The Fantasy House of Mark Carney

 Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney now believes he is more than just the Western foil to President Donald Trump and his MAGA movement — he is the global one.

Accordingly, he seems determined to demonstrate to the world how to stand up to Trump, to force Trump to lose the midterms, and to hurt the U.S. economy to such a degree that Trump will never again bully other nations.

So, at the 11th hour, Carney stormed out of an apparently completed tariff deal with the United States that would have privileged Canada over almost all of America's other trading partners. Canada, we recall, has enjoyed a $50 billion goods trade surplus with the U.S. for years in a supposedly free and equitable North American trade zone.

Carney claimed that American proposals stripped away Canadian sovereignty and quashed Canadian culture, particularly French-Canadian culture. Yet he has not released the documents detailing the bilateral offers he rejected. Nor has he allowed his representatives to explain to the media why Canada blew up the negotiations at the last minute. Carney's ever-changing excuses, explanations, and invectives about what happened are incoherent and contradictory.

That said, analysts on both sides of the border now concede that American digital-media companies do not customarily pay special taxes, as Carney demands, to promote local, regional, and ethnic culture while operating in Canada — any more than Canadian companies would be taxed for those purposes in the U.S.

Canada and the U.S. both agree that China dumps cheap steel and aluminum into Canada, allowing Canadian manufacturers to use that cost advantage to export assembled vehicles to the vast U.S. market at prices below those of American vehicles. In that way, Canada's new partnership with China circumvents America's tariffs on Beijing. China will also send nearly 50,000 electric cars and trucks into Canada under a meager tariff, ensuring that the Canadian EV market is increasingly dominated by Chinese vehicles.

But Carney's ploy goes beyond helping the communist Chinese dictatorship gain trade leverage over his own NATO neighbor. He has eagerly concluded a comprehensive Chinese-Canadian pact involving travel, visas, food safety, energy, and public security. Carney has grandly described these new agreements with Beijing as part of a new paradigm in which "middle powers" like Canada play China against the U.S. (Canada's annual nominal GDP is roughly the size of New York State's).

How ironic that Carney attacks his neighbor, the U.S., for trade unfairness while warming to the communist dictatorship in China. Communist China, after all, is history's greatest violator of trade protocols — guilty of manipulating its currency, dumping products to secure market share, violating copyright and patent laws, and imprisoning a million Uyghurs.

Has Carney learned anything from Panama's misadventures after naively inviting in a Chinese omnipresence at the American-built Panama Canal? Does Carney recall that the American Monroe Doctrine originally was aimed at foreign intrusion into the North American West?

Canada's new partner is a totalitarian police state that infected the world with its manufactured gain-of-function COVID-19 virus, which killed more than 1.5 million North Americans. China stonewalled inquiries and never offered details about the pandemic's origins in its Wuhan lab. It has promised to conquer Taiwan and so terrified its democratic neighbors — Australia, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, and South Korea — that they have joined a defensive alliance with the U.S.

So what drives Carney's hubristic fantasies? Has Canada's natural wealth in oil, gas, timber, and minerals made it a military and economic dynamo, as it once was?

Hardly.

Canada's population is 11.8 percent of America's. Its economy is barely one-thirteenth the size of America's. Canadian GDP per capita is only 60 percent of America's.

Canada quietly relies on the U.S. military to deter foreign powers from North America, whether by fending off challenges to Canada's extensive Arctic claims — including its dubious claim of absolute sovereignty over the Northwest Passage — or by keeping Canadian skies free of foreign combat aircraft and missiles.

Canada's navy — once one of the world's preeminent surface fleets — has been reduced to fewer than 30 ships. Its 89 American-made jets are more than 40 years old.

Paradoxically, Carney's dreams derive not from confidence and strength but from insecurity and defensiveness. Carney and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau nearly ruined the Canadian economy despite the country's treasure trove of natural resources. Canada has only half the GDP of California — a state currently decaying under neo-socialist governance — despite having roughly the same population.

