CRT), the 1619 Project, antifa, and other radical anti-American movements. Each hateful group claims to champion the victims of oppression, whether that oppression is caused by race, gender, sexual orientation, or any number of leftist-perceived social injustices, and some, like CRT, are now being taught directly to our children in public schools:

CRT theorists and activists declare that not only is society incurably racist and white dominated, but there is no point in attempting to assert or pursue your “rights” because such rights really are not rights at all. Why? Because they do not deliver the kind of Marxist egalitarianism and people’s (worker’s) paradise demanded by the critical race movement. Indeed, rights are used to uphold the white racial structure and deny minorities power.

And whether these groups overtly state it or not, Levin writes that we can be certain each group’s ultimate goal “is the same as the Marxist goal–the destruction of the existing society.” Most of these groups like Critical Theory (CT) have splintered into groups such as Latino/a Critical Theory (LatCrit), LGBT, Asian-American, and Muslim groups.

Levin posits that American Marxism has not only infiltrated our schools, universities, the media, and corporations but it also informs our politics as well:

“As with his embrace of CRT, soon after his swearing-in, Biden signed five executive actions unilaterally changing immigration policy, all of which were sympathetic to, and supportive of the “Latino/a Critical Race Theory” (LatCrit) movement. Among other things, he ended construction of the border wall…, ended the Trump interior enforcement policies, instituted a hundred-day deportation moratorium, and proposed amnesty for individuals without legal status. Moreover, Biden ended agreements the Trump administration had secured with Mexico and other Central American countries to send asylum seekers…to one of three Central American countries.”

Is all lost? Not yet, says Levin, but the situation is dire and it’ll be a struggle to bring the country back from the precipice. However, he is clear that if we don’t put a stop to Marxism’s newest incarnation here and now in America, all will most certainly be lost. What can we do? In his final chapter, Levin provides “some concrete ideas and suggestions on how to proceed, but by no means” does he supply “an exhaustive list of possible actions or action areas,” with the purpose being that it’s merely a starting point of the struggle to come.

In American Marxism, Mark Levin delivers a swift yet well-thought-out and thoroughly researched treatise on exactly where American liberty currently stands, who is trying to destroy it, and what we can do to fortify it for generations to come. If you’ve been confused by the Left and their often contradictory or hypocritical actions, or you simply want to understand what’s happening in our country today, where these ideas came from, and what can be done about it, this is the book for you.

Biden’s Handlers Dumping 16,000 Afghan ‘Translators’ in Loudoun County, Most Don’t Speak English

 

Sheriff Michael Chapman of Loudoun County, Va. got an unpleasant surprise recently from Old Joe Biden’s handlers. On Thursday, the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) published a press release that reveals the truly astonishing extent of the administration’s high-handedness, dishonesty, carelessness, and recklessness in its resettlement of Afghan refugees in cities and towns all over the United States. Without any prior warning, Loudoun County officials were told that 2,000 Afghan refugees would be arriving in the county in just over two weeks and that 2,000 more would be arriving every month after that through September. In what will come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention for the last thirteen months, Chapman and other Loudoun County officials found the Biden team to be disingenuous, uncooperative, poorly prepared, and worse.

“On February 4, 2022,” says the Sheriff’s Office press release, “the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) received an unannounced visit by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Federal Protective Service (FPS) in which it learned that approximately 2000 Afghan refugees, per month, were slated to arrive at the Washington Dulles International Airport during a window beginning as early as February 19, 2022, and extending to September 2022.” This gave them just two weeks to prepare for the influx. “DHS/FPS regional personnel advised the refugees would be transported by bus to the National Conference Center (NCC) where they would stay until their ultimate relocation elsewhere in the United States. DHS/FPS estimated that no more than 1000 refugees per month would remain at the NCC at any given time until September 2022. The refugees, for the most part, would enter the US from Qatar.”

Let’s remember that in Oct. 2021, a Congressional delegation in Qatar led by Rep. Darell Issa (R-Calif.) was told that fully 12,000 of the Afghans who had come to Camp As Sayliyah and then went on to the U.S. had no identification at all. Issa stated: “They came with nothing. No Afghan I.D., no I.D. of any sorts. Those people were all forwarded on to the U.S., and that’s quite an admission. So many people had no I.D. whatsoever and yet find themselves in the United States today based on what they said.”

Are any of these people we know absolutely nothing about going to Loudoun County? There’s no way to tell, but once they get there, they’ll have it made: “DHS/FPS advised that the refugees will be provided cash and cell phones from non-government organizations and be required to remain on the NCC grounds.” Whether voting for Democrats was a requirement for keeping the dough rolling in was not mentioned; maybe it’s just understood.

Chapman found the information he had been given to be “vague,” and “raised concerns about DHS’ lack of communication, lack of planning, language barriers,” as well as about the fact that the  National Conference Center was not fenced and was near “a residential neighborhood and two public schools.” In response, DHS officials told him that the Federal Protective Service would send over 15 officers to provide security. However, the Sheriff’s Office press release pointed out that “the FPS has no law enforcement jurisdiction in Loudoun County and cannot enforce nor investigate any criminal activity on the campus.”

It got even worse. Chapman also asked: “What level of vetting has been conducted to ensure refugees entering Loudoun County had aided the United States and were not a threat to the US or our local community?” The Sheriff’s Office characterized the DHS response this way: “Refugees had been carefully vetted and many served as translators. However, when asked how if in fact they served as translators when only 30% of the refugees spoke English, DHS responded that many of the incoming refugees were family members of the translators.”

The shifting answer there gives the strong impression that the DHS is making all this up on the fly. That impression is reinforced by the fact that while they told Chapman that “refugees had been carefully vetted,” a Senate Republican report noted back in Oct. 2021, according to the Washington Examiner, that “senior officials across the departments of Homeland Security, Defense, State, and Justice described a disastrous screening and vetting process.” This process relied completely on databases of criminals and terrorists, which were incomplete in the best of times and even less useful in the chaotic situation of the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Biden administration officials accepted at face value what these Afghan evacuees told them about themselves without making any effort at all to check whether or not the evacuees’ claims were true. The report noted that “refugees are to be screened and vetted before being admitted to the U.S. through an extensive process that includes multiple interrogations. Rather than follow the protocol, the Biden administration instructed federal law enforcement and military officials handling the evacuations and processing to adhere to less stringent standards.”

Chapman also asked the DHS: “What communications had been done to prepare area residents who may be impacted by this?” The answer was as succinct as it was chilling: “None.” The DHS “stated that no coordination had occurred and that no notifications had been made to the community surrounding the NCC (as of February 15). Additionally, no coordination had been performed either with the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Director of Public Safety.”

