theamericanconservative--2020-12-22--Impeaching Trump Was a Distraction From the Real Scandal: Hunter Biden

World Food Program USA Board Chairman Hunter Biden ( L ) and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden attend the World Food Program USA 's Annual McGovern-Dole Leadership Award Ceremony at Organization of American States on April 12 , 2016 in Washington , DC .
( Photo by Teresa Kroeger/Getty Images for World Food Program USA ) White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany tore into the media last week for seemingly discovering the Hunter Biden story only after the election was over .
It wasn ’ t entirely unjustified since left-leaning news outlets such as the New York Times and CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the topic before the votes were counted .
Granted , it was also made easier after Hunter and the Joe Biden transition team released statements confirming a federal probe .
But even that seems to imply that the Biden team granted permission .
Since Hunter ’ s statement , the Associated Press and others have reported that it ’ s less benign than taxes and involves younger Biden ’ s business deals in China .
Friday , December 18 , marks one year since the Democrat-controlled House voted to impeach President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interested in Hunter Biden ’ s business deals .
The Trump impeachment was already the first not to allege an actual violation of the law , as was claimed in the prior impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton .
The fact that it was largely about seeking an international investigation of someone who was already under investigation in the United States even further weakens the year-old case .
If only we knew then what we know now—except we did .
The fact is that the mainstream media ’ s willingness to scrutinize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t entirely new .
There was robust coverage of Hunter ’ s work with Ukrainian energy firm Burisma in stories from the New Yorker , the New York Times , the Washington Post , Politico , and ABC News long before Trump ever brought it up .
Actually , just three days before the infamous July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky , the Washington Post ran a story about Hunter Biden and quoted the former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin alleging he was fired for investigating Burisma and Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ excuse Trump talking about military aid and referencing an investigation of the Bidens and Burisma .
Yet as imperfect as the Trump-Zelensky call might have been , considering how much media we know Trump absorbs and his tendency to make conversations about himself , it ’ s difficult to imagine he wouldn ’ t broach the topic upon having the ear of the Ukrainian leader .
If this was a nefarious scheme , it wasn ’ t a very thought-out one .
The call transcript indicates Trump was more focused on silly notions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevertheless , once this became the predicate for impeachment , a near media blackout ensued on Hunter Biden ’ s activities .
Questioning Hunter became either a conspiracy theory or—the convenient default for some Democrats and media—Russian disinformation .
Can you prove it ’ s not ?
To be clear , it seems unlikely the U.S. attorney ’ s office in Delaware is going after the Burisma caper .
The China business interests are far more significant , though given Hunter Biden ’ s work on the Burisma board , this seems part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to impeach Trump over emoluments , Russia , or Stormy Daniels drove the Democrats ’ progressive base .
Then Special Counsel Robert Mueller didn ’ t give the new House majority what it had longed for on Russia .
So instead they found justification in the phone call that relied heavily on guessing Trump ’ s motives and Zelensky ’ s interpretation , thus lowering the bar for impeachment .
In lieu of identifying an actual crime , the articles of impeachment were about abuse of power and obstruction of Congress—which could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s difficult to imagine any other president being impeached for something so murky .
My new book , Abuse of Power : Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump , addresses this scenario in more depth .
But what if in 2011 , President Barack Obama had asked a leader of a country reliant on U.S. assistance to investigate whether Mitt Romney had used his clout as Massachusetts governor to shield a shady company his son had worked for from potential prosecution ?
This might have prompted congressional hearings , probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have been skewered for it .
Impeachment almost certainly wouldn ’ t have been part of the public conversation , except for maybe a handful of House GOP firebrands and a maybe a few conservative talk show hosts .
We all know that in such a scenario , CNN and the New York Times would paint the Republican oversight hearings as a shameful political ploy to distract from shady dealings of the younger Romney by going after Obama .
Romney doesn ’ t have any such issues , but having been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in being the only Senate Republican to vote for Trump ’ s ouster in the Senate trial .
Before the 2020 election , Congressman Adam Schiff , who led the impeachment effort , claimed that disparaging accounts about Hunter Biden were Russian disinformation .
Schiff ’ s own reputation wasn ’ t helped by impeachment , as he ’ s pushed his own disinformation .
Also , during the hearing , virtually every impeachment hearing witness expressed uneasiness about Hunter Biden ’ s Burisma job as giving at least the appearance of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predictably dispatched of in the Republican-controlled Senate , but it wasn ’ t inconsequential .
Beyond the long-term issue of lowering the impeachment bar , there was at least some impact on the 2020 election .
The fear that the media continuing to cover Hunter would have distracted from the Trump-Zelensky call had it all wrong .
It ’ s the impeachment that was a successful distraction from the web of Hunter deals .
Had this not become a predicate for impeaching Trump , it ’ s quite likely that Joe Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profiteering an issue .
But when the matter became about Trump , even Biden ’ s primary challengers insisted the matter should never be spoken of .
A Biden scandal morphed into a Trump impeachment—again thanks largely Trump making conversations about himself .
This distraction surely played a role in securing the Democratic nomination for Biden by making his family shenanigans unmentionable .
Fred Lucas is the author of Abuse of Power : Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump ( Post Hill Press , 2020 ) .
He is also the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Signal .

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany tore into the media last week for seemingly discovering the Hunter Biden story only after the election was over. It wasn’t entirely unjustified since left-leaning news outlets such as the New York Times and CNN indignantly scoffed at the notion of covering the topic before the votes were counted.
Granted, it was also made easier after Hunter and the Joe Biden transition team released statements confirming a federal probe. But even that seems to imply that the Biden team granted permission. Since Hunter’s statement, the Associated Press and others have reported that it’s less benign than taxes and involves younger Biden’s business deals in China.
Friday, December 18, marks one year since the Democrat-controlled House voted to impeach President Donald Trump. The predicate was—in part—that Trump was interested in Hunter Biden’s business deals. The Trump impeachment was already the first not to allege an actual violation of the law, as was claimed in the prior impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The fact that it was largely about seeking an international investigation of someone who was already under investigation in the United States even further weakens the year-old case.
If only we knew then what we know now—except we did. The fact is that the mainstream media’s willingness to scrutinize Joe Biden’s wayward son isn’t entirely new. There was robust coverage of Hunter’s work with Ukrainian energy firm Burisma in stories from the New Yorker, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico, and ABC News long before Trump ever brought it up.
Actually, just three days before the infamous July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the Washington Post ran a story about Hunter Biden and quoted the former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin alleging he was fired for investigating Burisma and Biden.
We should note that doesn’t excuse Trump talking about military aid and referencing an investigation of the Bidens and Burisma. Yet as imperfect as the Trump-Zelensky call might have been, considering how much media we know Trump absorbs and his tendency to make conversations about himself, it’s difficult to imagine he wouldn’t broach the topic upon having the ear of the Ukrainian leader. If this was a nefarious scheme, it wasn’t a very thought-out one. The call transcript indicates Trump was more focused on silly notions about Crowd Strike than the Bidens.
Nevertheless, once this became the predicate for impeachment, a near media blackout ensued on Hunter Biden’s activities. Questioning Hunter became either a conspiracy theory or—the convenient default for some Democrats and media—Russian disinformation. Can you prove it’s not?
To be clear, it seems unlikely the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware is going after the Burisma caper. The China business interests are far more significant, though given Hunter Biden’s work on the Burisma board, this seems part of a larger pattern.
A zeal to impeach Trump over emoluments, Russia, or Stormy Daniels drove the Democrats’ progressive base. Then Special Counsel Robert Mueller didn’t give the new House majority what it had longed for on Russia. So instead they found justification in the phone call that relied heavily on guessing Trump’s motives and Zelensky’s interpretation, thus lowering the bar for impeachment. In lieu of identifying an actual crime, the articles of impeachment were about abuse of power and obstruction of Congress—which could be applied to almost any president.
It’s difficult to imagine any other president being impeached for something so murky. My new book, Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump, addresses this scenario in more depth. But what if in 2011, President Barack Obama had asked a leader of a country reliant on U.S. assistance to investigate whether Mitt Romney had used his clout as Massachusetts governor to shield a shady company his son had worked for from potential prosecution?
This might have prompted congressional hearings, probably led by Congressman Darrell Issa, who would have been skewered for it. Impeachment almost certainly wouldn’t have been part of the public conversation, except for maybe a handful of House GOP firebrands and a maybe a few conservative talk show hosts. We all know that in such a scenario, CNN and the New York Times would paint the Republican oversight hearings as a shameful political ploy to distract from shady dealings of the younger Romney by going after Obama.
Romney doesn’t have any such issues, but having been a presidential candidate might have guided his thinking in being the only Senate Republican to vote for Trump’s ouster in the Senate trial.
Before the 2020 election, Congressman Adam Schiff, who led the impeachment effort, claimed that disparaging accounts about Hunter Biden were Russian disinformation. Schiff’s own reputation wasn’t helped by impeachment, as he’s pushed his own disinformation. Also, during the hearing, virtually every impeachment hearing witness expressed uneasiness about Hunter Biden’s Burisma job as giving at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The impeachment was predictably dispatched of in the Republican-controlled Senate, but it wasn’t inconsequential. Beyond the long-term issue of lowering the impeachment bar, there was at least some impact on the 2020 election.
The fear that the media continuing to cover Hunter would have distracted from the Trump-Zelensky call had it all wrong. It’s the impeachment that was a successful distraction from the web of Hunter deals. Had this not become a predicate for impeaching Trump, it’s quite likely that Joe Biden’s Democratic opponents would have made family profiteering an issue. But when the matter became about Trump, even Biden’s primary challengers insisted the matter should never be spoken of.
A Biden scandal morphed into a Trump impeachment—again thanks largely Trump making conversations about himself. This distraction surely played a role in securing the Democratic nomination for Biden by making his family shenanigans unmentionable.
Fred Lucas is the author of Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump (Post Hill Press, 2020). He is also the chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal.