Nearly 45 percent of Canadians are either foreign-born or the children of foreign-born parents. These often-impoverished immigrants impose gargantuan social-welfare costs that Canada's European-style socialist economy simply cannot support. While Carney lectures on "Canadian values," Canada's fertility rate of 1.25 is among the lowest in the Western world, while euthanasia accounts for 5 percent of all deaths, the highest rate in the West.

Nevertheless, Carney now claims, in passive-aggressive fashion, that the U.S. bullies Canada — even as Canada runs trade surpluses with America, relies on the American economy for 72 percent of its exports, and depends on the American military for its safety. That asymmetry indirectly subsidizes Canada's disastrous energy, immigration, defense, regulatory, and tax policies.

The Canadian energy industry depends on U.S. purchases of much of its tar sands oil, specialized U.S. refineries, and American pipelines. For over a decade, globalist Canada refused to meet its NATO commitment to invest 2 percent of GDP in defense, relying instead on American magnanimity to protect North America from foreign aggression.

No matter. Carney has melodramatically characterized his tiff with the U.S. as a "fight" and even a "war." Yet, oddly for such an anti-American Canadian hyper-nationalist, Carney is a globalist banker who, until he became prime minister, held citizenship in three nations.

Yet the Canadian prime minister who urges Canada's vulnerable working classes to decouple from America is himself — like thousands of Canadian grandees — deeply entwined with the United States. Some 91 percent of Carney's investments are in U.S.-based companies, and two of his four children, like their father, attended college in the United States. Both now reside in America, along with nearly one million other Canadians. Apparently, Carney is so eager for a veritable economic, cultural, and political war with the United States that 91 percent of his holdings remain invested in the homeland of his enemy.

But why, from a position of such hypocrisy and vulnerability, has Carney blown up the trade agreement, ginned up anti-American Canadian nationalism — and done so now?

Only in this way, Carney believes, can he stop autonomy referenda in Alberta and Quebec. And only in this way can he openly interfere in the U.S. midterm elections by targeting new tariffs at red and purple border states while working directly with left-wing Democratic politicians to help Democrats regain control of Congress and restore the prior status quo.

His anti-American screeds have certainly worked at home. Canadians now boo at the mere sound of "The Star-Spangled Banner." They brag of a new "elbows up" policy to stop U.S. "aggression." Their social media is flooded with braggadocio about new ways to hurt Americans. Some three-quarters of the country has bought into Carney's fantasies. Hating America is the new Canadian pastime.

But, sadly, this will not end well for Canada, for at least five reasons.

First, America certainly is not the cause of Canada's maladies, other than by subsidizing its suicidal domestic choices for years. Canada's self-destructive socialist and globalist policies are its government's doing alone.

The United States did not force Canada to adopt European-style socialist policies of mass unvetted immigration, subsidized green energy, near-disarmament, and unsustainable social-welfare spending. America did not urge Canadians to stop having children or enlist their government to help them kill themselves.

In truth, America prefers a militarily and economically strong Canadian partner, not a weak one lashing out from insecurity.

Second, the American public has so far been mostly indifferent to the spat. But now that the North American media has begun revealing the extent of Canada's anti-American venom, along with Carney's brinkmanship and disingenuous rhetoric, anger is rising at his cheap politicking and the animus he has fanned.

In sum, Carney has no idea that he is reframing the dispute not as a conflict with Trump but as an affront to the American people themselves — who have long memories.

Third, for all his globalist background and internationalist performance-art stunts, Carney is alone on the world stage. Europe may applaud his defiance, but it has no desire to join his anti-American campaign. When the United States finally insisted on symmetrical trade, only communist China and Canada — the latter enjoying the most generous entree into the American economy of any country in the world — slapped counter-tariffs on the United States. Apparently, other nations did not agree that Carney's perennial $50 billion surplus was his birthright.

Fourth, Canada is far more vulnerable than the United States if Carney's "war" continues. Canada relies on the United States for 72 percent of its exports, while America relies on Canada for only 15 percent of its own exports. Last month, even before the full effect of the new tariffs was felt, Canada lost 42,000 jobs while the United States gained 160,000. The damage will only grow, ever more asymmetrically, as tariffs mount on Canadian businesses.