So many of its actions make abundantly clear that the Biden administration simply doesn’t care about the well-being of American citizens. What is happening in Loudoun County is happening all over the country, with no regard for the possibility that there could be criminals and terrorists among the Afghan refugees, despite the fact that some have already been arrested. This will play out the way Leftist utopianism always does: the elites will feel good about themselves while ordinary people will have to pay the price.

The Real Terrorist Attack Trudeau Ignored While Cracking Down on the Freedom Convoy

 

In justifying his invocation of the Emergencies Act and turning Canada into a police state, Justin Trudeau falsely claimed that the Freedom Convoy was “not a peaceful protest” and asserted that “the blockades are harming our economy and endangering public safety.” Unsurprisingly, however, Trudeau’s outrage was selective: on Thursday, Canada suffered a genuine terror attack that was not a peaceful protest and that undeniably hurt the Canadian economy and endangered public safety, yet Trudeau didn’t say a word. The terrorists in question were Leftists, so they got a pass.

The UK’s Daily Mail reported Thursday that “ax-wielding eco-terrorists attacked a British Columbia gas pipeline Thursday, shooting flare guns at frightened workers and causing millions in damage…About 20 attackers, wearing camouflage and masks, surrounded Costal [sic] Gaslink [sic] workers in the early morning hours of February 17 in what the company called a ‘highly planned and dangerous unprovoked assault.’”

Reportedly, only one person was hurt, but that was sheer serendipity. Coastal GasLink added: “In one of the most concerning acts, an attempt was made to set a vehicle on fire while workers were inside. The attackers also wielded axes, swinging them at vehicles and through a truck’s window. Flare guns were also fired at workers. Workers fled the site for their own safety and remain shaken by this violent incident.”

Photos of the attack showed “smashed windows and overturned heavy earth-moving equipment. Trees were downed to block roads and a gaping hole was hacked into the side of a mobile office trailer.” Even worse, “smoke bombs and torches were thrown at police as they tried to make their way past fires set in the road way.” One police officer was injured.

The pipeline is controversial because it runs through the territory of the Wet’suwet’en people, “who never ceded the land to the Canadian government.” Chief Madeek of the Wet’suwet’en explained: “Our people never ever surrendered or ceded any portion of this territory. We are the rightful titleholders of the territory, we are the caretakers of this land and that’s what we are going to do, take care of this land.”

Despite the fact that doing so could land them in hot water with the woke crowd, Canadian officials were quick to condemn the incident, albeit in decidedly tepid language. Canadian Industry Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne declared: “This is truly disturbing. Violence and illegal acts are not the way forward on any matter.” RCMP Chief Superintendent Warren Brown said: “This was a calculated and organized violent attack that left its victims shaken and a multimillion dollar path of destruction.”

Justin Trudeau, however, said nothing. He did not point out that the attack on the Coastal GasLink workers was “not a peaceful protest.” He did not note that attacking the pipeline hurt the Canadian economy and that the ecoterrorists’ violent actions endangered public safety. He did not invoke the Emergencies Act in connection with this attack or announce that the attackers’ bank accounts would be seized. He did say: “It’s high time that these illegal and dangerous activities stop. They are a threat to our economy and our relationship with trading partners. They are a threat to public safety.” But he was, of course, referring to the Freedom Convoy, not to the Coastal GasLink attack.

The contrast between his response to the Freedom Convoy and the Coastal GasLink attack makes it clear: Justin Trudeau is not acting in the interests of Canadians. He is not trying to end political violence and protect the Canadian economy. Rather, he is acting in the interests of Justin Trudeau and cracking down hard on a peaceful protest in order to stigmatize opposition to his authoritarian policies as terrorism and to silence his effective political opponents accordingly. (His ineffective political opponents, such as the RINOs-to-the-North of the Conservative Party, can carry as ineffectually as usual.)

As David Solway noted, “Canada has been transformed into a federal caricature and gives every indication of remaining so for the indefinite future. Its leaders are unaccountable and depraved and the majority of the population, to quote Aristotle, ‘are not capable of sufficient rational appreciation of political ends.’ The demagogues in power have won the day and most of the electorate approves.” Yes. Trudeau’s government should already have fallen because of his invocation of the Emergencies Act; failing that, it should have fallen over his inconsistency regarding protests by conservatives and protests by Leftists. Instead, he will likely remain in power and consolidate his police state. What happened in Venezuela a few years ago is now happening in our backyard.

VP Harris Finally Focused on Securing the Border. No, Not Ours—Ukraine’s.

 

Vice President Kamala Harris toddled off to Europe on Thursday, trying to buttress her crisis creds in anticipation of running for president.

We’re not exactly sure what Russian President Vladimir Putin thought of the American vice president going to an important European security conference in Munich instead of Biden, but he had far more important things to do. The president arrived in Ohio to tout his $1 trillion infrastructure bill and bragged about how much cash it was going to pour into the Great Lakes.

New York Post:

As Harris flew east to Germany, Biden traveled west to Lorain, Ohio, to talk about fixing Great Lakes pollution through his three-month-old bipartisan infrastructure law — prompting his aides to insist the jaunt wouldn’t distract him from the potential outbreak of the largest and deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II.

“I doubt [Putin’s] sitting back at the Kremlin right now shaking because Kamala Harris is over there,” Rep Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in an interview with Newsmax TV Wednesday.

“She couldn’t pour something out of a boot if there were instructions written on the heel,” Burchett added. “She can’t even find our southern border, much less the Ukrainian border. This is a joke, this is a travesty.”

Indeed, there is much irony in Harris trying to help Ukraine to secure its border against Russia — a nation bristling with arms and soldiers — when the vice president hasn’t a clue how to secure the U.S. border from poor, desperate, civilians.

“Biden is deploying Kamala Harris to Europe to help ease Russia-Ukraine tensions,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) tweeted last week, adding sarcastically: “Right, because she’s doing so well with our southern border…”

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) tweeted a video clip of fictional boss Michael Scott from “The Office” shouting, “No, God, please no! No! No! No!” to suggest Ukraine’s probable reaction to Harris repping the US in Munich.

The world is saved. Kamala Harris just landed in Germany for the Munich Security Conference, as well as meetings with NATO and Ukraine officials. Forget our own stateside borders, though. pic.twitter.com/U5CXZaFrnV

— Suburban Black Man  (@goodblackdude) February 17, 2022

Harris will meet with the leaders of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania before delivering a speech on Saturday. She will also meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

There’s a lot of fingernail biting in the West Wing, hoping Harris doesn’t repeat her debacle in France and add to Biden’s political woes. But with Putin ready to invade Ukraine, someone had to show the flag at the security conference in Munich because Biden was too busy politicking to be bothered.

