Watch “Political Saviors Taking Away Our Freedom In Their Quest to a Utopia | Thomas Sowell” on YouTube
Reply
Category Archives: Politics
Watch “Victor Davis Hanson: The Demise of Europe” on YouTube
Orchestrated Chaos
Funneling $$ to Ukraine while neglecting our own border and military is reason enough to put on trial and convict all Democrats, and most Republicans, of treason. There are so very many OTHER reasons. But this one is especially bipartisan. The Ukraine handover is so brazenly a cynical payoff, it’s a form of dark comedy. It’s hard to fathom that most Americans are either ignorant or indifferent enough to keep tolerating it all. The house of cards will all come tumbling down, as corrupt schemes always do.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, Michael Hurd Ph.D. on LinkedIn, @DrHurd on TruthSocial
Funneling $$ to Ukraine while neglecting our own border and military is reason enough to put on trial and convict all Democrats, and most Republicans, of treason. There are so very many OTHER reasons. But this one is especially bipartisan. The Ukraine handover is so brazenly a cynical payoff, it’s a form of dark comedy. It’s hard to fathom that most Americans are either ignorant or indifferent enough to keep tolerating it all. The house of cards will all come tumbling down, as corrupt schemes always do.
Funneling $$ to Ukraine while neglecting our own border and military is reason enough to put on trial and convict all Democrats, and most Republicans, of treason. There are so very many OTHER reasons. But this one is especially bipartisan. The Ukraine handover is so brazenly a cynical payoff, it’s a form of dark comedy. It’s hard to fathom that most Americans are either ignorant or indifferent enough to keep tolerating it all. The house of cards will all come tumbling down, as corrupt schemes always do.
Leftism and Chaos
It is impossible to understand what is happening to America — and to the rest of the West — without understanding the most dynamic ideology of the last hundred years: leftism.
We need to begin with the understanding that leftism (or “progressivism”) and liberalism are not only not the same ideologies, they are in fact opposed to each other on virtually every major issue.
Leftism and liberalism have only two things in common:
One is belief in big government, which, given that individual and societal liberty decline as the state grows, is a significant similarity.
The other Left-liberal commonality is antipathy to the Right. This is even more important than commitment to big government because it explains why liberals vote for the Left despite the fact that liberals differ with far more left-wing positions than with conservative positions.
Unlike the Left, most liberals love their country. Unlike the Left, most liberals do not believe that there are more than two sexes/genders; that prepubescent boys and girls who claim they are members of the other sex should be given hormone blockers; that girls under 21 should be allowed to have their breasts surgically removed; or that men who say they are women should be allowed to compete in women’s sports. So, too, liberals do not believe that capitalism is evil, that America is systemically racist, that all whites are racist, that Israel is the villain in the Middle East and Zionism is racist.
So, then, given that those leftist positions are as destructive as they are absurd, how are we to explain leftism?
This question has preoccupied me all my adult life. It is why I was one of fewer than 10 graduate students in all of Columbia University to major in what was called “Communist Affairs.” (I was a fellow at the Russian Institute at Columbia’s School of International Affairs.) In other words, I have studied the Left all my life.
Early on, I recognized that the Left opposes liberty — the clearest example being that wherever the Left gains power, whether at a university or in society as a whole, it suppresses free speech — and that it destroys everything it touches. But while I (and many others) have always understood that the Left (again, not liberalism) has always, everywhere, been a force for evil, I needed to understand why.
How can people believe that men give birth; that a country to which more than 4 million black people have emigrated and which twice elected a black president is systemically racist; that the freest country in the Middle East, one in which millions of Arabs live as equal citizens, is the villain, while its barbaric enemies are worthy of support?
Here are some answers:
Throughout their history, Americans have had three great providers of meaning: family, religion and patriotism. Leftists lack the latter two (indeed, they seek to get rid of them), and increasing numbers of them lack the first. Since human beings cannot live without meaning — it is as great a need as food, and even greater than sex — they seek meaning elsewhere. So they create new meanings through creating secular religions: socialism, communism, feminism, environmentalism, DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion), “anti-racism,” anti-Zionism, LGBTQIA+ pride, and trans activism, among others.
All these are united by one overarching aim: destroying the institutions of Western civilization (e.g., religion, art, music, the nuclear family, moral norms, schools and universities, free speech, capitalism, even medicine).
Those of us who appreciate Western civilization and wish to preserve it (while, of course, correcting its flaws) cannot understand why anyone would want to destroy it. That is a major reason it is so difficult for non-leftists to understand the Left.