Nearly a million Canadians reside in the United States, but only 350,000 Americans live in Canada. And it is easier for a Canadian to obtain an expedited U.S. work visa than for an American to do the same in Canada. Indeed, Canadians do not appreciate that they are nearly the only visitors in the world granted six months of residence in the United States without a visa.

Fifth, since Carney walked out at the last minute, it will be incumbent upon him to resume talks — especially as the damage he has done to Canadian workers and small businesses worsens. But should Carney seek to renew negotiations immediately after the Canadian provincial elections and the U.S. midterms, he will be exposed as a disingenuous politico who ginned up the fight to manipulate both Canadian and American balloting to benefit himself and his party.

If that happens, he may learn that the American friendship train has left the station. He will also discover that China treats obsequious outreach from Western "middle powers" as weakness to exploit, not magnanimity to reciprocate.

Carney's political disingenuousness will eventually earn the animus of Canadians and Americans alike — who may ironically unite in their distaste for Carney and his fantasy house.

How Are We Doing With the Midterms Seven Weeks Out?

 Look, I can’t tell you that everything is going to be OK for us patriots in the midterms. I think it will, but I’m not sure. Nobody knows for sure. What I do know is what the correlation of forces, to my mind, indicates. It indicates another 2022, a year when we Republicans were going to clean up against an unpopular, semi-conscious president. And we did OK. Not great. OK. And it looks to me, from where I sit, from who I’ve talked to, from what I’ve seen, and yeah, from my gut, that that’s the high-water mark for the Democrats. They might do OK. They might get the House by a few seats, and they might cut our lead in the Senate. That’s just my perspective, though. I’ve talked to well-placed optimists and doomers (one who, you know, says we lose the House and 50-50 in the Senate if we are lucky). But I don’t know. You don’t know. Nobody knows.

Let’s look at the big themes, then get down to specific cases. What do the Democrats have going for them? History, for one. History doesn’t necessarily repeat itself, but it often rhymes. The party in power, especially in a second term, tends to struggle in the midterms. People get tired of the status quo. The problems add up, the friction and the fog of war slow the progress, and people get bored. That gives Democrats another advantage: excitement and intensity. And boy, are they ever excited and intense about taking us out. They can’t wait to crawl out of their old folks’ homes, cat-overrun condos, moms’ basements, Hollywood mansions, university dorms, and perverted communes to vote out those wicked patriotic Americans of the Republican Party. They would crawl over broken glass to vote against us or at least hire illegal aliens to do the crawling over broken glass that American Democrats won’t do. Every single one of them is going to vote, probably several times.

That intensity leads to their third advantage: the polls. Negative polling can demoralize Republican voters. But to the extent the polls are not actively bent to support the Democrats (which some of them manifestly are), Democrat intensity skews the polls because Democrats actually answer them. Anecdotes are evidence of nothing but anecdotes, but I like to informally poll fellow Republicans about whether they ever respond to political polling. I never do. And they tell me they never do. I don’t know who the Republicans answering these polls are, but I haven't met one.

The polling is terrible for us if you take it at face value. It has us losing in places we have no business losing. But I just can’t make myself believe it. The polls don’t fit the fundamentals, and they’re too darn convenient for the opposition. Is that wishful thinking? It may be, but it’s wishful thinking based on polling’s track record of failure. Remember the famous 2024 Ann Selzer Iowa poll that had Kamala three points up on Trump? Trump ended up beating her by something like 13 points. And just a couple of weeks ago, Hasan Piker’s Hamas-diddling puppet Abdul in Michigan was supposed to win by double digits over his moderate (sic) Democrat opponent, but he ended up barely squeaking to victory by a point or so. The polls are wrong a lot, and always in one direction. When’s the last time you found a polling error that favored a Republican? That’s about as likely as finding leftovers in JB Pritzker’s fridge.