Ottawa police arresting demonstrators,

 

“Canadian truckers: Ottawa police arresting demonstrators, clearing out streets.  Ottawa police announced Friday that some protesters ‘are being arrested’ during an operation to clear out those who have been demonstrating. … There is a large police presence on Nicholas Street, protesters are being advised to leave immediately. Some protesters are surrendering and are being arrested, ‘You will face severe penalties if you do not cease further unlawful activity,’ Police tweeted.” (Fox News, 2/18.) 

“It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President. Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator,Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation,” said Justin Trudeau in 2016. “I know my father was very proud to call him a friend and I had the opportunity to meet Fidel when my father passed away.It was also a real honour to meet his three sons and his brother President Raúl Castro during my recent visit to Cuba. On behalf of all Canadians, Sophie and I offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends and many, many supporters of Mr. Castro. We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader.”

Fair enough, so here’s a few remarks regarding Fidel Castro’s leadership:

Fidel Castro jailed and tortured political prisoners at a higher rate than Stalin during the Great Terror. He murdered more Cubans in his first three years in power than Hitler murdered Germans during his first six.

Fidel Castro shattered — through mass-executions, mass-jailings, mass larceny and exile — virtually every family on the island of Cuba. Many opponents of the Castro regime qualify as the longest-suffering political prisoners in modern history, having suffered prison camps, forced labor and torture chambers for a period three times as long in Fidel Castro’s Gulag as Alexander Solzhenitsyn suffered in Stalin’s Gulag.

Fidel Castro also came closest of anyone in history to (wantonly) starting a worldwide nuclear war.

In the above process, Fidel Castro converted a highly-civilized nation with a higher standard of living than much of Europe and swamped with immigrants into a slum/sewer ravaged by tropical diseases and with the highest suicide rate in the Western hemisphere.

Over 20 times as many people (and counting) have died trying to escape Castro’s Cuba as died trying to escape East Germany. Yet prior to Castroism, Cuba received more immigrants per-capita than almost any nation on earth—more than the U.S. did including the Ellis Island years, in fact.

Canada has long ranked as the top source of Cuba’s tourists. Millions of Canadians (including perhaps many truckers) have been lavishing the Castro-Crime-Family with millions upon millions of their loonies for decades now.  In fact, for the past decade over 1 million Canadians have vacationed annually in the Castro –Family-Fiefdom.  In brief, Canadians have done more than any other nation save the Soviet Union and Venezuela to subsidize the mass-murder and repression catalogued above. And the hypocrisy of Canadian governments (both Liberal and Conservative) regarding Cuba and sanctions is truly staggering. To wit: 

 “We emphasize the importance of maintaining sanctions. Sanctions were imposed to help us end the apartheid system. It is only logical that we must continue to apply this form of pressure against the South African government.” That was Nelson Mandela addressing (and thanking) the Canadian Parliament in June 1990 for imposing, and championing in every international forum, economic sanctions against South Africa.

Yet for over 50 years Canada has been among the Stalinist Castro regime’s most generous business partners. For the past 50 years, every Canadian administration from whatever point on the political compass, has consistently bashed the U.S. for its “cruel and counter-productive” Cuba policy while joining the rest of the world’s hypocrites in voting against these U.S. sanctions. 

On top of the Canadian tourism windfall, Castro’s Stalinist regime has found some of its most enthusiastic partners in crime among Canadian companies. In a joint-venture with Cuba’s Stalinist regime, for instance, Canada’s Sherritt International occupies and operates the Moa nickel mining plant in Cuba’s Oriente province, stolen at Soviet gunpoint from its U.S. managers and stockholders in July 1960 (when it was worth $90 million.) 

But Sherritt’s criminality hardly stops as a trafficker in stolen property, and hence, accessory to theft. Sherritt’s workers are chosen and assigned by the Cuban regime who sets their wages and dictates the payment schedule. After Sherritt pays these wages (not to the workers, but to the Stalinist regime) the latter dribbles .5 percent of the total to the workers, pocketing the rest. (As dreadful as they make life for their subjects, the Red Chinese and Red Vietnamese regimes dictate nothing of the sort when hosting western companies as business partners.) 

By the way, prior to the glorious Cuban revolution, Moa nickel plant’s workers enjoyed the 8th highest industrial wages — not in the hemisphere — but in the world, higher than those in Britain, France and Germany. And these wages were paid in Cuban dollars, convertible, in those dark and dreadful ages, one to one with the U.S. dollar.

The Decline of Rock Music, and why it matters

 

The 2010s have seen the spiraling popularity of rock music, and some common theories abound. I’ll be taking these theories to task.

Rock music was the dominant force in popular music for over 50 years, and that has drastically changed over the past ten years. The most common theory is that “hip-hop has replaced rock in the same way rock had replaced jazz.”  The problem with this theory is that it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison that holds little weight. Rock and roll was largely created by blacks, who moved on from it very quickly once whites found interest in it. The popularity of jazz waned at a sharp rate throughout the late 50s and 60s.

Meanwhile hip-hop, while created by blacks, was relatively slow to gain popularity with whites. But as it became increasingly popular, blacks have still not abandoned it; and to this day most popular rap artists are black. At the same time, rock maintained its dominance in the popular realm from the 80s to the mid 10s.

Other theories abound citing demographic change, but no massive demographic change in the US was so sharp to cause the steep decline in the popularity of rock that started in about 2008. Still another theory blames the rise of electronic dance music around that time, which is useless since that has fallen in popularity as well.

I’m going to make a bold statement here: The reason the popularity of rock has declined is that it no longer provides what people once loved about it. The masculine energy, grittiness, and string-bend associated with the genre has been lost to a sanitized, feminized, PC shadow of its former self. Even the guitar has been replaced with pianos and other instruments. The problem with rock is rock itself, other genres are not to blame for its own problems.

I’ll take you through a short history own rock losing its own teeth, starting from about the early 80’s.

The arena rock bands

Bands such as Foreigner, Journey, and especially REO Speedwagon began to abandon their hard rock sound in the early 80s. Partly taking a cue from the “sensitive Alan Alda guy” narrative pushed by the media, and largely for commercial reasons, they increasingly released ballads as singles. Even their “rockers” were softer and more refined. As bands like Survivor released generic soft-rock material, this decline gave way for the hair bands in the mid-eighties.

The glam bands

While the original energy of the hair bands was very masculine, it gradually gave way to softer and softer material by bands trying to prove their sensitivity and make the charts. This coupled with the cross-dressing of much of the subgenre, created the backlash known as Grunge.

The alternative nation

While the public backlash against the hair bands was largely because of their perceived femininity, this was not the sentiments of the media, nor the grunge bands themselves. These grunge bands were very leftist politically, and the media had long attempted to “correct” what they deemed as the sexism of the glam bands. Even MTV sought to “differentiate the sexy from the sexist”, although they did not apply the same standard to hip-hop (which does bring up the soft bigotry of low expectations). As Marxism migrated from the collapsing Soviet Union to the West, the media needed a reformed, PC version of rock to suit its interests.