theamericanconservative--2020-12-23--The Only ‘Foul Play’ In The Hunter Biden Investigation Was The Media’s

Hunter Biden 's corruption scandal may have tipped the results of the election .
The media did its best to suppress it .
The Biden family ’ s suspicious overseas business dealings are well-documented .
But over time , as I wrote in the pages of TAC in October , these dealings “ became something much more serious than simple cronyism , ” bordering on corruption .
Now that prosecutors are involved , Joe Biden suddenly wants Americans to believe that “ foul play ” is responsible for what amounts to a decades-long open secret .
Yes , that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colbert on Thursday night : The government ’ s investigation into Hunter Biden is being “ used to get to me ” and is the result of “ foul play.
” ‘ Deny , deny , deny ’ had been the Biden campaign ’ s go-to playbook .
Throughout the fall , the Democrat called allegations about his son ’ s foreign relationships “ simply not true , ” dismissed a reporter ’ s questions about them as a “ smear campaign , ” and concluded at the second presidential debate : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong in Ukraine.
” It is now indisputable that Joe Biden lied , with the Associated Press reporting last week about a subpoena “ seeking documents from Hunter Biden … related to more than two dozen entities , including Ukraine gas company Burisma.
” Federal prosecutors were “ examining potential money laundering offenses ” during the investigation , and a separate investigation at the U.S. Attorney ’ s office in Pennsylvania is underway , too .
Unless Joe Biden is suggesting that all of these prosecutors are gullible dupes , the only “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden investigation appears to be the media ’ s willful decision to suppress news of its existence in the weeks leading up to Election Day .
Among the media ’ s sins : First came New York Times columnist Ben Smith , who on October 17 urged journalists to not look into Biden until after the votes are counted in order to avoid “ drop [ ping ] bombshells in the days before an election.
” Then an NPR managing editor bragged on October 22 that his company would not cover the Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ waste the listeners ’ and readers ’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.
” Later that morning , the unedited video of President Donald Trump ’ s ’ 60 Minutes ’ interview revealed CBS News correspondent Lesley Stahl dismissing his contention that Joe Biden was “ in the midst of a scandal.
” She responded , laughing : “ He ’ s not…No way .
Come on.
” And who can forget Twitter head Jack Dorsey deciding to personally interfere by locking the New York Post — a centuries-old newspaper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own social media account as retribution for publishing an investigative article about the Biden family ?
For more than two weeks , the social media giant cut off the flow of accurate and relevant information from voters .
It didn ’ t stop there , as the media continued to dig in its heels in the crucial days before the election .
To date , searching for ‘ Tony Bobulinski ’ — Hunter Biden ’ s former business partner who came forward with evidence that he “ directly dealt with the Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] Joe Biden ” on overseas business deals — on CNN ’ s website still returns zero search results .
NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell defended her network ’ s decision to ignore the scandal by stating that “ we cover what is reliably truthful.
” And investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald resigned from The Intercept , which he co-founded , after his editors prohibited him from writing critically about the issue : “ … I have been silenced about Joe Biden by my own media outlet.
” Knowing what we know now about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least one dating back to 2018 — the media ’ s gymnastics-level acrobatics to avoid acknowledging that this corruption scandal existed looks like it may have even tipped the presidential election .
And Biden ’ s latest interview on Thursday as ‘ president-elect ’ — on top his formal transition team using its .gov website to defend Hunter Biden against “ vicious personal attacks ” — is a bad signal that the Democrat , if given the power , will use the levers of government to obstruct a justified investigation into Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted this , including U.S. Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona , who recently requested that U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr take steps to ensure that any investigation remains independent of such obstruction : “ … the appointment of a Special Counsel is the only way to guarantee this occurs.
” The president and attorney general would be right to heed Lesko ’ s ( and many others ’ ) advice .
It is the only way to enshrine accountability and defend against “ foul play ” — from Joe Biden and the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Saguaro Group , an Arizona-based research firm .

Law enforcement is finally knocking on Biden Inc.’s door.
The Biden family’s suspicious overseas business dealings are well-documented. But over time, as I wrote in the pages of TAC in October, these dealings “became something much more serious than simple cronyism,” bordering on corruption. Now that prosecutors are involved, Joe Biden suddenly wants Americans to believe that “foul play” is responsible for what amounts to a decades-long open secret.
Yes, that is what the former vice president told Stephen Colbert on Thursday night: The government’s investigation into Hunter Biden is being “used to get to me” and is the result of “foul play.”
‘Deny, deny, deny’ had been the Biden campaign’s go-to playbook. Throughout the fall, the Democrat called allegations about his son’s foreign relationships “simply not true,” dismissed a reporter’s questions about them as a “smear campaign,” and concluded at the second presidential debate: “No one said anything he did was wrong in Ukraine.”
It is now indisputable that Joe Biden lied, with the Associated Press reporting last week about a subpoena “seeking documents from Hunter Biden … related to more than two dozen entities, including Ukraine gas company Burisma.” Federal prosecutors were “examining potential money laundering offenses” during the investigation, and a separate investigation at the U.S. Attorney’s office in Pennsylvania is underway, too.
Unless Joe Biden is suggesting that all of these prosecutors are gullible dupes, the only “foul play” involved in the Hunter Biden investigation appears to be the media’s willful decision to suppress news of its existence in the weeks leading up to Election Day. Among the media’s sins:
First came New York Times columnist Ben Smith, who on October 17 urged journalists to not look into Biden until after the votes are counted in order to avoid “drop[ping] bombshells in the days before an election.”
Then an NPR managing editor bragged on October 22 that his company would not cover the Biden scandal because it did not want to “waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.” Later that morning, the unedited video of President Donald Trump’s ’60 Minutes’ interview revealed CBS News correspondent Lesley Stahl dismissing his contention that Joe Biden was “in the midst of a scandal.” She responded, laughing: “He’s not…No way. Come on.”
And who can forget Twitter head Jack Dorsey deciding to personally interfere by locking the New York Post — a centuries-old newspaper founded by Alexander Hamilton — out of its own social media account as retribution for publishing an investigative article about the Biden family? For more than two weeks, the social media giant cut off the flow of accurate and relevant information from voters.
It didn’t stop there, as the media continued to dig in its heels in the crucial days before the election.
To date, searching for ‘Tony Bobulinski’ — Hunter Biden’s former business partner who came forward with evidence that he “directly dealt with the Biden family, including [then vice president] Joe Biden” on overseas business deals — on CNN’s website still returns zero search results. NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell defended her network’s decision to ignore the scandal by stating that “we cover what is reliably truthful.” And investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald resigned from The Intercept, which he co-founded, after his editors prohibited him from writing critically about the issue: “… I have been silenced about Joe Biden by my own media outlet.”
Knowing what we know now about ongoing investigations into Hunter Biden — with at least one dating back to 2018 — the media’s gymnastics-level acrobatics to avoid acknowledging that this corruption scandal existed looks like it may have even tipped the presidential election.
“Foul play” is right.
And Biden’s latest interview on Thursday as ‘president-elect’ — on top his formal transition team using its .gov website to defend Hunter Biden against “vicious personal attacks” — is a bad signal that the Democrat, if given the power, will use the levers of government to obstruct a justified investigation into Biden Inc.
A number of prominent Republicans have noted this, including U.S. Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona, who recently requested that U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr take steps to ensure that any investigation remains independent of such obstruction: “… the appointment of a Special Counsel is the only way to guarantee this occurs.”
The president and attorney general would be right to heed Lesko’s (and many others’) advice. It is the only way to enshrine accountability and defend against “foul play” — from Joe Biden and the media alike.
Brian Anderson is founder of the Saguaro Group, an Arizona-based research firm.


