theamericanconservative--2020-12-17--The Trump Presidency Ends; Cue the Trump Hangover?

“ Release the Kraken !
” they cried , only for a hungover minnow to issue forth .
The Donald Trump lawsuit extravaganza is now over .
It ends as predicted , with conservatives yelling at GOP state officials , fake electors yelling at real electors , the president yelling at passing cars .
Back in 2010 , the editor of the American Spectator , R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. , published a ( very good ) book called After the Hangover in which he took stock of the conservative movement following eight dizzying years in power .
With the electors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it seems another painful morning-after is in store .
( Think Kingsley ’ s Amis ’ famous description of a hangover in Lucky Jim , too long to quote here but worth looking up . )
Strange memories from the past four years beacon through the fog .
Did we really threaten to bring down fire and fury on North Korea ?
Was that Anthony Scaramucci who showed up with the Jell-O shots and then shot Reince Priebus with a paintball gun ?
Any assessment of Donald Trump ’ s legacy has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that happened .
Mornings after are clarifying because we behold in context what hours ago we saw with demolished inhibitions .
Down seven beers and you ’ re more likely to break the societal norms that have otherwise been instilled in you , whether by making a pass at a bar stool or skinny-dipping in a mall fountain .
So too has it been with the Trump presidency .
The man hasn ’ t been much of a policy innovator ; most of his achievements have come straight out of the Conservative Inc. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different is his willingness to gleefully violate the noise regulations and indecent exposure laws that govern our politics .
Trump ’ s trampling of norms is usually a bugaboo of centrists , who most closely align with the status quo and thus are most inclined to defend it .
But conservatives have reason to think this through too .
“ Manners are of more importance than laws , ” Burke wrote , adding , “ Manners are what vex or soothe , corrupt or purify , exalt or debase , barbarize or refine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , uniform , insensible operation , like that of the air we breathe in.
” They ’ re the tissue of civilization , in other words .
This is why , to take just one example , everyone didn ’ t immediately sell their bongs for spare parts upon being commanded to by Nancy Reagan : the manners surrounding marijuana had changed during the 1960s irrespective of the war on drugs and attendant laws that came afterward .
Likewise may it be that Trump ’ s behavior has serious consequences beyond the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Burke ’ s adage might read : “ Tweets just might be more important than tax cuts.
” This is what initially worried me about a Trump presidency : that Trump ’ s revolution in norms would outweigh whatever five-degrees-to-starboard course shift he might pull off in policy .
Yes , I was one of those dreaded # NeverTrumpers you ’ ve read so much about .
The entire Trump project seemed to me a wager of too much on too little .
Yet what was I supposed to do ?
Rage-lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and join the Lincoln Project ?
Bore my readers into paralysis by denouncing the president ’ s every cough ?
A writer ’ s job is to praise a politician when he merits it and condemn him when he deserves it .
And the fact is—this is where our assessment gets tricky—that Donald Trump has done a great deal of good .
I don ’ t just mean “ good ” from a conservative wish-list standpoint , though take from that what you will : tax cuts , deregulation , trade deals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done objective , quantifiable good .
The Trump era brought jobs and economic growth after years of spluttering during the Great Recession .
It gave confidence to gun owners and small business owners alike that government wasn ’ t about to slam down on them .
Right-to-try was a fine piece of legislation that could save lives .
Even the president ’ s eleventh-hour troop withdrawals from the Middle East might finally—eventually ?
—in the year 3000 ?
—bring an end to our hopeless and ruinous wars of choice .
Such accomplishments have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the norms side of things .
You start to judge Trump not as a man in full but as a ballpoint pen , accountable only for what he signs .
You shut off cable news , with its obsessive focus on his every insult .
You drift away to a secluded beach , where you sit back , savor the quiet , stare at the clouds , daydream of Chief Justice Neil Gorsuch one day striking down the entire state of California as unconstitutional .
And then a plane flies by with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OF MORE IMPORTANCE THAN LAWS.
” Damn it all to hell .
So it ’ s gone .
Trumpism , the populist philosophy associated with the president , may yet be severed from the bad manners , taken up by a more genteel standard-bearer like Josh Hawley .
But Trump himself is who he is .
Shouting down Jim Acosta is as much a part of his character as trying to build The Wall or tough-talking China .
And certainly some of the norms Trump has violated are worth violating , even amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet to lose sleep because Trump harangued NATO nations over their refusal to fund their own defense , for example .
But I have woken up early to check and see whether the commander-in-chief of the United States sent an overnight tweet attacking whomever fired Roseanne Barr .
And that , in its own way , seems deranged .
Also deranged is that , last weekend in Washington , Trump-loving MAGA demonstrators burned “ Black Lives Matter ” signs outside of churches .
They chanted in favor of Nick Fuentes , an antisemitic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Rod Dreher documented , quickly turned into a Dionysia of presidential idolatry .
And on Monday , there were real concerns over the safety of the electors who certified Joe Biden ’ s Electoral College win .
I ’ m not saying Trump is responsible for all this—the man has repeatedly denounced white supremacy—but he ’ s also chucked more than his share of logs onto the QAnon fire .
The apocalypticism , the raising of the rhetorical temperature , the revolution forever devouring its own—these things are rooted in conduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen , they matter immensely .
Anyway , that ’ s the view from here in Equatorial Cuckistan .
The truth is that it will take years , perhaps decades , to pluck apart all the threads of the Trump legacy , especially with Trump himself now suggesting he ’ ll tack on another non-consecutive term .
In the meantime , we ’ ve got a breakfast of Motrin and greasy hash browns to choke down .
What ’ s this charge on my credit card ?
We didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @

“Release the Kraken!” they cried, only for a hungover minnow to issue forth. The Donald Trump lawsuit extravaganza is now over. It ends as predicted, with conservatives yelling at GOP state officials, fake electors yelling at real electors, the president yelling at passing cars.
Back in 2010, the editor of the American Spectator, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., published a (very good) book called After the Hangover in which he took stock of the conservative movement following eight dizzying years in power. With the electors having now certified Trump’s loss, it seems another painful morning-after is in store. (Think Kingsley’s Amis’ famous description of a hangover in Lucky Jim, too long to quote here but worth looking up.) Strange memories from the past four years beacon through the fog. Did we really threaten to bring down fire and fury on North Korea? Was that Anthony Scaramucci who showed up with the Jell-O shots and then shot Reince Priebus with a paintball gun?
Any assessment of Donald Trump’s legacy has to begin with the words: so that happened. Mornings after are clarifying because we behold in context what hours ago we saw with demolished inhibitions. Down seven beers and you’re more likely to break the societal norms that have otherwise been instilled in you, whether by making a pass at a bar stool or skinny-dipping in a mall fountain. So too has it been with the Trump presidency. The man hasn’t been much of a policy innovator; most of his achievements have come straight out of the Conservative Inc. playbook. What’s made him different is his willingness to gleefully violate the noise regulations and indecent exposure laws that govern our politics.
Trump’s trampling of norms is usually a bugaboo of centrists, who most closely align with the status quo and thus are most inclined to defend it. But conservatives have reason to think this through too. “Manners are of more importance than laws,” Burke wrote, adding, “Manners are what vex or soothe, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in.” They’re the tissue of civilization, in other words. This is why, to take just one example, everyone didn’t immediately sell their bongs for spare parts upon being commanded to by Nancy Reagan: the manners surrounding marijuana had changed during the 1960s irrespective of the war on drugs and attendant laws that came afterward. Likewise may it be that Trump’s behavior has serious consequences beyond the federal code. Refashioned for the Trump era, Burke’s adage might read: “Tweets just might be more important than tax cuts.”
This is what initially worried me about a Trump presidency: that Trump’s revolution in norms would outweigh whatever five-degrees-to-starboard course shift he might pull off in policy. Yes, I was one of those dreaded #NeverTrumpers you’ve read so much about. The entire Trump project seemed to me a wager of too much on too little. Yet what was I supposed to do? Rage-lose my hair, grow a peach-fuzz beard, and join the Lincoln Project? Bore my readers into paralysis by denouncing the president’s every cough? A writer’s job is to praise a politician when he merits it and condemn him when he deserves it. And the fact is—this is where our assessment gets tricky—that Donald Trump has done a great deal of good.
I don’t just mean “good” from a conservative wish-list standpoint, though take from that what you will: tax cuts, deregulation, trade deals reopened. I mean he’s done objective, quantifiable good. The Trump era brought jobs and economic growth after years of spluttering during the Great Recession. It gave confidence to gun owners and small business owners alike that government wasn’t about to slam down on them. Right-to-try was a fine piece of legislation that could save lives. Even the president’s eleventh-hour troop withdrawals from the Middle East might finally—eventually?—in the year 3000?—bring an end to our hopeless and ruinous wars of choice.
Such accomplishments have at times made it easy to ignore the norms side of things. You start to judge Trump not as a man in full but as a ballpoint pen, accountable only for what he signs. You shut off cable news, with its obsessive focus on his every insult. You drift away to a secluded beach, where you sit back, savor the quiet, stare at the clouds, daydream of Chief Justice Neil Gorsuch one day striking down the entire state of California as unconstitutional.
And then a plane flies by with a banner behind it: “MANNERS ARE OF MORE IMPORTANCE THAN LAWS.”
Damn it all to hell.
So it’s gone. Trumpism, the populist philosophy associated with the president, may yet be severed from the bad manners, taken up by a more genteel standard-bearer like Josh Hawley. But Trump himself is who he is. Shouting down Jim Acosta is as much a part of his character as trying to build The Wall or tough-talking China. And certainly some of the norms Trump has violated are worth violating, even amount themselves to good policy. I have yet to lose sleep because Trump harangued NATO nations over their refusal to fund their own defense, for example. But I have woken up early to check and see whether the commander-in-chief of the United States sent an overnight tweet attacking whomever fired Roseanne Barr. And that, in its own way, seems deranged.
Also deranged is that, last weekend in Washington, Trump-loving MAGA demonstrators burned “Black Lives Matter” signs outside of churches. They chanted in favor of Nick Fuentes, an antisemitic talking fetus. The Christian Jericho March, as Rod Dreher documented, quickly turned into a Dionysia of presidential idolatry. And on Monday, there were real concerns over the safety of the electors who certified Joe Biden’s Electoral College win. I’m not saying Trump is responsible for all this—the man has repeatedly denounced white supremacy—but he’s also chucked more than his share of logs onto the QAnon fire. The apocalypticism, the raising of the rhetorical temperature, the revolution forever devouring its own—these things are rooted in conduct, not policy. And as we’ve seen, they matter immensely.
Anyway, that’s the view from here in Equatorial Cuckistan. The truth is that it will take years, perhaps decades, to pluck apart all the threads of the Trump legacy, especially with Trump himself now suggesting he’ll tack on another non-consecutive term. In the meantime, we’ve got a breakfast of Motrin and greasy hash browns to choke down. What’s this charge on my credit card? We didn’t actually buy Greenland, did we?