While grunge was masculine, it was weak-minded and reveled in self-loathing. It also had a very left-wing bent and a nihilistic worldview. After the sound got old, Nu metal was the eventual replacement.

I Did It All for the Nookie

Perhaps the most reviled subgenre of rock, the Nu Metal phenomenon of the late 90s and early 00s took the nihilism even further. Some of these bands also filled the void that the hair bands left, having a non-ironic cartoonish fratboy vibe, a strawman of real masculinity — leading to its quick backlash.

The Emo era

This is really where rock lost its teeth. As a backlash against nu metal (particularly Fred Durst), the emo/scene era of the 2000s was very much a feminized form of rock, complete with lots of whining and mascara. Gone was any type of string-bend or masculine energy, it was even mopier than 90s alternative. Along with the generic post-grunge of admittedly commercial bands such as Nickelback, this era of rock started to phase out by the late 00s.

The Indie Landfill

The “rock” music of the 2010s has been characterized by a much softer, many times guitar-less form that doesn’t bear much resemblance to what people would recognize as “rock music”.  Why would people listen to guitarless rock music performed by guys dressed as coal miners, when they can enjoy slick, more sonically aesthetic beats in other genres? Why would people listen to modern indie rock for masculine energy when there isn’t any? Hip-hop surpassed rock as the dominant commercial form in 2017, and this is the exact reason why. It’s not demographics, it’s not the fault of other genres — it’s a problem with rock itself. The establishment wanted a safe, toothless, sanitized PC version of rock, and no one likes it.

Conclusion

We are in a glut of mumble-rap at the moment. Even pop music is struggling in the current environment. Will it change? Yes. But in order for rock to have any chance of a resurgence, it absolutely must purge itself of emasculation, self-loathing, political correctness, or giving a damn about what anyone thinks — which is what made rock great in the first place, and why so many people loved it.

El Salvador’s President Absolutely Nails What’s Happened to Canada’s International Credibility

 

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has cracked down on the Freedom Convoy protesters in ways rarely seen in the nation. On Monday, Trudeau and his cabinet triggered the Emergencies Act, which gives them special powers “that may not be appropriate in normal times.”

This includes the government seizing personal bank accounts of those linked to the protests, and they don’t need a warrant to do so, either.

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland explained that broadening the nation’s “Terrorist Financing” rules would also allow them to target cryptocurrencies and crowdfunding platforms as well. 

“It’s all about following the money,” she said. 

The drastic measures, aimed at truckers protesting Covid-19 mandates, has been met with shock and widespread condemnation, including from El Salvador’s president, who argued on social media that Canada’s credibility on democracy and freedom is now gone.

“Are these the people who like to give lessons to other countries about democracy and freedom?” President Nayib Bukele wondered. “This is one of the top ranking countries in the ‘democracy index’? Your credibility on these topics is now worth 0.”

Are these the people who like to give lessons to other countries about democracy and freedom?

This is one of the top ranking countries in the “democracy index”?

Your credibility on these topics is now worth 0.pic.twitter.com/wCjh9bXwDt— Nayib Bukele ???? (@nayibbukele) February 15, 2022

The president of El Salvador is making fun of Canada and @justintrudeau. And he’s not wrong. @nayibbukele https://t.co/QwNCJ951Bw— Gad Saad (@GadSaad) February 15, 2022

Pleased to see the President of El Salvador condemning the tyrannical actions of the Canadian Government.

The silence of the so-called democratic West is telling. https://t.co/9e5Cvni2QN— Calvin (@calvinrobinson) February 15, 2022

In Texas, New Law Is Stopping the Steal

 

Voter integrity is essential. It’s popular. It’s why for all the Democrats’ yelling about how this, that, and the other is racist regarding new voter laws, these laws aren’t going anywhere. Election security withstood an onslaught from Democrats’ allies in the media. Then, it dawned on Democrats—gee, voter ID laws are popular. 

Yeah, they are—and always have been, fellas. Across the board, Americans support voter ID. This isn’t new. The gaslighting began when Democrats, resigned to defeat, tried to say they always supported such measures. Wrong. 

“Voter integrity laws is Jim Crow 2.0.” 

“The GOP is racist.” 

These tired and stale talking points are just noise that caused normal people to either shrug, change channels, or simply take some Advil and move on with their day. It’s over. The Democrats’ “Hail Mary” pass was to get their federal elections takeover bill through the Senate, which failed because they needed to nuke the filibuster. They didn’t have the votes. 

With their primaries being held on March 1, Texas’ new law is already stopping those who would steal elections. Scores of mail-in ballots are being rejected for not meeting voter ID requirements (via NPR): 

Weeks ahead of the state’s March 1 primary, local election officials in Texas are sending mail-in ballots back to thousands of voters who had turned them in, citing issues with ID requirements created by the state’s controversial new voting law.

In Harris County — Texas’ largest county, which is home to Houston — election officials said they’d received 6,548 mail-in ballots as of Saturday and had returned almost 2,500 — nearly 38% — for correction because of an incorrect ID.

That’s a far higher rejection rate than is typical.

[…]

Voting for the March 1 primary that is currently underway in Texas is the first big election held in the state since Senate Bill 1, a GOP-backed law that introduced sweeping changes to the Texas election code, went into effect.

[…]

Sam Taylor, assistant secretary of state for communications, says a Texas voter who is already registered can update their registration online — even after the registration deadline — on a new website the state created to make sure it has all the IDs the voter uses.

“You are not changing anything by adding information to your voter registration record, you are just making it more complete,” he says. “So that doesn’t start the clock over in terms of whether or not you were registered by the deadline for the March primary.”

The high rejection rate should raise eyebrows. How many invalid ballots were counted in 2020? Who knows? Democrats have destroyed that evidence, but the real steal centered on the battleground states where Democratic secretaries of state unilaterally and illegally altered the voting laws without the consent of the state legislatures. Michigan and Pennsylvania specifically saw this occur in 2020. Are we shocked to learn that the state legislatures there are majority Republican? No way would these tweaks be passed, so Democrats did what they do best—cheat.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Says Texas Turning Blue Is ‘Inevitable’

 

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said it is only a matter of time before Texas becomes a Democratic state as she endorsed a couple of congressional candidates in front of a crowd in the Lone Star State.

The congresswoman made a pitch for Jessica Cisneros in the 28th Congressional District and Greg Casar in the 35th during her stop in San Antonio on Saturday as the candidates prepare for their primary elections, which take place next month. Ocasio-Cortez said the two congressional candidates have her support in part because they back Medicare for all, unions and abortion rights.