theamericanconservative--2020-12-27--Profiles in Conservative Cowardice

Profiles in Conservative Cowardice

Republican leaders who give latitude to conspiracy theorists are no better than the people they enable , and they 're doing lasting damage .
The 2020 election has long been over .
Millions of Trump supporters have refused to accept this , insisting that there are millions of illegal votes currently counted for President-elect Biden that shouldn ’ t be .
And alongside them , there are countless conservatives who are too fearful to tell their voters , their listeners , their readers , and their subscribers the unpleasant truth that they have lost .
While every legal vote needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its allies are well within their rights to challenge any irregularities—state officials across the country have consistently rejected the existence of voter fraud substantial enough that it could have swayed the election .
Not all the allegations have been ridiculous .
Some of these claims—like a recent video out of Georgia that purported to show election malfeasance—look , at first glance , to be genuinely concerning .
But thus far , additional context has proved exculpatory ; that viral video was deceptively edited and has been debunked by Georgia ’ s ( Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ StopTheSteal crowd often points to alleged wrongdoing in two specific states : Georgia and Pennsylvania .
But Georgia has had not one , but two , separate recounts that haven ’ t found any evidence of irregularities .
Cases have been tossed—even laughed—out of courts across the country .
Trump ’ s own Department of Justice said they “ have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.
” The last daggers came when the Supreme Court rejected a challenge from the Trump team and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certified the results of the election .
Among those who reject the election results there are the obvious pied pipers—people like former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former prosecutor Sidney Powell—whose increasingly harebrained conspiracy theories spring up like weeds as they promise , like the false prophets of old , that justice and retribution are nigh .
President Trump reportedly continues to fume about a supposed lack of loyalty and interest from those close to him .
But this has been less than a Profiles in Courage moment even among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Despite this spectacle , plenty of conservatives—seemingly of good faith—have been conspicuously absent while millions of their fellows spout nonsense .
Where were the 2024 hopefuls—the Nikki Haleys , the Josh Hawleys , the Kristi Noems—who should have said unequivocally that Donald Trump lost the election ?
In the Senate , Ted Cruz is a constitutional scholar , someone who , alongside Senator Tom Cotton , was on President Trump ’ s shortlist of SCOTUS nominees .
Why hasn ’ t he said in no uncertain terms that these efforts are a circus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Instead we get half-measures ; Senator Hawley said that “ we ’ ll see , ” Senator Lindsay Graham told President Trump to “ keep it up ” but attend Biden ’ s swearing in , Senator Cruz offered to fight Trump ’ s case at the Supreme Court—a challenge that never took place .
Why are the commentators with the biggest microphones—people like Dave Rubin or Steven Crowder or Newt Gingrich—continuing to provide oxygen to the idea that the election was “ stolen ” ?
While there are certainly true believers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to gain by ginning up Trump ’ s supporters .
The fundraising emails have continued ; so far , the Trump team has raised more than $ 200 million since Election Day .
Surely , Rudy Giuliani isn ’ t fighting out of charity , and his legal fees are unlikely to be cheap .
Elected officials are fearful of their base and have been since Trump ’ s election , saying only in private what they really think .
Conservative commentators earn their keep by attracting eyeballs , and conspiracy theories sell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen the beating received by those who admit that Biden won .
They ’ ve been called cowards—even “ traitors ” —for telling the truth .
They ’ ve been derided as “ snakes , ” “ spineless , ” and other terms not fit to print .
Election officials in Georgia need police protection .
Cowardice carries far less of a penalty .
All the incentives point in the same direction : to silence and acquiescence , tacking a course somewhere between reality and the beliefs of those who pay their bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some conservatives , at last , to find their voice .
But their silence and tacit support for conspiracy theorists in the waning days of 2020—and the resulting damage to our body politic—are a stain on the integrity of the conservative movement that will linger long after Biden ’ s Inauguration Day .
Drew Holden ( @ DrewHolden360 ) is a public affairs consultant in Washington , D.C. , and a former Republican congressional staff member .

The 2020 election has long been over. Millions of Trump supporters have refused to accept this, insisting that there are millions of illegal votes currently counted for President-elect Biden that shouldn’t be. And alongside them, there are countless conservatives who are too fearful to tell their voters, their listeners, their readers, and their subscribers the unpleasant truth that they have lost.
While every legal vote needs to be counted—and the Trump campaign and its allies are well within their rights to challenge any irregularities—state officials across the country have consistently rejected the existence of voter fraud substantial enough that it could have swayed the election.
Not all the allegations have been ridiculous. Some of these claims—like a recent video out of Georgia that purported to show election malfeasance—look, at first glance, to be genuinely concerning. But thus far, additional context has proved exculpatory; that viral video was deceptively edited and has been debunked by Georgia’s (Republican) secretary of state.
The #StopTheSteal crowd often points to alleged wrongdoing in two specific states: Georgia and Pennsylvania. But Georgia has had not one, but two, separate recounts that haven’t found any evidence of irregularities. Cases have been tossed—even laughed—out of courts across the country. Trump’s own Department of Justice said they “have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” The last daggers came when the Supreme Court rejected a challenge from the Trump team and, finally, when the Electoral College certified the results of the election.
Yet the claims persist.
Among those who reject the election results there are the obvious pied pipers—people like former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former prosecutor Sidney Powell—whose increasingly harebrained conspiracy theories spring up like weeds as they promise, like the false prophets of old, that justice and retribution are nigh. President Trump reportedly continues to fume about a supposed lack of loyalty and interest from those close to him.
But this has been less than a Profiles in Courage moment even among the rest of the Republican Party ecosystem. Despite this spectacle, plenty of conservatives—seemingly of good faith—have been conspicuously absent while millions of their fellows spout nonsense.
Where were the 2024 hopefuls—the Nikki Haleys, the Josh Hawleys, the Kristi Noems—who should have said unequivocally that Donald Trump lost the election? In the Senate, Ted Cruz is a constitutional scholar, someone who, alongside Senator Tom Cotton, was on President Trump’s shortlist of SCOTUS nominees. Why hasn’t he said in no uncertain terms that these efforts are a circus, and a harmful one at that?
Instead we get half-measures; Senator Hawley said that “we’ll see,” Senator Lindsay Graham told President Trump to “keep it up” but attend Biden’s swearing in, Senator Cruz offered to fight Trump’s case at the Supreme Court—a challenge that never took place.
Why are the commentators with the biggest microphones—people like Dave Rubin or Steven Crowder or Newt Gingrich—continuing to provide oxygen to the idea that the election was “stolen”?
While there are certainly true believers, many of those involved have much to gain by ginning up Trump’s supporters. The fundraising emails have continued; so far, the Trump team has raised more than $200 million since Election Day. Surely, Rudy Giuliani isn’t fighting out of charity, and his legal fees are unlikely to be cheap. Elected officials are fearful of their base and have been since Trump’s election, saying only in private what they really think. Conservative commentators earn their keep by attracting eyeballs, and conspiracy theories sell.
And those on the sidelines have seen the beating received by those who admit that Biden won. They’ve been called cowards—even “traitors”—for telling the truth. They’ve been derided as “snakes,” “spineless,” and other terms not fit to print. Election officials in Georgia need police protection. Cowardice carries far less of a penalty.
All the incentives point in the same direction: to silence and acquiescence, tacking a course somewhere between reality and the beliefs of those who pay their bills.
The Electoral College decision has forced some conservatives, at last, to find their voice. But their silence and tacit support for conspiracy theorists in the waning days of 2020—and the resulting damage to our body politic—are a stain on the integrity of the conservative movement that will linger long after Biden’s Inauguration Day.
Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) is a public affairs consultant in Washington, D.C., and a former Republican congressional staff member.


theamericanconservative--2020-12-28--Biden’s Critical Race Theory Two-Step

Biden’s Critical Race Theory Two-Step

U.S. President Donald Trump participates in the first presidential debate against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , moderated by Fox News anchor Chris Wallace ( Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images ) In the first general-election debate last fall between President Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden , moderator Chris Wallace asked the president why he had cracked down on race and diversity training at federal agencies that sought to leverage “ critical race theory , ” “ white privilege , ” and “ unconscious bias.
” “ I ended it because it ’ s racist , ” declared Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ country is a horrible place , it ’ s a racist place .
And they were teaching people to hate our country .
And I ’ m not gon na allow that to happen.
” The president ’ s response was typically Trump-like—combative , bombastic , lacking in any serious prospect for educating people or bringing them along .
It also happened to be accurate .
The interjection of critical race theory into mainstream thinking and action is a momentous development in American life , and it is designed specifically to leverage the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of racism—for the accumulation of civic power .
Biden dismissed Trump ’ s harsh statement as beyond the pale .
“ Nobody ’ s doing that…he ’ s the racist , ” said the former vice president .
Then he sought to put a benign face on such training sessions .
“ The fact is that there is racial insensitivity .
People have to be made aware of what other people feel like .
What insults them , what is demeaning to them .
It ’ s important that people know.
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what these training sessions are really all about .
Consider what ’ s happening in Seattle , which is at the vanguard of the fast-spreading movement of racial sensitivity training at governmental agencies and , increasingly , in the corporate world .
A writer named Christopher F. Rufo has been writing about it in City Journal .
It isn ’ t a pretty picture .
In seeking documentation on the training offered to white city employees , Rufo learned that the trainers described their mission as “ interrupting internalized Racial Superiority and Whiteness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address their “ complicity in…white supremacy ” and “ interrupt racism in ways that are accountable to black , indigenous and people of color.
” It taught them that they had lost their own “ humanity ” because of their internalized sense of racial superiority , which caused “ harm and violence ” to minorities .
What to do ?
First , get rid of such notions as “ individualism , ” “ perfectionism , ” “ intellectualization , ” and “ objectivity ” —concepts once considered worthy if not salutary , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side of evil , because ( according to the new orthodoxy ) they perpetuate racism and white supremacy .
The Seattle Public Schools goes further in articulating the original sin that attaches strictly to whites .
They must acknowledge their “ thieved Inheritance ” and their intergenerational guilt in the building of the United States with “ the stolen labor of kidnapped and enslaved ” Africans .
As Rufo notes , the image of a black power fist removes “ any lingering hope that the presentation might involve a modicum of nuance.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , trainers introduce a kind of normative race labeling , in which anyone wishing to speak identifies himself or herself first by race ( and , of course , gender category ) .
The message is that white teachers must acknowledge that they “ are assigned considerable power and privilege in our society ” because of their “ white skin.
” Thus they must reject their “ whiteness.
” And if they resist or seek to offer counterargument to this stark thesis of intrinsic white racism , even measiured or well-crafted expressions ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissenters ’ “ lizard brain ” sensibilities , which render them “ afraid that [ they ] will have to talk about sensitive issues , ” such as their own racially based shortcomings .
Teachers are entreated to join the fight against racism by categorizing their friends and acquaintances as “ enemies , allies , and accomplices ” and work toward the “ abolition ” of whiteness .
As Rufo writes , “ They must , in other words , abandon the illusion of neutral teaching standards and get in the trenches of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Lindsay has suggested that this isn ’ t the language of human resources but rather of “ cult programming ” —or , as Rufo explains it , “ persuading members that they are defective in some predefined manner , exploiting their vulnerabilities , and isolating them from previous relationships.
” Now let ’ s look at Trump ’ s view of all this .
He said the training sessions were racist .
It ’ s difficult to argue that there are no elements of racism in a doctrine that stamps whites as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as the only solution , that they obliterate their identity as white people .
They must disclaim not only their own personal identity as Caucasions but also their heritage , their history , and their ancestors .
One significant element of critical race theory is that the very concept of race is a false construct designed by whites over the centuries to keep blacks down .
But notice that , in these training sessions , only the racial identity of whites is considered evil and subject to effacement .
Blacks are encouraged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denoted in that symbol of the black power salute that graced the Seattle training session manual .
This disparity in how the two races are regarded constitutes racism on its face .
Trump was right when he labeled it as such .
Now consider his pronouncement that an underlying thesis of the training sessions is that “ our country is a horrible place , it ’ s a racist place.
” Rufo ’ s reporting establishes that as an incontestable fact .
Certainly , the fate of America ’ s indiginous peoples and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American escutcheon , but the training sessions certainly seem to define America first and foremost by those historical episodes .
By rendering that the essence of the American identity , the trainers indeed are labeling it a horrible place .
And no one can argue that an embrace of critical race theory doesn ’ t carry with it the inescapable conclusion that America remains a racist place .
Now consider Biden ’ s response : “ Nobody ’ s doing that.
” This is false .
Not only are people doing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America .
The critical race outlook , coupled with the bludgeon of political correctness , first took hold on America ’ s college campuses , but it now has metastasized to government agencies and corporations .
And Biden ’ s effort to give a benign description of how these training sessions unfold is also false .
In many instances they are not benign at all—and becoming increasingly coercive in tactic and approach .
It ’ s difficult to see where this goes .
The allegation of inherent racism , based on ancestral behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get to be defined exclusively by those making the allegations , can have no end in sight , particulalry given the growing reality that the forces of critical race theory seem to believe they have whites in the workplace cowed , silenced , on the run .
But people on the run often see no alternative but to turn and fight .
That almost inevitably will happen on this issue in America .
The lizard brains won ’ t accept that racial slur forever .
Robert W. Merry , former Wall Street Journal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is the author of five books on American history , including President McKinley : Architect of the American Century ( Simon & Schuster ) .