After decades of mulling this over, I think I have discovered one answer that is not obvious even to all leftists.
What opened my eyes are the Left’s beliefs that men can become women and women can become men; men give birth; there are more than two genders/sexes; men who say they are women should be placed in women’s prisons, women’s colleges and women’s shelters; men who say they are women should be allowed to compete in women’s sports; and children should be taken to drag queen shows.
All these positions represent … chaos.
The Left’s trans-positions are the most obvious areas of Left-induced chaos, but there are many others. These include the Left’s contempt for the ideal of the nuclear family (i.e., a married mother and father and children); its support for defunding police; its raising the dollar value of stolen goods that qualifies as a felony, which can only incentivize theft; and its support for progressive district attorneys.
Fighting crime represents order; crime represents chaos.
And why does leftism seek chaos? Because the Left hates the opposite of chaos: order. And order ultimately represents a religious view of life. Order represents divine order. The proof is that no religious people say, “Men give birth.” Not all secular people believe men give birth, there are more than two sexes, men can compete in women’s sports, children should be exposed to drag queen shows, or children should be given hormone blockers if they claim to be a member of the other sex. But only secular people believe those things. Virtually no one who believes in the Bible and the God of the Bible believes them. We believe in a God-created social order.
Chaos is the normal state of the world. The second verse of the Bible states that the world was in a chaotic state. God then made order. Which is why the Left is undoing it.
Dennis Prager
Biden Will Not Be Taking Cognitive Test as Part of Physical Exam
During Monday’s White House press conference, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that Biden will not be taking a cognitive test as part of his upcoming physical exam, coming as questions are raised on Biden’s mental fitness.
Jean-Pierre said that Dr. Kevin O’Conner, Biden’s physician, does not believe a cognitive test is necessary, adding that O’Conner believes Biden has proven his cognitive ability “every day in how he operates and how he thinks.”
“Does the White House think that the idea of the president taking a cognitive test as a part of this physical is a legitimate idea?” one reporter asked.
“I’m just gonna say what Dr. O’Connor said to me about a year ago when [Biden’s physical] was released,” Jean-Pierre said. “The president proves every day in how he operates and how he thinks, by dealing with world leaders, by making difficult decisions on behalf of the American people – whether it’s domestic or it’s national security.”
“That is how Dr. O’Connor sees it, and that is how I’m going to leave it,” she added.
Jean-Pierre said that Biden has traveled across the country and met with world leaders in recent months and that she herself has spent “countless hours” with Biden, and he is “sharp, he’s engaged,” and “on top of things.”
“That is how Dr. O’Connor sees it, and that is how I’m going to leave it,” she added.
Reporters pressed Jean-Pierre on Biden’s health due to last week’s report from Special Counsel Robert Hur that found Biden has significant memory issues. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Jean-Pierre gave a more full-throated defense of Biden when reporters continued to press her on the topic. She said she has known Biden for more than a decade and continues to find him to be “sharp” and “on top of things.”
“When we have meetings with him and his staff he is constantly pushing us, trying to get more information, and so that has been my experience with this president,” she said.
“That is how Dr. O’Connor sees it, and that is how I’m going to leave it,” she added.
Reporters pressed Jean-Pierre on Biden’s health due to last week’s report from Special Counsel Robert Hur that found Biden has significant memory issues. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Jean-Pierre gave a more full-throated defense of Biden when reporters continued to press her on the topic. She said she has known Biden for more than a decade and continues to find him to be “sharp” and “on top of things.”
“When we have meetings with him and his staff he is constantly pushing us, trying to get more information, and so that has been my experience with this president,” she said.
Recent polling has found that Biden’s age is a major issue for a majority of not only Americans in general, but also Democrats. A Sunday poll from ABC/Ipsos found that 86% of Americans believe Biden is too old to serve another term, including 73% of Democrats.
Anders Hagstrom is a reporter with Fox News Digital covering national politics and major breaking news events. Send tips to Anders.Hagstrom@Fox.com, or on Twitter: @Hagstrom_Anders.
Watch “The Devastating Legacy of Obama’s Presidency – A Point of No Return | Thomas Sowell” on YouTube
The Rise of Artificial Intelligence: Jobs or Robots ?
The media warn, “Artificial intelligence will replace millions of jobs.”
In San Francisco, Teamsters protest, demanding the government “protect” their jobs. In my new video, they chant, “Do not have these self-driving vehicles on San Francisco streets, taking jobs!”