Of course, the polls could be right. I don’t think they are. Given the dire unanimity of the current polls, disbelieving them means betting on both the malice and the incompetence of the pollsters. I’ll take that bet, especially when so many are polls from outfits you’ve never heard of, like the “University of College/Pepsi Challenge Public Opinion Survey” or the “Geebo Strategies Online Solutions.”

What do we have in our favor? Well, we have a ton of money. That’s good. Plus, the folks in the know whom I’ve talked to like the strategy of waiting until after Labor Day to really start spending. Democrats have been spending for a while, but traditionally you spend early to create a positive image for your candidate and tear down the other guy. That used to work, but will it work now? This is a very partisan environment. If you’re a Democrat, we already know what we think of you, and all the ads with you and Mee-maw sitting on the porch talking about values you don’t actually believe in aren’t going to change your image as an avatar of a political party that supports crime, communism, castration, and open borders.

We also have Donald Trump, who’s good for turning out our voters. His ability to enrage the other side is already baked in, but he’s going to be out and about everywhere rallying our troops. That’s good. And while the convention was slammed for low ratings, it did what needed to be done. It set a positive tone and motivated our base.

This election is all about turning out our base. We now have a decade of experience getting the kind of voters in our coalition to come out and vote when Donald Trump himself is not on the ballot. We better turn them out. That we can’t is everyone’s big fear. But the base staying home because it’s mad seemed much more plausible when the Democrats were just annoying rather than a threat to our way of life. It’s easy to say, “Who cares?” when, at their core, both parties are composed of people who generally like America and want what’s best for it. But that’s not true with today’s Democrats. They want to flood us with Third World barbarians, mutilate our kids, take our guns, tax us into poverty, and outlaw normal people. Yeah, there’s an affordability problem, and there’s a crime problem, and there are lots of other problems, but the Democrats caused all those problems, and everyone knows that it’s not like they’re going to fix them. America has become vastly more partisan, and vastly more binary, and I’m thinking that very few Republicans are going to be able to swallow the idiotic notion that we need to show the dumb Republicans among us (and there are a lot of dumb Republicans among us) what-for by allowing the election of a bunch of communist pervert-enablers.

I just don’t think Republicans are going to stay home in droves, much less actually vote for Democrats. I do expect the polls to tighten as we get closer to Election Day, largely because that’s when pollsters have to start thinking about their reputations and will take at least a couple of their fingers off the scale. It always happens.

So, let’s look at the races. There’s just too much going on in the House to go through individually, but our maps will do a lot to limit any damage. The House is going to be tough because we only have a handful of seats in our majority, but some of the folks I’ve talked to were confident about it in private. These people have nothing to lose by telling me what they really think. You can take it or leave it. But while Team Black Pill will get all the regime media coverage, know that there are a lot of GOP guys out there who think we can do OK in the House.

The Senate remains our firewall. We have a 53-seat majority. Democrats need to net four seats to overcome JD Vance’s tiebreaker vote. Let’s ignore the wildcard scenarios, like whether Lisa Murkowski or John Fetterman might switch parties to ensure a majority. Let’s find those four seats, if we can. We’ll start with the seats Republicans are defending. Keep in mind, the polls are negative for Republicans in pretty much all of them.

I’ve talked about Texas and that blasphemous imp Talarico already this week, and for the reasons I set forth, I think we hold it.

With the guy with the Nazi tattoo having been replaced by the guy who has kids with his second cousin, Susan Collins has a very good chance of keeping her seat in Maine. It would be pretty wild for the Maple Syrup State to swap out the chair of the Appropriations Committee for a guy who makes family Thanksgiving dinners awkward with sexual tension. She’s likely to win.

North Carolina is probably the Republicans’ toughest fight, with Michael Whatley struggling against that state’s less masculine version of Abigail Spanberger. Roy Cooper is a straight-up leftist pretending to be a moderate, and North Carolina is a purple state. I think we lose that one, but we shouldn’t give up.

Dan Sullivan in Alaska has to contend with Dem dirty tricks like ranked-choice voting and a doppelgänger on the ballot. It will be tough. I think he holds – a lot of Alaskans depend on oil, and the Democrats want to end the industry. But it will take money and effort.