In the first general-election debate last fall between President Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden, moderator Chris Wallace asked the president why he had cracked down on race and diversity training at federal agencies that sought to leverage “critical race theory,” “white privilege,” and “unconscious bias.” “I ended it because it’s racist,” declared Trump. “They were teaching people that our country is a horrible place, it’s a racist place. And they were teaching people to hate our country. And I’m not gonna allow that to happen.”
The president’s response was typically Trump-like—combative, bombastic, lacking in any serious prospect for educating people or bringing them along. It also happened to be accurate. The interjection of critical race theory into mainstream thinking and action is a momentous development in American life, and it is designed specifically to leverage the issue of race–including bogus and dangerous concepts of racism—for the accumulation of civic power.
Biden dismissed Trump’s harsh statement as beyond the pale. “Nobody’s doing that…he’s the racist,” said the former vice president. Then he sought to put a benign face on such training sessions. “The fact is that there is racial insensitivity. People have to be made aware of what other people feel like. What insults them, what is demeaning to them. It’s important that people know.”
It’s important also that people know what these training sessions are really all about. Consider what’s happening in Seattle, which is at the vanguard of the fast-spreading movement of racial sensitivity training at governmental agencies and, increasingly, in the corporate world. A writer named Christopher F. Rufo has been writing about it in City Journal. It isn’t a pretty picture.
In seeking documentation on the training offered to white city employees, Rufo learned that the trainers described their mission as “interrupting internalized Racial Superiority and Whiteness,” and showing whites how to address their “complicity in…white supremacy” and “interrupt racism in ways that are accountable to black, indigenous and people of color.” It taught them that they had lost their own “humanity” because of their internalized sense of racial superiority, which caused “harm and violence” to minorities.
What to do? First, get rid of such notions as “individualism,” “perfectionism,” “intellectualization,” and “objectivity”—concepts once considered worthy if not salutary, and quite human, but now just this side of evil, because (according to the new orthodoxy) they perpetuate racism and white supremacy.
The Seattle Public Schools goes further in articulating the original sin that attaches strictly to whites. They must acknowledge their “thieved Inheritance” and their intergenerational guilt in the building of the United States with “the stolen labor of kidnapped and enslaved” Africans. As Rufo notes, the image of a black power fist removes “any lingering hope that the presentation might involve a modicum of nuance.”
In the sessions, according to documents, trainers introduce a kind of normative race labeling, in which anyone wishing to speak identifies himself or herself first by race (and, of course, gender category). The message is that white teachers must acknowledge that they “are assigned considerable power and privilege in our society” because of their “white skin.” Thus they must reject their “whiteness.”
And if they resist or seek to offer counterargument to this stark thesis of intrinsic white racism, even measiured or well-crafted expressions? Not allowed. That merely reflects the dissenters’ “lizard brain” sensibilities, which render them “afraid that [they] will have to talk about sensitive issues,” such as their own racially based shortcomings. Teachers are entreated to join the fight against racism by categorizing their friends and acquaintances as “enemies, allies, and accomplices” and work toward the “abolition” of whiteness. As Rufo writes, “They must, in other words, abandon the illusion of neutral teaching standards and get in the trenches of race-based activism.”
Rufo notes that writer James Lindsay has suggested that this isn’t the language of human resources but rather of “cult programming”—or, as Rufo explains it, “persuading members that they are defective in some predefined manner, exploiting their vulnerabilities, and isolating them from previous relationships.”
Now let’s look at Trump’s view of all this. He said the training sessions were racist. It’s difficult to argue that there are no elements of racism in a doctrine that stamps whites as intrinsically defective on race matters and offers, as the only solution, that they obliterate their identity as white people. They must disclaim not only their own personal identity as Caucasions but also their heritage, their history, and their ancestors.
One significant element of critical race theory is that the very concept of race is a false construct designed by whites over the centuries to keep blacks down. But notice that, in these training sessions, only the racial identity of whites is considered evil and subject to effacement. Blacks are encouraged to celebrate their racial identity, as denoted in that symbol of the black power salute that graced the Seattle training session manual.
This disparity in how the two races are regarded constitutes racism on its face. Trump was right when he labeled it as such.
Now consider his pronouncement that an underlying thesis of the training sessions is that “our country is a horrible place, it’s a racist place.” Rufo’s reporting establishes that as an incontestable fact. Certainly, the fate of America’s indiginous peoples and the blight of slavery represent blots on the American escutcheon, but the training sessions certainly seem to define America first and foremost by those historical episodes. By rendering that the essence of the American identity, the trainers indeed are labeling it a horrible place. And no one can argue that an embrace of critical race theory doesn’t carry with it the inescapable conclusion that America remains a racist place.
Now consider Biden’s response: “Nobody’s doing that.” This is false. Not only are people doing it but the practice is growing rapidly across America. The critical race outlook, coupled with the bludgeon of political correctness, first took hold on America’s college campuses, but it now has metastasized to government agencies and corporations. And Biden’s effort to give a benign description of how these training sessions unfold is also false. In many instances they are not benign at all—and becoming increasingly coercive in tactic and approach.
It’s difficult to see where this goes. The allegation of inherent racism, based on ancestral behavior and feelings and actions of today that get to be defined exclusively by those making the allegations, can have no end in sight, particularly given the growing reality that the forces of critical race theory seem to believe they have whites in the workplace cowed, silenced, on the run. But people on the run often see no alternative but to turn and fight. That almost inevitably will happen on this issue in America. The lizard brains won’t accept that racial slur forever.
Robert W. Merry, former Wall Street Journal Washington correspondent and CEO of Congressional Quarterly, is the author of five books on American history, including President McKinley: Architect of the American Century (Simon & Schuster).