“Here’s what’s exciting about Jessica’s race and Greg’s race, is that if we flip Texas, we flip the country … Texas turning blue is inevitable. The only question is when,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “We are going to fight for a living wage, we are going to make sure we unionize the hell out of this state… and we’re going to make sure that not one dime is made exploitatively across any worker, especially the undocumented.”

“We flip Texas, we flip the country,” @AOC says. pic.twitter.com/Eg3c1vUj7C— Priscilla Aguirre (@CillaAguirre) February 12, 2022

Republicans have become wary of Texas flipping as the GOP’s margin of victory in the state has slimmed in recent years.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) said in 2019 that the race for the state’s 38 electoral votes in the 2020 presidential election would be close.

“If we lose Texas, it’s game over,” Cruz told a Christian Science Monitor breakfast at the time. “I don’t believe Texas will turn blue, but central to that is we’re going to have to work to communicate and turn people out.”

Former President Donald Trump won Texas in 2020, winning 52.1 percent of the vote compared to President Joe Biden’s 46.5 percent.

Some Texas cities, such as Austin, have become increasingly blue recently as young adults flee other states for Texas.

But Cisneros and Casar would not move the needle in turning the state blue should they win their races as the seats they are running for are already held by Democrats. Therefore, Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsements will not impact the political makeup of the state.

Joe Rogan

 

Podcast host Joe Rogan addressed media criticism directed toward him for making controversial statements about the coronavirus on his podcast, telling the mainstream media to reflect on why he garners such a large audience.

Speaking on concerns from the media during Thursday's episode of "The Joe Rogan Experience," Rogan suggested that the outlets not be so quick to label his comments on COVID as "disinformation."

"The answer is not to silence me, the answer is [for] you to do better," Rogan said. "The answer is for you to have better arguments. When you're on television talking about how I'm taking horse paste, and you know that's not true. 'He's taking horse dewormer.'"

"What you should have said, 'How did Joe Rogan get better so quick? How come he got COVID that’s killing everybody and he was better in five days, negative in five days, working out in six days?' How come that's never discussed?" Rogan continued. 

Rogan, whose podcast draws an audience of about 11 million viewers, clarified that he believed monoclonal antibodies did more to help him recover from COVID than Ivermectin, which was prescribed to him by his doctor. After hearing he was using Ivermectin as one of his treatments for the coronavirus, media outlets such as CNN falsely claimed he was taking "horse dewormer."

During an episode of his podcast last year, Rogan pressed CNN chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta on his network's claim that Rogan was taking "horse dewormer." Gupta was forced to admit that his colleagues were wrong about Rogan's use of Ivermectin. CNN, however, dismissed the suggestion that its anchors had been peddling misinformation.

Also on Thursday's podcast, Rogan offered advice to CNN, pointing out that it could attract a larger audience if it was more honest with its viewers. 

"If you're in business and your business is the news, and you want to get more people to pay attention, you should be honest," Rogan said. "And my thoughts for CNN, my advice to them … I don't hate CNN. I used to go to them every day for the news until they start f---ing hating on me."

The podcast host also suggested CNN could bring in more viewers if it focused more on objective news reporting rather than partisan commentary.

"If you want to do better, just f---ing change your model, change the way you do it," Rogan said. "Stop this editorial perspective with guys like Brian Stelter and Don Lemon that nobody listens to. Nobody is like chiming in saying, 'Oh, yeah, finally we get the voice of reason.' Nobody thinks that. Have people that give out effective news, objective news, rather, and I'll support you. I would turn around 100 percent … and I'll be one of the people that tells people, 'I saw this on CNN, watch this on CNN.'"

Several musicians have been pushing Spotify to kick Rogan from their platform. Singers Neil Young and Joni Mitchell are among those who removed their music from Spotify after the company refused to take down Rogan's podcast.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Says Texas Turning Blue Is 'Inevitable'

 

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said it is only a matter of time before Texas becomes a Democratic state as she endorsed a couple of congressional candidates in front of a crowd in the Lone Star State.

The congresswoman made a pitch for Jessica Cisneros in the 28th Congressional District and Greg Casar in the 35th during her stop in San Antonio on Saturday as the candidates prepare for their primary elections, which take place next month. Ocasio-Cortez said the two congressional candidates have her support in part because they back Medicare for all, unions and abortion rights.

"Here's what's exciting about Jessica's race and Greg's race, is that if we flip Texas, we flip the country ... Texas turning blue is inevitable. The only question is when," Ocasio-Cortez said. "We are going to fight for a living wage, we are going to make sure we unionize the hell out of this state... and we're going to make sure that not one dime is made exploitatively across any worker, especially the undocumented."

“We flip Texas, we flip the country,” @AOC says. pic.twitter.com/Eg3c1vUj7C

— Priscilla Aguirre (@CillaAguirre) February 12, 2022

Republicans have become wary of Texas flipping as the GOP's margin of victory in the state has slimmed in recent years.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) said in 2019 that the race for the state's 38 electoral votes in the 2020 presidential election would be close.

"If we lose Texas, it's game over," Cruz told a Christian Science Monitor breakfast at the time. "I don't believe Texas will turn blue, but central to that is we're going to have to work to communicate and turn people out."

Former President Donald Trump won Texas in 2020, winning 52.1 percent of the vote compared to President Joe Biden’s 46.5 percent.

Some Texas cities, such as Austin, have become increasingly blue recently as young adults flee other states for Texas.

But Cisneros and Casar would not move the needle in turning the state blue should they win their races as the seats they are running for are already held by Democrats. Therefore, Ocasio-Cortez's endorsements will not impact the political makeup of the state.

To Lift All Boats, Help Americans Resume Fulfilling Work

 

Pushing back on recent pro-worker populism on the Right, the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Strain writes that "workers need a growth-and-participation agenda." The addition of the word "participation" to traditional pro-growth ideas is especially important today.

Millions of pages of study and commentary have rightly made the case that economic growth lifts all boats. But while necessary, economic growth without the removal of existing government barriers to work and entrepreneurship won't be sufficient. It can't cure the participation crisis that traps many workers and lower-income Americans.

In addition to the money we make through our jobs, most of us find some intrinsic value in the act of working or from our work community. Of course, some people have excellent reasons not to work, such as the desire to stay home with one's children. But whether we work or not shouldn't be the result of government-created incentives or obstacles.

People on the Left have always been inclined to address poverty and other ills with government benefits, without much worry over their preferred programs' notable, unintended consequences. From the push for higher minimum wages to the implementation of a federal paid-leave program, they often overlook the ways in which these policies generate potential losses of work hours (or even lost jobs), lower wages and reduced prospects for promotion (especially for women). Lately, people on the political Right have joined the same chorus to demand counterproductive proposals.