Jon Husted is allegedly struggling in Ohio against leftist retread Sherrod Brown. The same is true in Iowa, with Ashley Hinson against Josh Turek. Both of these are red states. It’s hard to toss out an incumbent like Husted, and Hinson is a strong candidate. It’s going to take money and work, but I think we pull it off and keep both seats. There is also some crazy talk about Democrats expanding the map to Kansas and Florida. That’s just not going to happen, and if it does, it’s such an apocalypse that nothing else is going to matter anyway.

Now, the best defense is a good offense. What states are we going to take from the Democrats? Jon Ossoff is getting the full-court press from the regime media in Georgia; he’s an even more beta Beto, but they do like young, glib, good-looking guys. He’s up against Mike Collins, who’s a good old boy, and who I’ve gotten to know a little from interviews. The dude is smart. He ran a trucking company. When you talk to him, he doesn’t talk to you in hack clichés. He talks about money, organization, getting out the vote, and what matters. Do not underestimate him the way a lot of people seem to. Governor Brian Kemp, who backed somebody else in the primary, just decided he wanted to remain a viable GOP candidate in 2028 or later and has endorsed Collins. Let’s see if he turns his formidable Republican machine out to snatch that Senate seat; if he does, that makes him viable in the future. If Kemp can’t help recapture the seat, what good is he? In any case, we have a decent chance in Georgia, but let’s be conservative and assume we don’t; though if we do, that destroys all the Democrats’ dreams once and for all.

In New Hampshire, John Sununu seems to have a decent shot at beating Chris Pappas, who’s another Spanberger Democrat who talks moderate but would vote left. New Hampshire is a purple state, and they do elect Republicans. The name Sununu still means something there. Again, my conservative nature tells me that it’s more likely than not that we lose, but if we win, oh boy.

In Minnesota, Michele Tafoya is running against a lunatic, pervert-loving communist woman in a state that elects lunatic, pervert-loving communist women of all genders. But enough about Tim Walz. We’re probably not going to win this one, but there’s that outside chance.

And then we come to Michigan, where Mike Rogers, a straight-up veteran patriot, is going up against Abdul El-Sayed, a straight-up Islamist communist who makes AOC look like William F. Buckley. Here we’ve got a real opportunity, and I think it’s more likely than not that the good people of Michigan are going to want to be represented by a resolutely normal guy rather than a guy who dreams of imposing socialist sharia on a country he despises. I think we win this one.

So let’s tally it up. I think we lose one we had, and I think we gain one we didn’t. I think we have a couple of other pickup opportunities in purple states, but it’s hard for me to see them picking up any in our red states. It could happen, but I don’t think it will.

So I put the Senate at 52 to 54 GOP.

This is just a snapshot just under seven weeks from the midterm election. That’s an eternity. Anything can happen. And anything probably will happen.

The Rule of Law Cannot Be Based Upon 'Feelings'

 One of the primary tenets of the American legal system is the importance of precedent; the common law doctrine of "stare decisis" means "to stand by things decided." The purpose of law in such a system is to provide stability and predictability, so that people can conform their conduct to the law's requirements.

Another way of describing this is "the rule of law." At its core, the rule of law in this country means that all individuals and entities, including the government, are subject to the same laws, which will be applied fairly, consistently and uniformly. This principle is at the very foundation of the U.S. government and legal system.

The importance of the rule of law is one of the reasons the mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy trial continues to create shockwaves. Eleven of the 12 jurors voted to acquit Clancy of murder, even though Clancy killed her three small children.

In one of her many recent interviews, Clancy juror Paula Devlin said that she and the other women on the jury saw the case as an opportunity "to make it better for other women in the future." "Justice for those children," she said, "is this never happening again."

Those are manifestly incorrect statements. The jurors in the Clancy case have no control over whether some other woman someplace else kills her children. Making things "better for other women" was not their job. Nor was it their job to make sure that Clancy "gets the help she needs." Their job — their only job — was determining whether Clancy knew right from wrong when she committed those acts.