theamericanconservative--2020-12-29--The American System is One Big Grift

The American System is One Big Grift

The Bidens , and even the Clintons , are small-time players .
The real corruption is much bigger , much higher , and entirely unpunished .
I learned the facts of life from a drunk uncle .
He was not an American , and worked in international construction in Asia .
His main job was to bribe people .
Over the course of many tiny glasses of some awful , clear Asian liquor I learned every yard of concrete poured required money to gangsters who controlled unions and to politicians who controlled permits .
A fact of life , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He even had a joke—my hands are dirtier than the guys who dig the foundations .
You come to realize someone is pulling the strings behind everything and it usually isn ’ t you , he said .
The odd official just doing his job for his salary is a rube .
You feel embarrassed for him , saying no for moral reasons .
You learn , uncle slurred , to trust nothing .
That politician on TV ?
The company just dropped off a nice check to his “ charity.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rules .
The first bribe I ever paid was to an Indonesian immigration officer , who noticed some small defect on my passport .
Of course , he said , it could be resolved .
Between us .
With a fine ( so many euphemisms ) .
Off to the side .
In cash .
It was all of $ 20 to save a vacation but I felt filthy , cheated , a chump .
But I learned the rules .
In New York we use the euphemism “ tip , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get through the day .
A restaurant table pre-COVID .
A last minute anything .
A friendlier handling by a doorman .
Timely attention to fix-it requests .
My , um , friend , used to pay a lot of money for better hotel rooms until he learned $ 20 at check in with a friendly “ anything you can do ” often got him upgraded to the same thing at a fraction of the price .
What , you still paying retail , bro ?
I used to think it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odd mafia king bribing a judge with real money or something else Netflix-worthy .
In America we were ultimately… fair , right ?
But things started to add up .
We have our petty corruption like anywhere , but our souls are filthy on a much larger scale .
America goes big or it goes home .
Things like the Clinton Foundation accepting donations from the Saudis to help with women ’ s empowerment , an issue of course dear to the heart of the Kingdom .
When it looked like his wife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made six-figure speeches to businesses seeking influence within the U.S. government , earning $ 50 million during his wife ’ s term as secretary of pay-for-play state .
The Foundation , now mostly out of business , was at its peak a two-billion-dollar financial dangle .
It spent in 2013 the same on travel expenses for Hillary and her family as it did on charitable grants .
The media , forever big Clinton fans , told us we should be used to it .
Hey , Nixon was so much worse .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his charity donated to .
We know its offshoot , the Eric Trump charity , donated to a wine industry association , a plastic surgeon supposedly gifting nose jobs to kids , and an artist who painted a portrait of Donald .
Trump-owned resorts received $ 880,000 for hosting Trump-sponsored charity events .
Trump donated money from his foundation to conservative influencers ahead of his presidential bid .
With Joe as vice president , the Bidens made $ 396,000 in 2016 .
But in just the four years since leaving the Obama White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than $ 15 million .
In fact , as his prospects for election improved , Joe and his wife made nearly twice as much in one year as they did in the previous 19 years combined .
Joe scored $ 10 million alone for a book no one read .
Jill was paid more than $ 3 million for her book in 2018 .
Joe has a tax-dodge S Corporation that donated money back to his own political PAC .
Then of course there was Hunter , who scored millions in Chinese and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe ’ s son .
About half the nation got very twisted over Trump ’ s corruption and actively avoided noticing the Clintons and Bidens , and vice-versa , to the point of covering their ears NYANYANAYNYA .
Yeah , politicians are corrupt , but does anyone think the donors in all three cases didn ’ t know what they were buying ?
What , you still voting retail , bro ?
But even all those millions , measured in Epsteins ( a unit of influence buying I just made up ) are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pre-COVID America ’ s 614 billionaires were worth $ 2.95 trillion .
As the Dow hit record highs this month , there are now 650 billionaires and their combined wealth is $ 4 trillion .
The 400 richest Americans own 64 percent of the country ’ s wealth .
Where ’ d all their money come from ?
You .
Dan Gilbert , chair of Quicken Loans , worth $ 7 billion in March , is now at $ 43 billion ( thanks for paying on time each month . )
Who benefited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home then Amazon and Jeff Bezos ?
It takes a lot of poor people to sustain that amount of wealth at the top .
Money is always good .
But it is wrong to think just in dollars .
That ’ s how small-time grifters like waiters and the Bidens think .
The real rich understand wealth as power .
The power to shape society and government to ensure they make more money for more power until someday they Have .
It .
All .
You hope one day for an upgrade to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To talk about conspiracy theories is to imply something “ different ” happened , that the system does not work as intended ; for example , instead of an election the president was assassinated to change leaders .
So let ’ s not call what happened this autumn to elect Joe Biden a conspiracy .
But here is what happened .
Corporate media owned by the wealthiest Americans spent four years attacking Trump .
Working as a single organism fused to the Democratic party as its host , they tried to bundle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian agent .
When that failed they ginned up an impeachment with more holes in it than a bad joke about Stormy Daniels .
The same media then pivoted to defense when it mattered most , sending information about Hunter Biden that would have changed the election down the memory hole , and policing social media to Joe ’ s advantage .
Corporate pharma , also owned by the same people , held back announcement of COVID vaccines until just after the election .
The intel community , tightly bound with Big Tech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part leaking and concealing information as needed .
They too worked to discredit the Hunter Biden story by calling it Russian disinfo .
Money that actually controls information is gold .
Earlier in the contest something happened , again , in Democratic primaries which began with some of the most progressive candidates in the running since Henry Wallace .
Instead a politician known as the Senator from Mastercard was pushed into the White House .
It was just a coincidence two promising candidates , Buttigieg and Klobuchar , dropped out nearly simultaneously just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desperately needed to end Bernie , again .
How many people in America are powerful enough to have made those phone calls to Pete and Amy ?
Biden promptly returned the favor , filling his Cabinet with the same old thinkers corporate America liked from the Obama years .
A highlight is Janet Yellen ( net worth $ 13 million ) at Treasury , who helped swizzle the corporate bailout that created the .01 percent out of the one percent after the Great Recession .
Notice how crises for most of us like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wealthy ?
Biden was wrong when he told donors “ nothing would fundamentally change ” for the wealthy when he ’ s in charge—actually , things ’ ll get better .
A tiny percentage of Americans own , control , and benefit from most everything ; some call them the one percent but a large number of even those people are just slugs and remoras ( hedge fund managers , corporate lawyers ) who feed off the crumbs left by the really powerful .
You know a handful of the names—Bezos , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most of the others prefer less public lives while they control the public .
And silly you , you worried that it was the Russians who stole the election .
What , you aren ’ t down with using Prime points to vote in the next election , bro ?
Peter Van Buren is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Percent .

I learned the facts of life from a drunk uncle. He was not an American, and worked in international construction in Asia. His main job was to bribe people. Over the course of many tiny glasses of some awful, clear Asian liquor I learned every yard of concrete poured required money to gangsters who controlled unions and to politicians who controlled permits. A fact of life, he said. You get used to it. He even had a joke—my hands are dirtier than the guys who dig the foundations.
You come to realize someone is pulling the strings behind everything and it usually isn’t you, he said. The odd official just doing his job for his salary is a rube. You feel embarrassed for him, saying no for moral reasons. You learn, uncle slurred, to trust nothing. That politician on TV? The company just dropped off a nice check to his “charity.” Play by the rules? Those were the rules.
The first bribe I ever paid was to an Indonesian immigration officer, who noticed some small defect on my passport. Of course, he said, it could be resolved. Between us. With a fine (so many euphemisms). Off to the side. In cash. It was all of $20 to save a vacation but I felt filthy, cheated, a chump. But I learned the rules.
In New York we use the euphemism “tip,” and it is as required as oxygen to get through the day. A restaurant table pre-COVID. A last minute anything. A friendlier handling by a doorman. Timely attention to fix-it requests. My, um, friend, used to pay a lot of money for better hotel rooms until he learned $20 at check in with a friendly “anything you can do” often got him upgraded to the same thing at a fraction of the price. What, you still paying retail, bro?
I used to think it was all small stuff, maybe with the odd mafia king bribing a judge with real money or something else Netflix-worthy. In America we were ultimately… fair, right? But things started to add up. We have our petty corruption like anywhere, but our souls are filthy on a much larger scale. America goes big or it goes home.
Things like the Clinton Foundation accepting donations from the Saudis to help with women’s empowerment, an issue of course dear to the heart of the Kingdom. When it looked like his wife was going to be president, Bill made six-figure speeches to businesses seeking influence within the U.S. government, earning $50 million during his wife’s term as secretary of pay-for-play state. The Foundation, now mostly out of business, was at its peak a two-billion-dollar financial dangle. It spent in 2013 the same on travel expenses for Hillary and her family as it did on charitable grants. The media, forever big Clinton fans, told us we should be used to it. Hey, Nixon was so much worse.
Trump refused to be very specific about who his charity donated to. We know its offshoot, the Eric Trump charity, donated to a wine industry association, a plastic surgeon supposedly gifting nose jobs to kids, and an artist who painted a portrait of Donald. Trump-owned resorts received $880,000 for hosting Trump-sponsored charity events. Trump donated money from his foundation to conservative influencers ahead of his presidential bid.
With Joe as vice president, the Bidens made $396,000 in 2016. But in just the four years since leaving the Obama White House, Joe and Jill made more than $15 million. In fact, as his prospects for election improved, Joe and his wife made nearly twice as much in one year as they did in the previous 19 years combined. Joe scored $10 million alone for a book no one read. Jill was paid more than $3 million for her book in 2018. Joe has a tax-dodge S Corporation that donated money back to his own political PAC. Then of course there was Hunter, who scored millions in Chinese and Ukrainian money for doing nothing but being Joe’s son.
About half the nation got very twisted over Trump’s corruption and actively avoided noticing the Clintons and Bidens, and vice-versa, to the point of covering their ears NYANYANAYNYA. Yeah, politicians are corrupt, but does anyone think the donors in all three cases didn’t know what they were buying? What, you still voting retail, bro?
But even all those millions, measured in Epsteins (a unit of influence buying I just made up) are petty cash. Real corruption scales. Pre-COVID America’s 614 billionaires were worth $2.95 trillion. As the Dow hit record highs this month, there are now 650 billionaires and their combined wealth is $4 trillion. The 400 richest Americans own 64 percent of the country’s wealth.
Where’d all their money come from? You.
Dan Gilbert, chair of Quicken Loans, worth $7 billion in March, is now at $43 billion (thanks for paying on time each month.) Who benefited more from COVID and everyone buying from home then Amazon and Jeff Bezos? It takes a lot of poor people to sustain that amount of wealth at the top.
Money is always good. But it is wrong to think just in dollars. That’s how small-time grifters like waiters and the Bidens think. The real rich understand wealth as power. The power to shape society and government to ensure they make more money for more power until someday they Have. It. All. You hope one day for an upgrade to business class; they own the jet.
To talk about conspiracy theories is to imply something “different” happened, that the system does not work as intended; for example, instead of an election the president was assassinated to change leaders. So let’s not call what happened this autumn to elect Joe Biden a conspiracy. But here is what happened.
Corporate media owned by the wealthiest Americans spent four years attacking Trump. Working as a single organism fused to the Democratic party as its host, they tried to bundle Trump into a SuperMax as a literal Russian agent. When that failed they ginned up an impeachment with more holes in it than a bad joke about Stormy Daniels. The same media then pivoted to defense when it mattered most, sending information about Hunter Biden that would have changed the election down the memory hole, and policing social media to Joe’s advantage.
Corporate pharma, also owned by the same people, held back announcement of COVID vaccines until just after the election. The intel community, tightly bound with Big Tech and its super-wealthy owners, did its part leaking and concealing information as needed. They too worked to discredit the Hunter Biden story by calling it Russian disinfo. Money that actually controls information is gold.
Earlier in the contest something happened, again, in Democratic primaries which began with some of the most progressive candidates in the running since Henry Wallace. Instead a politician known as the Senator from Mastercard was pushed into the White House. It was just a coincidence two promising candidates, Buttigieg and Klobuchar, dropped out nearly simultaneously just ahead of the South Carolina vote Biden desperately needed to end Bernie, again. How many people in America are powerful enough to have made those phone calls to Pete and Amy?
Biden promptly returned the favor, filling his Cabinet with the same old thinkers corporate America liked from the Obama years. A highlight is Janet Yellen (net worth $13 million) at Treasury, who helped swizzle the corporate bailout that created the .01 percent out of the one percent after the Great Recession. Notice how crises for most of us like the Recession and COVID end up benefiting the wealthy? Biden was wrong when he told donors “nothing would fundamentally change” for the wealthy when he’s in charge—actually, things’ll get better.
A tiny percentage of Americans own, control, and benefit from most everything; some call them the one percent but a large number of even those people are just slugs and remoras (hedge fund managers, corporate lawyers) who feed off the crumbs left by the really powerful. You know a handful of the names—Bezos, Gates, Buffet—because they own public-facing companies. Most of the others prefer less public lives while they control the public. And silly you, you worried that it was the Russians who stole the election. What, you aren’t down with using Prime points to vote in the next election, bro?
Peter Van Buren is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the 99 Percent.