Take the new enthusiasm among some conservatives for universal programs like the extended child tax credit. Due to its remarkable generosity and lack of work or marriage requirements, it could have negative effects on labor-force participation and child poverty similar to those created by the pre-1990s-reform American welfare system. The same is true of other left-wing policy favorites now endorsed by some people on the Right -- namely, industrial policy to boost manufacturing employment and protectionism.

Contrary to how they're sold, these policies will hurt workers without addressing some recent developments that are sources of genuine concern.

Indeed, over the last 20 years, some Americans -- disproportionately working-age men -- have dropped out of the labor force despite low unemployment numbers. In the past, for instance, economic shocks like the Great Recession were followed by increases in unemployment. But as people moved away to find jobs and the economy improved, unemployment returned to lower levels. Not today. This is concerning to scholars and policymakers alike. Now, Americans (especially those who aren't college educated) tend to remain in hard-hit geographic areas, where they stay unemployed.

Unfortunately, Right-leaning populists have been quick to join the Left in blaming the free market for these woes and now demand an expansion of entitlement programs. But all too often, reduced geographic mobility and labor-force participation are the results of the very initiatives for which they're calling.

Take, for instance, the Social Security Disability Insurance program. It was created to support those afflicted with health conditions or injuries that make working difficult or impossible. It continues to serve that role. But scholars find that the program also helps keep many physically able adults with limited earning potential out of the labor market. Men make up a large majority of these would-be workers.

Pushing back on recent pro-worker populism on the Right, the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Strain writes that "workers need a growth-and-participation agenda." The addition of the word "participation" to traditional pro-growth ideas is especially important today.

Millions of pages of study and commentary have rightly made the case that economic growth lifts all boats. But while necessary, economic growth without the removal of existing government barriers to work and entrepreneurship won't be sufficient. It can't cure the participation crisis that traps many workers and lower-income Americans.

In addition to the money we make through our jobs, most of us find some intrinsic value in the act of working or from our work community. Of course, some people have excellent reasons not to work, such as the desire to stay home with one's children. But whether we work or not shouldn't be the result of government-created incentives or obstacles.

People on the Left have always been inclined to address poverty and other ills with government benefits, without much worry over their preferred programs' notable, unintended consequences. From the push for higher minimum wages to the implementation of a federal paid-leave program, they often overlook the ways in which these policies generate potential losses of work hours (or even lost jobs), lower wages and reduced prospects for promotion (especially for women). Lately, people on the political Right have joined the same chorus to demand counterproductive proposals

Take the new enthusiasm among some conservatives for universal programs like the extended child tax credit. Due to its remarkable generosity and lack of work or marriage requirements, it could have negative effects on labor-force participation and child poverty similar to those created by the pre-1990s-reform American welfare system. The same is true of other left-wing policy favorites now endorsed by some people on the Right -- namely, industrial policy to boost manufacturing employment and protectionism.

Contrary to how they're sold, these policies will hurt workers without addressing some recent developments that are sources of genuine concern.

Indeed, over the last 20 years, some Americans -- disproportionately working-age men -- have dropped out of the labor force despite low unemployment numbers. In the past, for instance, economic shocks like the Great Recession were followed by increases in unemployment. But as people moved away to find jobs and the economy improved, unemployment returned to lower levels. Not today. This is concerning to scholars and policymakers alike. Now, Americans (especially those who aren't college educated) tend to remain in hard-hit geographic areas, where they stay unemployed.

Unfortunately, Right-leaning populists have been quick to join the Left in blaming the free market for these woes and now demand an expansion of entitlement programs. But all too often, reduced geographic mobility and labor-force participation are the results of the very initiatives for which they're calling.

Take, for instance, the Social Security Disability Insurance program. It was created to support those afflicted with health conditions or injuries that make working difficult or impossible. It continues to serve that role. But scholars find that the program also helps keep many physically able adults with limited earning potential out of the labor market. Men make up a large majority of these would-be workers.

Another set of issues was brought on by the pandemic when numerous policies were enacted precisely to keep people from working. Most notable are paid leave, child tax credits, large individual stimulus "relief" checks and boosted unemployment benefits. Many Americans received more than one of these and found their incomes increased above and beyond what they earned while working. While understandable at first, the effects linger. With the worst of the pandemic behind us, some workers remain reluctant to return to the job market. In this, they're encouraged by politicians who would prefer to keep the handouts flowing permanently.

This situation is unhealthy and fiscally unsustainable. Emergency measures are for emergencies and need to be eliminated when such circumstances pass. That's just a start. Congress must finally remove worker-participation barriers created by long-term government programs. Doing so would lead to more opportunities and better lives for people who have been frozen out of the gains enjoyed by most workers.

While these steps might not be the whole answer, a failure to remove barriers to participation could very well nullify other government efforts to lift people up and increase economic growth. Americans deserve better.

Another set of issues was brought on by the pandemic when numerous policies were enacted precisely to keep people from working. Most notable are paid leave, child tax credits, large individual stimulus "relief" checks and boosted unemployment benefits. Many Americans received more than one of these and found their incomes increased above and beyond what they earned while working. While understandable at first, the effects linger. With the worst of the pandemic behind us, some workers remain reluctant to return to the job market. In this, they're encouraged by politicians who would prefer to keep the handouts flowing permanently.

This situation is unhealthy and fiscally unsustainable. Emergency measures are for emergencies and need to be eliminated when such circumstances pass. That's just a start. Congress must finally remove worker-participation barriers created by long-term government programs. Doing so would lead to more opportunities and better lives for people who have been frozen out of the gains enjoyed by most workers.

While these steps might not be the whole answer, a failure to remove barriers to participation could very well nullify other government efforts to lift people up and increase economic growth. Americans deserve better.

'If They Could Kill Us All, They Would': Lindsey Graham Torches Dems Trying to End Drone Program

 

In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday morning, Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) brought witnesses to argue for restrictions on the United States military's drone program — but Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) didn't let the biased witnesses go untested on their points, nor did he let Durbin off easy for choosing to convene a hearing titled "'Targeted Killing' and the Rule of Law: The Legal and Human Costs of 20 Years of U.S. Drone Strikes" while other Biden crises rage unchecked.

"I can't believe we're talking about this," Graham declared. "You've got a witness that can't answer the question: 'Would Al Qaeda and ISIS strike the American people if they could?' Of course they would. Afghanistan is a breeding ground for another attack on our country. The border is broken. As much as I respect the Chairman, I can't believe we're focusing on closing Gitmo at a time when international terrorism is getting stronger," Graham said criticizing Durbin and Democrats' priorities."We're now talking about neutering the drone program at a time we need it the most."