They’re complaining about the Waymo driverless taxis already in use in part of San Francisco (and Phoenix).
The union is right to worry. Robot cars don’t get tired. They don’t take lunch breaks. They don’t drink or get distracted. Self-driving cars will replace many delivery-driver jobs, taxi jobs, Uber jobs and truck driver jobs.
Texas is building a special highway with a lane just for self-driving trucks.
The idea isn’t just to save money by having machines do what people do now, but to get human drivers off the road entirely.
Safety advocates want that, because despite publicity over occasional robot-car crashes, we humans make many more mistakes. Robo-cars will save thousands of lives.
But when I said that in this column last month, some of you said government officials will soon use “safety” as an excuse to outlaw human driving.
“Regulators will try to ban traditional cars,” writes orangecrate26. “You’re not taking my Mustang, or my guns.”
Government will have “total control of your movement,” writes another. “No movement at all if you think the wrong way.”
It’s a threat I hadn’t considered.
Because lots of you like driving, and politicians fear upsetting big voting groups, I assumed government wouldn’t ban human driving altogether.
But I’ve been wrong about state intrusions before.
What I haven’t been wrong about is the job loss.
Some people will lose jobs because of AI.
But history suggests that most will find better jobs.
More than 90% of America’s workers once worked on farms. Better farm equipment replaced most of those jobs. Today, only about 1% of Americans work on farms.
Are the former farmers out of work? No, most found other jobs, better jobs — jobs less demanding and dangerous than farming.
There were once half a million typists in America. Nearly all those jobs are gone.
So are thousands of phone and elevator operator jobs.
Bank tellers were replaced by ATM machines and online banking.
Video rental stores were killed by streaming services.
But after those people lost jobs, there was no surge in unemployment.
In fact, over the past 15 years, unemployment has dropped. Wages, adjusted for inflation, are up. No union predicted that.
It happened because, as machines took jobs that humans once did, people searched for different, better work. Most found it.
Thousands found better paying jobs in fields like education, hospitality and health care.
This creative destruction makes almost everyone better off. Although you won’t convince the unions.
Stossel TV Executive Producer Maxim Lott asked the Teamster boss, “In the future, there’ll be new jobs we can’t even imagine. You buy that?”
“I don’t,” he replied, “because AI’s scary, and it’s here to stay.”
It is scary and here to stay. Fortunately, many people Lott interviewed see the benefit of that.
One points out, “We got machines that pick things up. We no longer needed strong people to pick things up. We don’t say, let’s not develop the forklift!”
AI will create lots of disruptive job change, probably more drastic than anything in the past. But history suggests that this change is probably good news.
As former AI executive Alex Roy points out, “For every new technology, there has been someone who said, ‘stop this.’ But it can’t be stopped!”
That’s a good thing, he says. “Think about how many businesses don’t exist yet that could and will, when Robo-taxis are ubiquitous.”
My brain is too small to know what those jobs will be. But they will come.
Of course, it’s possible that AI robots decide that we humans are in their way and just kill us. That does worry some AI researchers. Then all bets are off.
But short of that, the AI job change will mostly be a good thing.
Artificial Intelligence (AI)John StosselNBColumn
Suggested Reading by NewsBusters
‘Amanpour & Co.’ Host Prods Israel to Surrender to Two-State Solution, Despite HamasStephanopoulos Can’t Handle Getting Owned Multiple Times, Cuts Off JD VanceSocialist Late Night Hosts Roll Out Red Carpet For Warren, Sanders
Connect
Sign up for our NB Daily newsletter for the latest media bias analysis.https://go.pardot.com/l/752103/2019-07-23/2phs
Must Read
Media Lied for YEARS About Biden’s Mental State; We Have the Receipts
Media: Economy Is Actually ‘Fantastic,’ Voters Just Too Dumb To Notice
Subscribe to Our Newsletter!
The mission of the Media Research Center is to document and combat the falsehoods and censorship of the news media, entertainment media and Big Tech in order to defend and preserve America’s founding principles and Judeo-Christian values. The MRC is a research and education organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and contributions to the MRC are tax-deductible.
Company
MRC Programs
Legal
Features
CONNECT
Sign up for our NB Daily newsletter to receive the latest news. Subscribe
© 2005-2024, Media Research Center. All Rights Reserved.