theamericanconservative--2020-12-29--Gerald Ford and the Perversion of Presidential Pardons

In his final weeks in office , President Donald Trump is outraging the media and many critics with deluges of dubious pardons .
Last Tuesday was “ No Corrupt Congressman or Iraqi Child Killer Left Behind Day.
” On Wednesday , he pardoned his 2016 campaign chief , Roger Stone , Jared Kushner ’ s father ( convicted of tax fraud ) , and dozens of others .
Sen. Chris Murphy ( D-CT ) responded by calling to strip the pardon power from the Constitution : “ Once one party allows the pardon power to become a tool of criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its utility as an instrument of justice.
” But the potential damage from Trump ’ s pardons thus far is small potatoes compared to the most damaging pardon in U.S. history issued by one of the Washington establishment ’ s favorite presidents , Gerald Ford .
On September 8 , 1974 , Ford issued a pardon of former president Richard Nixon that was so sweeping that it practically condemned future generations of Americans to being governed by lawless presidents .
Nixon had resigned the previous month after the House Judiciary Committee had voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the bill of impeachment focused on Nixon ’ s involvement in the coverup of the Watergate burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters by agents of his Committee to Re-Elect the President .
Ford , in his televised speech to the nation on the pardon on September 8 , 1974 , repeatedly stressed his devotion to the Constitution and to “ equal justice for all Americans.
” Ford lamented that Nixon might have difficulty to “ obtain a fair trial by jury in any jurisdiction ” and that he “ would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presumption of his innocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of his guilt in order to repay a legal debt to society.
” In lieu of offering any evidence that Nixon could not get a fair trial , Ford insisted that Nixon ’ s suffering and fate “ deeply troubles every decent and every compassionate person.
” Perhaps most bizarrely , Ford declared that , if Nixon were put on trial , “ the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad.
” Perhaps Ford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ free institutions ” with “ rulers on a pedestal.
” Many people assumed that President Ford pardoned Nixon only for Watergate .
In reality , Ford ’ s pardon was so broad — forgiving Nixon for any and every possible crime he may have committed — that it would have exempted Nixon even from charges of genocide : Ford ’ s pardon closed the book on holding Nixon culpable for his crimes against the Constitution , Americans , and millions of other people around the world .
Ford justified his pardon by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks.
” But Ford ’ s action made it easier for subsequent presidents to disturb “ tranquility ” and practically everything else .
If Nixon had been publicly tried and a full accounting of his abuses made to the American public , it may have been more difficult for subsequent presidents to cover up their crimes .
Politicians remembering Nixon ’ s punishment and humiliation might have been slower to lie the nation into unnecessary foreign wars .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ man who appointed him Vice President , he should have had the decency to wait until Americans could see the evidence of the abuses committed during Nixon ’ s reign .
As liberal journalist Matthew Yglesias observed in 2006 , Ford ’ s blanket pardon helped obscure the fact that Nixon “ had been spear-heading a broad-based criminal conspiracy aimed at suppressing the anti-war movement and other civil society manifestations of opposition to Nixon ’ s policies.
” Ford ’ s pardon proclaimed a new doctrine in American law and politics — that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything and everything .
No wonder that Nixon told interviewer David Frost a few years later that “ when the president does it , that means it is not illegal.
” Frost , somewhat dumbfounded , replied , “ By definition ?
” Nixon answered , “ Exactly .
Exactly.
” Ford ’ s expansive use of the pardon helped pave the way for George H.W .
Bush ’ s Iran-Contra pardons which largely demolished the investigation of Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh .
On Christmas Eve 1992 , Bush pardoned six Reagan administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the illegal arms-for-hostage deal that blighted the final years of the Reagan presidency .
Former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was scheduled to go on trial two weeks later on charges of lying to Congress .
Walsh denounced the pardons as part of a “ cover-up ” and said that they undermined his investigation of possible criminal conduct by Bush himself .
Walsh also reported that Bush ’ s pardons prevented Bush from having to testify in court and face “ searching questions ” on his own conduct .
Bush ’ s pardons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would ever turn state ’ s evidence against him .
The presidential pardons of Walsh ’ s targets were approved by Attorney General Bill Barr , who resigned as Trump ’ s Attorney General effective last week but whose recommendations may have had profound influence on the latest and forthcoming Trump pardons .
University of California professor Eric Rauchway declared that Bush ’ s “ pardons did more to enable future criminal presidencies even than Gerald Ford ’ s pardon of Richard Nixon.
” If Walsh ’ s investigation had led to Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name might have been sufficiently damaged that no other Bush could have ascended to the presidency .
President Bill Clinton built on those precedents to issue a deluge of pardons in his final day of office , including for two former cabinet members , his brother Roger , fellow Whitewater operative Susan McDougal ( whose silence helped save Clinton ) , and former congressman Mel Reynolds ( convicted of having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer as well as bank fraud and wire fraud ) .
Slate denounced Clinton ’ s for fugitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicted for tax evasion , wire fraud , racketeering , and trading with the enemy , as “ the most unjust presidential pardon in American history.
” Rich ’ s pardon was facilitated by Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder , who slipped the pardon effort past normal Justice Department checks and balances .
Rich ’ s pardon was supported by the chief of the Anti-Defamation League ( after Rich pledged to give $ 100,000 to the organization ) , the chairman of the U.S .
Holocaust Museum , and many other organizations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Clinton justified the pardon in a New York Times op-ed in part due to the lobbying of “ many present and former high-ranking Israeli officials of both major political parties , ” who stressed Rich ’ s services to the Mossad .
Clinton was indignant at suggestions that Rich ’ s former wife ’ s $ 450,000 contribution to the Clinton presidential library had any influence on the pardon .
A congressional investigation concluded that Clinton abused his pardon power by offering “ it up to wealthy fugitives whose money had already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Few other abuses could so thoroughly undermine public trust in government.
” Ford ’ s former chief of staff , Dick Cheney , brought the absolutist spirit of Ford ’ s pardon of Nixon into the George W. Bush administration .
Thirty years after Nixon resigned , White House counsel Alberto Gonzales claimed that the “ commander-in-chief ” override entitled the president to violate federal law .
That doctrine helped spawn a worldwide torture regime .
After the New York Times finally exposed Bush ’ s National Security Administration illegal wiretapping regime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following month by boasting about his “ Terrorist Surveillance Program ” in his State of the Union Address and receiving standing ovations from Republicans members of Congress .
Bush clearly felt that he was legally untouchable regardless of what he did ( though he was smart enough to not brag that he could get away with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue ) .
President Barack Obama is rarely included in lists of pardon abusers but he and his Attorney General Eric Holder effectively pardoned all the war crimes and other atrocities committed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during his 2008 presidential campaign that he would “ immediately review ” Bush-era torture crimes because “ nobody is above the law.
” Instead , the Obama administration proffered one excuse after another to suppress the vast majority of torture evidence relying on the “ State Secrets ” doctrine and administrative decrees , as well as throttling all torture-related lawsuits .
The ACLU ’ s Jameel Jaffer summarized Obama ’ s policy : “ The greater the abuse , the more important it is that it should remain secret.
” Obama and Holder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good faith torture ” —and summarily ruled that it applied to all U.S. government officials .
Thanks to Obama and Holder ’ s ” get out of jail free ” card , former president George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney could publicly boast in 2010 about having ordered torture .
It is difficult to know what further pardon surprises Trump will spring in his final weeks in office .
The New York Times reported earlier this month that Trump has discussed with advisors issuing pardons to his three eldest children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the audacious step of issuing himself a Gerald-Ford-all-inclusive pardon for all he has done since January 20 , 2017 ?
That might be another “ kraken release ” that plays as badly as Sidney Powell ’ s efforts to overturn the election .
Ford ’ s blanket pardon of Nixon helped turn America into an Impunity Democracy in which rulers pay no price for their misdeeds .
Presidential pardons often preclude truth : the odds of learning the facts about official outrages decline by roughly 98 % after the threat of prosecution is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focuses on who is receiving pardons from Trump , the real danger remains the nearly boundless power of the White House .
When presidents are formally permitted to trample the law , they become the most dangerous criminals in the land .
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights , Attention Deficit Democracy , and Public Policy Hooligan .
He is also a USA Today columnist .
Follow him on Twitter @ JimBovard .