That — not some notion of female activism — was what "justice for those children" demanded.

Devlin was also the person who "outed" the juror who would not vote to acquit Clancy, by revealing to Gayle King on "CBS Mornings" that the lone holdout was one of three men and the only black person on the jury. That man has since been under vicious and relentless attack on traditional and social media.

That juror made his decision based on his evaluation of the evidence. He decided that Clancy knew what she was doing and was therefore guilty. He had that right, just as any juror in a criminal case does.

The jurors who have given interviews have spent an inordinate amount of time discussing their feelings. That is irrelevant. If a jury's verdict is based not upon what the law is but upon "feelings," then the result in any given case will depend on whose deciding the case and how you can make them "feel," not on the facts and what the law requires.

That is unpredictable. It is subject to enormous abuse. It is a recipe for chaos. And yet it seems to be a common modus operandi for women.

Earlier this week, I was reading a law review article written in 2019 by attorney Samantha Harris and Brooklyn College professor K.C. Johnson. Titled "Campus Courts in Court," the authors analyzed hundreds of cases brought by students who had been accused of sexual assault at colleges and universities, and who later sued, claiming that their constitutional rights had been violated.

The schools were reacting to the 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter from the Obama administration's Department of Education, threatening all institutions of higher education with loss of their Title IX funds unless they took dramatic steps to curb "rape culture" on college campuses. Panicky schools lowered the burden of proof in sexual assault cases from "clear and convincing" evidence to "a mere preponderance" of the evidence, effectively eliminated the presumption of innocence of the accused, forbade legal representation and the rights of the accused students to cross-examine the student's accuser, and permitted the accusers to appeal if a disciplinary tribunal exonerated the accused. Under those conditions, an accusation of sexual assault was tantamount to a finding of guilt. Accused students lost scholarships and were expelled with stains on their academic record that left them unable to enroll in other schools and affected their future employability.

In short, it was a due process nightmare, and the subsequent litigation exploded. By the time Harris and Johnson published their article, more than 500 cases had been filed against colleges and universities (with hundreds more since); the defendant institutions lost — or settled — most of them. Legal expert Gary Pavela was quoted saying, "In over 20 years of reviewing higher education law cases, I've never seen such a string of legal setbacks for universities, both public and private, in student conduct cases. Something is going seriously wrong."

Interestingly, Harris and Johnson reported that the results in cases tried in federal courts did not depend on politics; there was no statistical correlation between the outcome of the cases and whether the judges had been appointed by a Democrat or a Republican president.

But there was a demonstrable difference based upon the sex of the judge. Male federal judges found in favor of the student plaintiffs in 53 percent of the cases. But female federal judges decided in favor of the defending institutions and against the accused students — who were almost all men — in 67 percent of the cases.

I am a woman who has been an attorney for 40 years. And yet I now find myself wondering whether women are cut out for decision-making roles in the legal profession — serving as judges or on juries — because distressingly large numbers appear to be unable (or unwilling) to put their personal feelings aside and decide the case according to what the law is — not "to send a message," to "show compassion" or "to make things better for all women."

Applying the law as it is, is difficult and lonely work. It sometimes produces results that are deeply unsatisfying, and it will rarely make you popular. You must be willing to consider not only the impact of your decision in this particular case, but the longer-term implications — the precedential effect. If a primary motivation for your actions is what other people think of you, how decisions make you feel about yourself, or how something is going to play on social media, you are ill-suited for the job.

In short, it takes not only intellectual integrity and a clear-headed understanding of human nature, but also vision and courage.

In truth, however, those attributes seem to be in short supply among women and men in leadership roles, in the legal profession and elsewhere. We live, increasingly, in a culture where "truth" is a matter of opinion, "science" is whatever someone needs it to be to advance their agenda, and "right" and "wrong" don't exist, except to the extent that you can whip up an irate consensus among your ill-informed followers on TikTok.

The American legal system as we have known it cannot survive that.