The Republican Plot Against Donald Trump
PoliticsForeign AffairsCultureFellows ProgramLogin
Menu
POLITICS
The Republican Plot Against Donald Trump
The inside story of how Congress is pursuing endless war in Ukraine—and trying to stop a Trump election.
Credit: Getty Images / Kevin Dietsch
Feb 12, 202412:06 AM
This weekend, Senate Democrats (joined by a few Republicans, including most Republican leadership) forced through a “security supplemental” that spends close to $100 billion, most of it on Ukraine. It was the culmination of months of secretive negotiations on border security. Those negotiations produced a border security product unacceptable to most Republicans, so then Republicans voted it down, and then an hour later we were debating a security supplemental with border security stripped out.
The quick pivot, refusal to negotiate another round on border security, and immediate shift to blame Trump confirmed one thing: Republican leadership wasn’t serious about border security. They cared most about Ukraine funding and saw the border negotiations as a distraction. This extinguished any hope of real border security before the negotiation began.
ADVERTISEMENT
null
The story our leadership tells is that the “politics of border security” had changed because of Donald Trump. James Lankford dutifully negotiated a bipartisan border product. Conservative Republicans encouraged this negotiation. When the product took shape, Donald Trump demanded conservatives walk. Trump argued that Joe Biden didn’t need a border security package—which was true—so Republicans should ask simply that Joe Biden do his job. This intervention allegedly killed a great piece of border policy.
This is a fairytale that makes conservative senators and Donald Trump look bad, perhaps by design. In truth, the demands conservative senators made at the beginning of the negotiation went like this: Joe Biden can fix this problem, but he refuses, so we must make him do his job. This posture came along specific demands from senators ranging from Ukraine aid supporters like Marco Rubio to Ukraine aid skeptics like me, and those in the middle like Ron Johnson. We argued that we could condition further Ukraine aid on decreased illegal border crossings. In other words, Congress would appropriate money to Ukraine in stages: if Biden refused to drive down border crossings, he wouldn’t get his money for Ukraine.
The deal, as envisioned by conservatives, was apparently never on the table. According to both Democratic colleagues and some Republicans, this is because Republican leadership—specifically Mitch McConnell—refused to push the Democrats on this issue. Other Republicans have argued instead that even if Mitch McConnell empowered Lankford to make this demand, Democrats would have never agreed.
Obviously, this latter view reflects more favorably on Mitch McConnell, but only by a little, because it suggests a massive asymmetry in negotiating leverage. If Democrats are desperate for Ukraine aid, and Republicans—at least the negotiating Republicans—are also desperate for Ukraine aid, border security would inevitably land on the chopping block.
Did Trump oppose a deal? He certainly opposed the deal that was on the table. It would have done little to secure the border in the future, would have been a massive political gift to the Democrats, and would constrain Trump’s border enforcement if he was ever elected president. This last point deserves extra emphasis: these bipartisan deals always seem to contain provisions that would put the next president, whoever that is, in a box.
ADVERTISEMENT
null
Given its substance, it is hardly surprising that he opposed the deal, but most Republicans opposed the deal well before he weighed in—publicly or privately. In fact, the only conversation I had with Donald Trump about the border deal was a day after the text came out, well after I had opposed the bill’s headline provisions. “Why do you guys want to give these people such a gift? It’s stupid.” It was an accurate point, but it didn’t change anyone’s mind because most of us already agreed with the former president.
So the deal fell apart, and the way it fell apart was the height of political malpractice. The text—370 pages of it—dropped late Sunday, February 4. We had a Republican conference meeting on Monday, well before anyone had time to digest major provisions. McConnell left the meeting and praised the bill but criticized the changing political dynamics. He blamed Donald Trump. He blamed the House of Representatives.
It’s hard to imagine a more damaging political message: Hey everyone, we’ve got great bipartisan policy, but we’re going to kill it because the knuckle draggers don’t like it. It was a gift to Democrats and everyone knew it. Senate candidates across the country, many of whom are allies of Mitch McConnell, called me to complain bitterly of the predicament created by leadership in Washington.
Normally, spending bills go through months of review, committee markups, and hours of debate. The text of the Ukraine supplemental was distributed to Hill staff on Wednesday, February 7, and the first procedural vote was taken less than a day later. On February 5, many senators had emphasized the importance of doing something on the border before action was taken on Ukraine. Two days later, at least some of them had decided that fighting for border security for an hour had checked the box, and they were ready to move on to their real priority: funding for Ukraine. The bill will pass, albeit by a tiny margin, with a majority of Republicans opposing the bait and switch.