In his final weeks in office, President Donald Trump is outraging the media and many critics with deluges of dubious pardons. Last Tuesday was “No Corrupt Congressman or Iraqi Child Killer Left Behind Day.” On Wednesday, he pardoned his 2016 campaign chief, Roger Stone, Jared Kushner’s father (convicted of tax fraud), and dozens of others. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) responded by calling to strip the pardon power from the Constitution: “Once one party allows the pardon power to become a tool of criminal enterprise, its danger to democracy outweighs its utility as an instrument of justice.”
But the potential damage from Trump’s pardons thus far is small potatoes compared to the most damaging pardon in U.S. history issued by one of the Washington establishment’s favorite presidents, Gerald Ford. On September 8, 1974, Ford issued a pardon of former president Richard Nixon that was so sweeping that it practically condemned future generations of Americans to being governed by lawless presidents.
Nixon had resigned the previous month after the House Judiciary Committee had voted to impeach him. The first article of the bill of impeachment focused on Nixon’s involvement in the coverup of the Watergate burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters by agents of his Committee to Re-Elect the President.
Ford, in his televised speech to the nation on the pardon on September 8, 1974, repeatedly stressed his devotion to the Constitution and to “equal justice for all Americans.” Ford lamented that Nixon might have difficulty to “obtain a fair trial by jury in any jurisdiction” and that he “would be cruelly and excessively penalized either in preserving the presumption of his innocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of his guilt in order to repay a legal debt to society.” In lieu of offering any evidence that Nixon could not get a fair trial, Ford insisted that Nixon’s suffering and fate “deeply troubles every decent and every compassionate person.” Perhaps most bizarrely, Ford declared that, if Nixon were put on trial, “the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad.” Perhaps Ford, a career politician, confused placing “free institutions” with “rulers on a pedestal.”
Many people assumed that President Ford pardoned Nixon only for Watergate. In reality, Ford’s pardon was so broad — forgiving Nixon for any and every possible crime he may have committed — that it would have exempted Nixon even from charges of genocide:
Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969, through August 9, 1974.
Ford’s pardon closed the book on holding Nixon culpable for his crimes against the Constitution, Americans, and millions of other people around the world. Ford justified his pardon by claiming that criminally prosecuting Nixon would banish “the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks.”
But Ford’s action made it easier for subsequent presidents to disturb “tranquility” and practically everything else. If Nixon had been publicly tried and a full accounting of his abuses made to the American public, it may have been more difficult for subsequent presidents to cover up their crimes. Politicians remembering Nixon’s punishment and humiliation might have been slower to lie the nation into unnecessary foreign wars. If Ford was determined to pardon the man who appointed him Vice President, he should have had the decency to wait until Americans could see the evidence of the abuses committed during Nixon’s reign. As liberal journalist Matthew Yglesias observed in 2006, Ford’s blanket pardon helped obscure the fact that Nixon “had been spear-heading a broad-based criminal conspiracy aimed at suppressing the anti-war movement and other civil society manifestations of opposition to Nixon’s policies.”
Ford’s pardon proclaimed a new doctrine in American law and politics — that one president can absolve another president for anything and everything. No wonder that Nixon told interviewer David Frost a few years later that “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” Frost, somewhat dumbfounded, replied, “By definition?” Nixon answered, “Exactly. Exactly.”
Ford’s expansive use of the pardon helped pave the way for George H.W. Bush’s Iran-Contra pardons which largely demolished the investigation of Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh. On Christmas Eve 1992, Bush pardoned six Reagan administration officials for their roles in Iran Contra, the illegal arms-for-hostage deal that blighted the final years of the Reagan presidency. Former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was scheduled to go on trial two weeks later on charges of lying to Congress.
Walsh denounced the pardons as part of a “cover-up” and said that they undermined his investigation of possible criminal conduct by Bush himself. Walsh also reported that Bush’s pardons prevented Bush from having to testify in court and face “searching questions” on his own conduct. Bush’s pardons greatly reduced the likelihood that his co-conspirators would ever turn state’s evidence against him. The presidential pardons of Walsh’s targets were approved by Attorney General Bill Barr, who resigned as Trump’s Attorney General effective last week but whose recommendations may have had profound influence on the latest and forthcoming Trump pardons. University of California professor Eric Rauchway declared that Bush’s “pardons did more to enable future criminal presidencies even than Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon.” If Walsh’s investigation had led to Bush’s conviction, the Bush brand name might have been sufficiently damaged that no other Bush could have ascended to the presidency.
President Bill Clinton built on those precedents to issue a deluge of pardons in his final day of office, including for two former cabinet members, his brother Roger, fellow Whitewater operative Susan McDougal (whose silence helped save Clinton), and former congressman Mel Reynolds (convicted of having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer as well as bank fraud and wire fraud). Slate denounced Clinton’s for fugitive billionaire Marc Rich, who had been indicted for tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and trading with the enemy, as “the most unjust presidential pardon in American history.” Rich’s pardon was facilitated by Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, who slipped the pardon effort past normal Justice Department checks and balances. Rich’s pardon was supported by the chief of the Anti-Defamation League (after Rich pledged to give $100,000 to the organization), the chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, and many other organizations. Responding to the uproar over that pardon, Clinton justified the pardon in a New York Times op-ed in part due to the lobbying of “many present and former high-ranking Israeli officials of both major political parties,” who stressed Rich’s services to the Mossad. Clinton was indignant at suggestions that Rich’s former wife’s $450,000 contribution to the Clinton presidential library had any influence on the pardon. A congressional investigation concluded that Clinton abused his pardon power by offering “it up to wealthy fugitives whose money had already enabled them to permanently escape American justice. Few other abuses could so thoroughly undermine public trust in government.”
Ford’s former chief of staff, Dick Cheney, brought the absolutist spirit of Ford’s pardon of Nixon into the George W. Bush administration. Thirty years after Nixon resigned, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales claimed that the “commander-in-chief” override entitled the president to violate federal law. That doctrine helped spawn a worldwide torture regime. After the New York Times finally exposed Bush’s National Security Administration illegal wiretapping regime in late 2005, Bush responded the following month by boasting about his “Terrorist Surveillance Program” in his State of the Union Address and receiving standing ovations from Republicans members of Congress. Bush clearly felt that he was legally untouchable regardless of what he did (though he was smart enough to not brag that he could get away with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue).
President Barack Obama is rarely included in lists of pardon abusers but he and his Attorney General Eric Holder effectively pardoned all the war crimes and other atrocities committed by top Bush administration officials. Obama promised during his 2008 presidential campaign that he would “immediately review” Bush-era torture crimes because “nobody is above the law.” Instead, the Obama administration proffered one excuse after another to suppress the vast majority of torture evidence relying on the “State Secrets” doctrine and administrative decrees, as well as throttling all torture-related lawsuits. The ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer summarized Obama’s policy: “The greater the abuse, the more important it is that it should remain secret.” Obama and Holder effectively invented a new legal category–“good faith torture”—and summarily ruled that it applied to all U.S. government officials. Thanks to Obama and Holder’s ”get out of jail free” card, former president George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney could publicly boast in 2010 about having ordered torture.
It is difficult to know what further pardon surprises Trump will spring in his final weeks in office. The New York Times reported earlier this month that Trump has discussed with advisors issuing pardons to his three eldest children and Rudolph Giuliani. Will he take the audacious step of issuing himself a Gerald-Ford-all-inclusive pardon for all he has done since January 20, 2017? That might be another “kraken release” that plays as badly as Sidney Powell’s efforts to overturn the election.
Ford’s blanket pardon of Nixon helped turn America into an Impunity Democracy in which rulers pay no price for their misdeeds. Presidential pardons often preclude truth: the odds of learning the facts about official outrages decline by roughly 98% after the threat of prosecution is removed. While the latest media outrage focuses on who is receiving pardons from Trump, the real danger remains the nearly boundless power of the White House. When presidents are formally permitted to trample the law, they become the most dangerous criminals in the land.
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Public Policy Hooligan. He is also a USA Today columnist. Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard.


theamericanconservative--2020-12-29--COVID Lockdowns: A Looking Glass Into Our ‘Science-Driven’ Future