Our second president, John Adams, once wrote that "the rule of law" in the United States means that ours is "a government of laws and not of men."

Is America Committing Suicide?

 

    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” — Abraham Lincoln

    “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has [first] destroyed itself from within”—Will Durant

Here is a recent headline from Breitbart: “The Dying Citizen: Los Angeles Democrats Seek to Open Door to Foreigners Voting in City Elections.”

Nations, countries, empires change, of course. That is, to a certain extent, inevitable. Some disappear forever. Babylon, Assyria, Persia, the Hittites, Girgashites, and Sumer are no longer with us, at least not by those names and governments. Some nations survive, but in different forms. Egypt today is not the Egypt of the pharaohs. The Rome of Italy is not the Rome of the Republic or Empire. The Britain of the Empire doesn’t even come close to the Britain of the 21st century. Some countries — very few — actually don’t change much. China doesn’t call its one-man ruler of today an “emperor,” and its government is now a “communist,” but it’s basically the same as it’s always been — one man on top, with his nobility, killing its people and giving them whatever the government wants them to have. A government by another name, but still the same.

So, it’s not surprising to see the America of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution changing, morphing into something else. Sir Alexander Tytler told us that the average life of the greatest civilizations is about 200 years. That’s the average; some go longer, some not so long, but it averages out to about 200 years. America is 250 years old this year, at least the United States in name. But the country has changed, and is changing. The Breitbart headline above indicates that. Amnesty is coming, folks, and we aren’t going to stop it. It’s part of the “change” that America is undergoing.

Of course, to say that America “has changed” or “is changing,” we must have some standard of comparison: changed from what?

The self-destruction Lincoln spoke of obviously indicates a change from what had previously been, and in America’s case, we look at what the Founders established, or at least set forth as the ideal for the nation. America has never adhered perfectly to its founding principles; just as no Christian ever perfectly obeys the teachings of Jesus, our country has fallen short of its founding ideals. But they are there to guide us, to show us what our Founders wanted the nation to be. And we have certainly changed from those principles. Boy, have we changed, and the Democrat Party is attempting to completely overthrow those ideals. The Breitbart quote above is one indication of that.

Our Founders would never have even thought in such terms as letting foreigners vote. A country doesn’t exist without citizenship. It would be nothing but a globular, amorphous mass of humanity without any unity. Even the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t accept that.

Our Founders wanted America to be a country with a virtuous citizenry and limited government, with a Constitution based upon the teachings of the common God all Americans of the time believed in. “The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded” (James Madison). Note, please, the “future and success” of America is based upon the “laws of God.” Well, to say the least, the Democrats do not believe and want that, and are trying to extinguish it. And for half the country, at least, they have changed it.

But while some change is inevitable, death is not (e.g., Egypt, Rome, Britain). The Democrats, however, are trying to kill the America our Founders established, yet keep the same name. I guess they want to call their country “America.” They are trying to kill everything else; we’ll see if the name “America” survives their onslaught.

Not all change is bad, of course. We are all certainly happy that slavery no longer exists, at least the chattel slavery of early American history. We’d like to see racism die, but the Democrats keep that going. But again, they want to, and are killing Judeo/Christian virtue and replacing it with promiscuity and licentiousness. They are attempting to destroy what little remains of the limited government Constitution and replace it with socialist totalitarian oppression. “The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution” (Thomas Jefferson). That is exactly what the Democrats want. They are endeavoring to decimate the American dream of individual advancement and achievement through property rights and hard work, and replace it with government dependency and oppression for as many people as possible. They have (with a whole lot of help from Republicans) destroyed government frugality and fiscal responsibility, and supplanted it with spendthrift waste and corruption. And it’s all for one reason — power.

Actually, the Democrats (most politicians) don’t really care what kind of America exists, or even if “America” exists, as long as whatever is “there” is controlled by them. What they are doing has one aim in mind — total power for themselves, none for you. That’s the “change” they want most. It will kill the America our Founders established.