This current episode is finished, at least in the senate, but there will be many reruns. The form of this debacle will replay itself, to the great detriment of Donald Trump and other Republican candidates. Three facts are important. First, voters range from ambivalent to outright hostile of further Ukraine aid. Second, a subset of Republican senators are obsessed with Ukraine aid, caring about this issue more than any other. Third, a majority of House Republicans oppose further Ukraine aid, and demand strong border security measures regardless of the details of a Ukraine package.
It’s easy to sketch out how these facts will manifest themselves in our political reality. The senate Ukraine bill goes to the House, where leadership there cannot bring it up to the floor without endangering House Speaker Mike Johnson. So the House will either refuse to vote on the Ukraine bill, or will attach a strong border security bill (like HR2) and then send it back to the Senate. In public and private, Senate Republican leadership will undermine the House leadership and the Republican presidential nominee.
Democrats could try to force House leadership to bring up Ukraine aid with a discharge petition, an approach that would hand control of the House floor over to Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries with the aid of a few House Republicans. Speaker Johnson could fight this maneuver aggressively. If he does, he will be attacked by Senate Republican leaders, at least privately, and will face another negative news cycle. If he doesn’t, his own conference will turn against him. The cycle will replay over the government funding deadline in March. It will replay over the omnibus debate that follows. It will replay any time the U.S. Congress must actually do something.
Whatever shape this takes, the basic game will be the same. The media, obsessed with any story that makes Trump look bad, will blame him and “MAGA Republicans” in the House. They will blame Trump for the chaos. They will blame Trump for “extremism.” They will refuse to report on Biden’s failings and instead focus on internal Republican division. They will point to Republican senators attacking Donald Trump and House Republicans, just as they have over the last week. Democrats will run advertisements: “See, even Mitch McConnell thinks Trump is being ridiculous.” And they will rinse and repeat this narrative all the way to the November election.
This is how you save Joe Biden’s presidency: By taking the chaos of Joe Biden’s tenure and making it about Republican chaos being even worse. By taking the extremism of Democrats and making it all about the crazy right-wingers in the House and Mar-a-Lago.
To be clear, this doesn’t assume malice. The Republican establishment of Washington is so obsessively committed to Ukraine that they will use every tool at their disposal to apply pressure to other Republicans to write that big Ukraine check. The problem is that every time they apply pressure, they create an opening for Democrats and the media to tank our nominee.
For months, I have been confident that Donald Trump would be reelected as president. But this is how you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Republican establishment is going to war for more Ukraine money. They don’t care if a second Trump term is collateral damage.
Subscribe Today
Get daily emails in your inbox
Email Address:
But, of course, they have an insurance plan even if Trump pulls it off. Though few have noticed, buried in the bill’s text is a kill switch for the next Trump presidency. The legislation explicitly requires funding for Ukraine well into the next presidential term. The Washington Post has already reported this provision was added to control Donald Trump.
It gets worse. Back in 2019, Democrats articulated a novel theory of impeachment, based on Trump’s refusal to spend money from the USAI—Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. Five years after impeaching Trump for refusing to spend money on Ukraine, they have drafted a new law that again requires Trump to spend money on Ukraine. If he negotiates an end to the war, as he has promised to do, they will undoubtedly argue that he has broken the law. We are nearly a year away from an election that could give Trump the presidency, and Ukraine-obsessive Republicans have already given the Democrats a predicate to impeach him.
Slava Ukraini, America be damned.
ADVERTISEMENT
null
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
J.D. Vance
J.D. Vance serves as the junior United States senator from Ohio and is the author of the New York Times bestseller Hillbilly Elegy.
COMMENTS
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
MORE LIKE THIS
Inside New York State’s Heedless Crusade Against the NRA
James R. Lawrence, IIIFebruary 12, 2024
The legal mechanism the New York attorney general is using to bludgeon the gun rights organization could be used on any objectionable civil society…
What I Saw Inside the DeSantis Campaign
Nate HochmanFebruary 12, 2024
The governor was great on substance but couldn’t match Trump’s symbolic appeal.
The Counter-Offensive Begins
William LindFebruary 12, 2024
How to strike back against cultural marxism.
The American Ideas Institute is a nonprofit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) organization based in Washington, D.C.
BLOGS
CATEGORIES
MEDIA
ABOUT
JOIN
INFO
© 2022 The American Conservative, a publication of The American Ideas Institute.
closeADVERTISEMENT
null
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 