"Secretary Mayorkas gave himself an 'A' for effort when it comes to securing the border — I'll give him an 'F' for results. It's just a matter of time until some terrorist group — probably from Afghanistan, maybe from Syria, maybe from Africa, maybe from Somalia — works its way through our southern border to kill a bunch of us," Graham added of just one aspect of the threat to America posed by Biden's open-border policies.

"This committee seems not to get where we're at Mr. Chairman. America's threat from radical Islam has gone up, not down. Our policies at containing the threat are not working. Afghanistan is a breeding ground for terrorism as I speak. Everybody that we work with is being slaughtered, and we want to talk about limiting, closing Gitmo and restricting the drone program? You're living in a world that doesn't exist," said Graham slamming Democrats' attitude toward the military's drone program. 

"I think the Biden administration is sitting on its ass while the border is completely broken. People are flowing through by the hundreds of thousands and Afghanistan is hell on earth, and they're not doing a damn thing about it. So I wish we could have a hearing about the threat America faces from a broken border and our debacle in Afghanistan and what that means for our future security. It's just not if we're going to be attacked, it's when, and how much damage will be done," Graham warned.

"Is America at war?" Graham asked witness John Jumper, a retired general and former Air Force chief of staff.

"To the American servicemen, sir, we've been at war for a long time," Jumper replied.

"Who are we at war with?" Graham probed. 

"We're fighting an enemy out there who's determined to kill us," Jumper said vaguely.

"Who are they?" Graham replied pushing for specifics. "Al Qaeda? Is that an enemy of the American people?" he asked. 

"ISIS and Al Qaeda, continue to be..." Jumper responded before Graham moved on to another witness, ACLU National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi. "Do you agree, or do you believe, that if Al Qaeda and ISIS could attack the American homeland they would?" Graham asked. 

"I think what's important is..." Shamsi began before Graham interjected.

"No, what's important is you answer the question first then give an explanation," Graham said. "It's a simple question. Do you believe if Al Qaeda and ISIS had the ability — they have the desire I think — if they had the ability they would strike America today or tomorrow if they could?"

"The reason that I'm having a hard time answering that with a yes or no answer is because..." Shamsi said attempting to squirm out of providing an answer.

"That's all I need to know because nobody in the world should have a hard time answering that yes-or-no," Graham said. "If you can't answer that yes-or-no, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're living in a dream world because I can tell you right now ma'am, if they could kill us all they would. The only reason 3,000 Americans died on 9/11 is they couldn't find a way to kill 3 million of us," Graham said of the terrorist attack of two decades ago. "If they could find a way to kill 3 million of us, they would do it.

Turning to the next witness, Graham asked former State Department Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinaator for Counterterrorism Nathan Sales whether Al Qaeda and ISIS still want to attack Americans.

"The intention to strike the homeland, to strike us around the world, is still very present," Sales said.

"Would you say their ability to plan an attack in Afghanistan against the American people has gone up since our withdrawal?" Graham asked of Biden's disastrous withdrawal from the country.

"Senator, I'm sorry to agree with you that it has gone up, Sales admitted. "We don't have the intelligence collection capabilities to know what our enemies are doing in Afghanistan, nor do we have strike assets that can take action when necessary."

"Has the drone program prevented pilots from being put at risk?" Graham asked turning back to Jumper. 

"It's not the main point sir, but the answer is yes," Jumper answered. 

"The drone program, has it been an effective tool in terms of killing terrorists?" Graham probed. 

"Very effective sir," Jumper replied. 

"Has it killed civilians?" Graham asked.

"It has sir," Jumper replied. 

"Name any weapon system that hasn't killed civilians, name any war that civilians haven't been killed in operations," Graham asked rhetorically to highlight the fact that civilian casualties are not unique to America's drone program.

More Jan. 6 Hysteria: Democrats Are Trying to Get Duly Elected Republicans Banned from Office

 

Democrats continue to be whipped up in their frenzy over the Capitol riot on January 6. They didn't stop with trying to get former President Donald Trump banned from office, and are now going after other Republican lawmakers. Rep. Jim Banks, who represents Indiana's 3rd Congressional District, responded on Thursday night to a "frivolous filing" from his Democratic opponent, Aaron "AJ" Calkins, that seeks to make Banks ineligible for his office.

A copy of the filing challenge that was obtained by Townhall was filed by Calkins on February 6, 2022 in Allen County. A notary public stamped it the following day. In the section where Calkins is asked to explain how "the following facts are known to me and lead me to believe that the individual listed above is ineligible to be a candidate for this office," there isn't a whole lot of detail provided. 

Calkins had merely written "Violation of 14th Amendment Supporting An Insurrection."

Rep. Banks had nothing but strong words for the challenge. 

"I’m running for re-election to fight against Joe Biden’s dangerous agenda and champion Hoosier values. This is a joke allegation that will be quickly dismissed and ignored by voters in northeast Indiana," Banks said.

The congressman also spoke to Democratic efforts to ban Trump from office. "Unfortunately, Democrats have tried to turn a serious tragedy into a political tool to strip Americans of their civil liberties and even their right to vote for their preferred candidate. Democrats’ top elections lawyer promoted the same bogus theory in a clear attempt to ban President Trump from office and disenfranchise 74 million Americans," he continued.

The January 6th select committee also found its way into Banks' statement.  "Since Nancy Pelosi blocked me from the sham January 6th Committee, I've been leading the fight against their partisan harassment campaigns. That's why they're targeting me, but I won't back down."

Banks was one of several members that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) named to serve on the select committee, and would have been the ranking member. When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) vetoed Banks and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), McCarthy pulled all his picks. 

The Republican members who serve on the select committee, Reps. Liz Cheney (WY) and Adam Kinzinger (IL), the former who is the vice chair, were both selected by Pelosi. Banks has criticized at length how the select committee is compromised of no members named by the minority party. 

While Banks voted to object to the certification of the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania and Arizona, citing election rule changes in those states, objecting to presidential elections is nothing new. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), who chairs the select committee, objected to the 2004 presidential election results. 

Banks was first elected to his seat in 2016, by 70.1 percent to Democratic Tommy Schrader's 23 percent. He won his most recent race in 2020 by 67.7 percent.  

Last December, Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias predicted there would be such challenges for the upcoming midterms. Elias was hired by former Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) in his failed gubernatorial run for 2021 and has also filed challenges to election integrity laws passed in the states, such as those in Georgia. 

My prediction for 2022: Before the midterm election, we will have a serious discussion about whether individual Republican House Members are disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from serving in Congress.

We may even see litigation. pic.twitter.com/pF7P2fw0kn

— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) December 21, 2021

Elias was thoroughly mocked last April for a since-deleted tweet that claimed Georgia voters would not know how to properly submit their ID to vote by mail. He is currently involved in partisan redistricting efforts from Democrats in their quest to gerrymander their way into suffering as least catastrophic losses as possible come this November. 