“It is in the nature of an empire to disintegrate soon, for the energy that created it disappears from those who inherit it” (Will Durant). Can we save America, the America of the Founders? Do we want to save virtue and limited government? Well, I do. But to save that, we will have to get rid of the cancers that are now killing America, and voluntarily return to the principles of the Declaration and Constitution. It can be done, but the problem is, at least half the country doesn’t want to. They want to murder traditional America and live their promiscuous, licentious, debauched, corrupt lives, dependent upon a dominant, totalitarian government.

Yeah, we are destroying from within the America our Founders established. That’s suicide.

Is It Time to Stop Funding Libraries?

 Have you been to the library lately? I bet you haven’t. I bet, unless you have young kids, you haven’t been there in 10 or 20 years, at a minimum. Why would you go when you have everything they offer available to you at home, either delivered immediately digitally, or the next day physically? It begs the question: why are we still paying for them?

Yes, the things in libraries are “free,” but sometimes free is too high a price to pay for something.

There are two types of libraries: the small ones in rural communities, and the large ones in major cities. The small ones are cesspools of left-wing propaganda – go to one and look at the children’s book section and you’ll see “graphic novels” that would put the Penthouse letters section to shame. There are drawings for kids that, if they were photographs, would be a crime.

But these are done under the banner of “diversity,” so they’re important and good…or something.

The big city libraries are glorified homeless shelters. It would be child abuse to bring your kid there without an armed guard. The smell of body odor and weed has tattooed itself to the books and walls, and whispers of “Quiet, please” have been replaced by grunting junkies if you happen to disturb their high.

What does the library offer that people need?

Used books are basically given away online and in local shops or garage sales, and they have no due date. Anything new can be bought cheap online or just digitally, requiring no space to store them.

I remember when they started carrying VHS tapes and DVDs, giving Blockbuster fits over the “free” competition. It was just a ploy to get people to go into them again. It worked for a while, then it worked out about as well as it did for Blockbuster.
Recommended
The Fantasy House of Mark Carney Victor Davis Hanson
Could the Kennedy Center Be Demolished? What We Know Right Now. Cameron Arcand

Now, libraries are meeting places for Drag Queen Story Hour and deviant art that couldn’t make it anywhere merit mattered.

Librarians get taxpayer money to put on events, and they all end up being left-wing events. Why do conservatives vote to fund our opponents? Is it simply because voting against library funding would trigger some kind of nostalgia in people that doesn’t exist otherwise? They’re there, they exist, and people are free to go to them, but we don’t. Still, the prospect of them going away maybe triggers something in people they don’t want to let go of, even though they have no practical use for them.

It's the mentality that fills boxes in basements with things we can’t get rid of but never see the light of day – sentimental value does not create usefulness or shelf space.

My wife will kill me for this, as she absolutely loves libraries, but even she comes away from trips with the kids there full of disgust over what the kids’ section is full of.

We should not be paying for it.

Sell the books, sell the buildings and the land, use the money to pay off debt or lower taxes, and recognize that the days of libraries are over. They weren’t necessarily rendered useless by the Internet, but by the people hired to run them.

The problem isn’t the concept; it’s the people. The politicians who must bring a left-wing agenda into everything they do and the librarians who can’t have a desk without a seizure-inducing “progressive” rainbow flag on it. The 40-year-old single white women angry at the world that all their abortions didn’t pay off with love, riches and happiness who’ve decided to take their pending fear of dying alone out on the societal norms they think they’re courageously standing up to. They’re the type of people who view agreement and conformity to a radical left-wing agenda as an act of rebellion.

We should stop paying them by eliminating the need for their jobs.

Shut it all down. History is full of things – businesses and organizations – that have outlived their usefulness. The library absolutely had its time and place, but that passed long ago. It’s time to call it a day and stop wasting money by funding our opponents. Maybe a new, online model can be created by the private sector – if there’s one thing to know about life is if there is an actual need or want, the private sector will fill it – or some left-wing billionaires can step up and pay for them. Otherwise, close them down, end the subsidized indoctrination and drug centers (watch this video for one example) and enjoy the savings.