California Governor Gavin Newsom visits Harun Coffee in Leimert Park after several days of protest in Los Angeles on June 3 , 2020 .
( Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images ) In March , President Trump tweeted in reference to the coronavirus lockdowns , “ WE CAN NOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF.
” As usual , Trump ’ s plain-spoken , blunt messaging , despite its lack of nuance , was prophetic in more ways than one .
I write from Los Angeles County , California , where coronavirus restrictions are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For all intents and purposes , LA County never fully reopened .
Indoor dining , for instance , was never allowed .
Yet despite the robust lockdown policy , we now appear to be the epicenter of the COVID surge in America .
Earlier in the pandemic saga , surges were treated by experts and media alike as a symptom of Republican COVID-denial .
Science-refuting laxness around mask wearing and reckless economic freedoms , typically embraced by Republican lawmakers , were being repaid , so the logic went , with higher COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experienced a summer surge , their negligent COVID policies were deemed the culprit .
But when the facts on the ground changed , the narrative didn ’ t .
California , which also experienced a summer surge despite more stringent lockdown measures , was excluded from the negative press coverage .
And since at least Thanksgiving , a virus surge in Democrat-controlled California and particularly Los Angeles County has continued unabated .
My point here is not to relish COVID infections in Democratic states or the severe strain on hospitals , both of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ask the question that Dr. Scott Atlas did in a recent op-ed and that nobody else in the county or state ’ s leadership seems willing or self-aware enough to ask .
In Dr. Atlas ’ s trenchant words : “ Lockdown policies had baleful effects on local economies , families and children , and the virus spread anyway .
If one advocates more lockdowns because of bad outcomes so far , why don ’ t the results of those lockdowns matter ?
” The results are—or should be—thought provoking : 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November versus 6.4 percent unemployment in the state of Florida .
While taxes and regulation certainly play a role in that disparity , lockdown policies do as well .
( Florida ’ s governor recently took lockdowns off the table as a surge fighting strategy . )
What ’ s more , despite California ’ s and Los Angeles ’ strict lockdown measures , which in the latter ’ s case included never broadly reopening schools ( some elementary schools were allowed to reopen through a waiver granting process but high schools were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not Florida , that is the epicenter of the surge .
To answer Dr. Atlas ’ s question : yes , outcomes do matter .
Whether or not California ’ s surge is due to poor compliance with COVID restrictions has no bearing on the “ effects on local economies , families and children ” of which Dr. Atlas speaks .
Why should business owners in need of customers and children in need of learning and socialization suffer because of the non-compliance of others ?
And why should lockdowns continue if their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials themselves are unsure of the surge ’ s underlying cause ?
President Trump warned early on of the dangers of the harsh medicine of lockdowns .
Dr. Atlas reiterated such warnings .
California Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Eric Garcetti , both of whom were lavished with praise for locking down hard and early in March , seem incapable of pragmatic reassessment amid changing conditions .
Without maligning their seemingly genuine intentions of saving lives , it ’ s worth asking—can the question even be asked in this hallowed land of orthodox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With an eye towards the future , the parallels between the lockdown left and progressive climate change policy are alarming .
They include the following : deferral by elected officials to highly speculative projections of future harm espoused by unelected experts ; the tendency to lump any degree of skepticism towards “ expert ” wisdom on the subject into the category of far-right knownothingism , silencing open debate in the process ; and a nebulous , amorphous definition of policy victory measured as much by intentions as outcomes .
Climate change discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclusively by the Intergovernmental Policy on Climate Change ( IPCC ) projection of climate catastrophe if global warming is not contained to 1.5 degrees celsius or less by the end of the century .
Even the ” moderate ” President-elect Joe Biden has embraced the model and its apocalyptic projections .
Does the IPCC projection not bear more than passing resemblance to the famous Imperial College Study predicting 2.2 million deaths in America from COVID ?
Who will be held accountable if the projections turn out to be inaccurate ?
How long must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success , or lack thereof , can be measured ?
At what point will the ( perceived ) benefits be judiciously juxtaposed with the collective sacrifice of millions and fundamental restructuring of the economy ?
Will a Green New Deal realistically be called off if the temperature nonetheless rises above 1.5 degrees celsius ?
Will America be made to pay an ever-harsher price for the carbon sins of developing nations when temperatures continue to rise in the same way that outdoor dining and other forms of economic activity have fallen victim to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the bad actors still spreading COVID ?
For those of you reading this and sensing right-wing hyperbole , you don ’ t have to look far into the future to see what I ’ m talking about .
Only time will tell whether Governor Newsom ’ s outright ban on gas-powered vehicles by 2035 in California will be vindicated or condemned as political theater .
What is certain is that Newsom ’ s executive order ( notice here the democracy deficit ; the people never directly voted for it ) garnered far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda when the Japanese government opted for a similar decree .
Even in a conservative newspaper like the Wall Street Journal , Toyoda ’ s eminently reasonable objections to phasing out gas vehicles entirely in the near future were relegated to the middle of the business section .
Notable among them were his science-driven objections that Japan would run out of electricity before the summer if all vehicles were to become electric and that cars would potentially become a luxury item due to increased cost .
“ When politicians are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s get rid of all cars using gasoline , ’ do they understand this ?
” Toyoda asked , according to the Journal .
It ’ s a good question that hasn ’ t been answered , and , like California lockdowns , by the time it is , it might already be too late .
If California is any barometer , it ’ s much easier to double-down on good intentions and ideological purity than to acknowledge failure and right the course .
Kurt Hofer is a native Californian with a PhD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school history in a Los Angeles area independent school .

In March, President Trump tweeted in reference to the coronavirus lockdowns, “WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF.” As usual, Trump’s plain-spoken, blunt messaging, despite its lack of nuance, was prophetic in more ways than one.
I write from Los Angeles County, California, where coronavirus restrictions are among the most stringent in the country. For all intents and purposes, LA County never fully reopened. Indoor dining, for instance, was never allowed. Yet despite the robust lockdown policy, we now appear to be the epicenter of the COVID surge in America. Earlier in the pandemic saga, surges were treated by experts and media alike as a symptom of Republican COVID-denial. Science-refuting laxness around mask wearing and reckless economic freedoms, typically embraced by Republican lawmakers, were being repaid, so the logic went, with higher COVID case rates. When Florida and Texas experienced a summer surge, their negligent COVID policies were deemed the culprit.
But when the facts on the ground changed, the narrative didn’t. California, which also experienced a summer surge despite more stringent lockdown measures, was excluded from the negative press coverage. And since at least Thanksgiving, a virus surge in Democrat-controlled California and particularly Los Angeles County has continued unabated. My point here is not to relish COVID infections in Democratic states or the severe strain on hospitals, both of which are tragedies. It’s to ask the question that Dr. Scott Atlas did in a recent op-ed and that nobody else in the county or state’s leadership seems willing or self-aware enough to ask.
In Dr. Atlas’s trenchant words: “Lockdown policies had baleful effects on local economies, families and children, and the virus spread anyway. If one advocates more lockdowns because of bad outcomes so far, why don’t the results of those lockdowns matter?”
The results are—or should be—thought provoking: 11 percent unemployment in Los Angeles County in November versus 6.4 percent unemployment in the state of Florida. While taxes and regulation certainly play a role in that disparity, lockdown policies do as well. (Florida’s governor recently took lockdowns off the table as a surge fighting strategy.) What’s more, despite California’s and Los Angeles’ strict lockdown measures, which in the latter’s case included never broadly reopening schools (some elementary schools were allowed to reopen through a waiver granting process but high schools were ineligible), it is now California, not Florida, that is the epicenter of the surge. To answer Dr. Atlas’s question: yes, outcomes do matter.
Whether or not California’s surge is due to poor compliance with COVID restrictions has no bearing on the “effects on local economies, families and children” of which Dr. Atlas speaks. Why should business owners in need of customers and children in need of learning and socialization suffer because of the non-compliance of others? And why should lockdowns continue if their efficacy is far from certain and health officials themselves are unsure of the surge’s underlying cause? President Trump warned early on of the dangers of the harsh medicine of lockdowns. Dr. Atlas reiterated such warnings. California Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Eric Garcetti, both of whom were lavished with praise for locking down hard and early in March, seem incapable of pragmatic reassessment amid changing conditions. Without maligning their seemingly genuine intentions of saving lives, it’s worth asking—can the question even be asked in this hallowed land of orthodox progressivism?—whether this lockdown is working.
With an eye towards the future, the parallels between the lockdown left and progressive climate change policy are alarming. They include the following: deferral by elected officials to highly speculative projections of future harm espoused by unelected experts; the tendency to lump any degree of skepticism towards “expert” wisdom on the subject into the category of far-right knownothingism, silencing open debate in the process; and a nebulous, amorphous definition of policy victory measured as much by intentions as outcomes.
Climate change discussion on the left today is framed almost exclusively by the Intergovernmental Policy on Climate Change (IPCC) projection of climate catastrophe if global warming is not contained to 1.5 degrees celsius or less by the end of the century. Even the” moderate” President-elect Joe Biden has embraced the model and its apocalyptic projections. Does the IPCC projection not bear more than passing resemblance to the famous Imperial College Study predicting 2.2 million deaths in America from COVID? Who will be held accountable if the projections turn out to be inaccurate? How long must the policy be in place before its success, or lack thereof, can be measured? At what point will the (perceived) benefits be judiciously juxtaposed with the collective sacrifice of millions and fundamental restructuring of the economy? Will a Green New Deal realistically be called off if the temperature nonetheless rises above 1.5 degrees celsius? Will America be made to pay an ever-harsher price for the carbon sins of developing nations when temperatures continue to rise in the same way that outdoor dining and other forms of economic activity have fallen victim to the imperative to “send a message” to the bad actors still spreading COVID?
For those of you reading this and sensing right-wing hyperbole, you don’t have to look far into the future to see what I’m talking about. Only time will tell whether Governor Newsom’s outright ban on gas-powered vehicles by 2035 in California will be vindicated or condemned as political theater. What is certain is that Newsom’s executive order (notice here the democracy deficit; the people never directly voted for it) garnered far more attention than the humdrum skepticism of Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda when the Japanese government opted for a similar decree.
Even in a conservative newspaper like the Wall Street Journal, Toyoda’s eminently reasonable objections to phasing out gas vehicles entirely in the near future were relegated to the middle of the business section. Notable among them were his science-driven objections that Japan would run out of electricity before the summer if all vehicles were to become electric and that cars would potentially become a luxury item due to increased cost. “When politicians are out there saying, ‘Let’s get rid of all cars using gasoline,’ do they understand this?” Toyoda asked, according to the Journal.
It’s a good question that hasn’t been answered, and, like California lockdowns, by the time it is, it might already be too late. If California is any barometer, it’s much easier to double-down on good intentions and ideological purity than to acknowledge failure and right the course.
Kurt Hofer is a native Californian with a PhD in Spanish Literature. He teaches high school history in a Los Angeles area independent school.