Trying and failing to ban Trump from holding office again through his second impeachment trial, which took place after he had already left office and President Joe Biden was already sworn in, is also not going away. As John Kruzel reported for The Hill last month, on the anniversary of January 6, "Democrats quietly explore barring Trump from office over Jan. 6." Like Calkins, they are citing the 14th Amendment.

Banks is not the only member targeted. As Lexi Lonas reported on Wednesday for The Hill, the North Carolina Election Board says it has the power to ban Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) from running for office over January 6. Lonas noted that "Cawthorn filed a lawsuit after a group of liberal activists began attempting to get him barred from office due to what they say were disqualifying actions leading up to the Capitol riot."

Democrats Lost Their Majority in the Senate (For Now) and That’s Kind of a Big Deal

 

Last week, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) suffered a stroke and underwent brain surgery. He is currently hospitalized in Albuquerque. He is expected to return to the U.S. Senate in four to six weeks, assuming there are no further medical complications. However, during his absence, Democrats no longer have a majority in the Senate—Republicans have a 50-49 majority.

This means that until Luján returns, a united GOP can block the Democrats’ agenda and there’s nothing the Democrats could do about it.

This is actually a big deal. In addition to blocking the Democrats’ legislative agenda, Luján’s absence could potentially impact Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nomination.

Biden has said he plans to announce his Supreme Court nominee at the end of February, and the average time from nomination to confirmation in recent decades has been 41 days. If Lujan’s return to the U.S. Senate is delayed, it could change the timeline or the outcome of Biden’s Supreme Court nomination.

Why the Left Hates Joe Rogan

Conversation is a meeting of minds with different memories and habits. When minds meet, they don’t just exchange facts: they transform them, reshape them, draw different implications from them, engage in new trains of thought. Conversation doesn’t just reshuffle the cards: it creates new cards. ~ Theodore Zeldin, Oxford scholar & author

Good conversational debate is an end in itself, and talking for the love of conversation is what makes us human. ~ Bryce Courtenay, novelist 

One way to prevent conversation from being boring is to say the wrong thing. ~ Frank Sheed, Catholic apologist

Conversation means being able to disagree and still continue the discussion. ~ Dwight Macdonald, leftist philosopher

One good conversation can shift the direction of change forever. ~ Linda Lambert, author

Fascinating conversations are one of my favorite things in life. Grab a beer, sit down with smart people who have interesting takes on the issues of the day, and solve the world’s problems while the ballgame plays in the background. If all goes well, before you know it hours go by and it seems like minutes and you still don’t want it to end. (Although, if you’re in a restaurant your poor server probably does. Hint: always tip well!)

In such conversations – especially between friends – listening, not just speaking, is an art, and conflicts aren’t conflicts in any awkward, confrontational way, but merely opportunities for clarification, dialogue, and greater understanding. Words can get heated sometimes, and that’s fine. I want to talk to people who are passionate about what they believe, and unless you’re a crazed leftist whose delicate sentiments are disturbed by thoughts different from yours, you probably do too.

I certainly don’t know it all (though my wife sometimes insists I think I do), and neither does the family, friends, acquaintances, and co-workers in my life with whom I’ve had meaningful conversations over the years. But put our brains together, converse honestly and sincerely, leave it all on the table, and we’ll all come out knowing far more than we knew before. You’ll never agree on everything, but if you can find some common ground and even a bit more understanding about an issue than you had before you started, it was worth it, and then some.

The key to it all, of course, is truth. It’s what all of us are after, or it should be. If you aren’t seeking to find the truth on an issue, whatever that may be, what’s the point? What free person wants to believe even the most comfortable of lies? So good conversations by necessity aren’t about grandstanding, virtue-signaling, or playing politics. None of those things are about truth. That’s why you can usually find more workable solutions to the world’s ills in the corner of a bar than you can in the halls of Congress. Indeed, we need MORE, not fewer conversations these days.

But that’s not what’s happening, and we all know it. The partisan divide is wider than ever, and the political right is increasingly frightened of unwittingly stepping across any of the countless imaginary PC red lines they’ve drawn for us for the express purpose of pouncing when we do. It’s a war on truth, on reality, and we’re playing by their rules. The left, of course, hates the truth, because by definition it runs contrary to everything they want to think about how the world works. Tell the truth openly enough and people might start believing it and stop believing THEM, they fear. Thus, their primary response is to suppress the expression of truth by any means necessary. And since good conversations tend more often than not to bring the truth to light, they must be suppressed as well.

This speaks to the heart of the political left’s censorship of opposing views and touchy conversations on Big Tech platforms like Twitter and Facebook, as well as their stringent opposition to podcasting giant Joe Rogan. As a fan of conversations, I thoroughly enjoy listening to Rogan’s podcast on the lawnmower or an hours-long road trip, getting lost in the meandering exchanges between him and his guest. They expand my mind, keep me engaged, and make long trips or household chores absolutely fly by. They also make me test my beliefs and think about the world in a different way, which is always a good thing. The left obviously knows this, which is why, obviously, Rogan has to go.

It isn’t that Rogan is himself a purveyor of beliefs they disagree with or hate. He is, after all, a Bernie Sanders voter. He just happens to have an open mind and enjoys talking to people, even those with whom he might disagree. Except, to today’s leftists, even daring to speak to people on the ‘wrong’ side of an issue is verboten. They believe their ideological opponents must be silenced, not challenged directly based on facts (what facts?) and certainly not listened to. So by extension, Rogan himself is now verboten because he provides a platform, through conversation, for people they disagree with and hate.

And so our leftist would-be overlords have now embarked on a massive psyops campaign to deplatform Rogan, spearheaded by a trickle of has-been artists removing themselves from Spotify in ‘protest’ and amped up by the weekend release of a compilation of years-old instances where he simply used the n-word in dialogue with guests. Now, I’m not going to self-righteously tell you what you should think about that, except to say that none of the utterances were used in what rational people would consider a racist way and Rogan himself has apologized (yeah, never, ever apologize) and insisted he hasn’t used the magical syllables in years and will never utter them again. 

Obviously, none of these deplatforming calls have anything to do with any sort of alleged ‘racism’ from Rogan, who is absolutely not a racist in any meaningful, real sense. No, they have to do with silencing an open-minded man who is willing to have conversations with people who disagree with the left’s twisted worldview, conversations that millions upon millions of people listen to every week and could potentially have a dynamic impact on the culture.

They also have to do with silencing all of us. That’s because to the left, the conversation is over. When you have the answers for everything, why discuss it further, right? There’s no need for people like Joe Rogan or for petty, bourgeoisie notions like free speech. All that just gets in the way of crafting the hellscape they want us all to live in, where everyone contributes according to their ‘ability,’ receives based on their ‘need,’ and a good conversation can get you sent to the gulag.