theamericanconservative--2020-12-18--Biden’s ‘Will of the People’ Malarkey

Biden’s ‘Will of the People’ Malarkey

In his cough-ridden victory speech Monday night , President-elect Joe Biden proclaimed again that “ the will of the people prevailed ” in the 2020 election .
Biden invoked that phrase four times in one speech , and he ’ ll likely recite it often in the coming months to sanctify his new policies and proclamations .
Biden also declared , “ In America , politicians don ’ t take power — the people grant it to them.
” But invoking the “ will of the people ” helps president seize all the power they claim to need , regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal law .
Americans are encouraged to believe that their vote on Election Day somehow guarantees that the subsequent ten thousand actions by the president , Congress , and federal agencies will embody their wishes , spoken or otherwise , known or unknown .
In reality , the more edicts a president issues , the less likely his decrees have any connection to popular preferences .
And campaign promises are even less legally binding than a Tinder tryst ’ s promise to stay in touch .
Franklin Roosevelt was the first president to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to consecrate his most audacious power grabs .
In a 1937 fireside chat , he denounced the Supreme Court for thwarting “ the will of the people ” – which FDR supposedly incarnated because he had been re-elected the previous year .
The court had struck down several New Deal laws as unconstitutional in part because they turned federal bureaucrats into tinhorn dictators .
FDR sought to pack the Supreme Court with appointees to rubberstamp his policies , sparking a backlash in Congress and the nation that hobbled him for years afterwards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s footsteps in seeking to vastly expand the number of justices , expect “ will of the people ” to shroud his infamy .
FDR invoked “ will of the people ” to provide a Teflon shield for his sign-off on the enslavement of East Europeans .
In the summit communique at the 1945 Yalta conference with Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill , the three leaders “ pledged to the earliest possible establishment through free elections of governments responsive to the will of the people ” in the former Axis nations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks later , FDR told Congress that the Yalta agreement was “ the most hopeful agreement possible for a free , independent , and prosperous Polish people.
” Even before Roosevelt died in April 1945 , it was clear that the secret deals cut at Yalta guaranteed that a hundred million people in eastern and central Europe would fall under the Soviet boot .
But the claptrap in the Yalta communique helped fawning historians protect FDR ’ s legacy .
Presidents sometimes invoke the “ will of the people ” to shroud the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At a 1974 White House Conference on Domestic and Economic Affairs , President Gerald Ford declared , “ Federal , State , and local units of government responding to the will of the people will whip inflation.
” Ford trumpeted a “ Whip Inflation Now ” campaign and boasted that 150,000 people had requested WIN buttons .
Ford labeled inflation , running at a 12 % annual rate , as “ public enemy number one.
” Ford talked as if inflation was a moral failing of the American people–rather than primarily the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to finance deficit spending .
Thanks to the Federal Reserve ’ s monetary spigots , the U.S. dollar has lost more than 80 % of its purchasing power since 1974 .
The “ will of the people ” encourages the delusion that ballots have magical powers to control the following four years .
On the eve of the 1992 election , President George H. W. Bush told a Texas audience : “ With your vote , you are going to help shape the future of this , the most blessed , special nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has helped create… .
Look at your vote as an act of power , a statement of principle.
” Yet , few if any of the people who voted the following day were making “ a statement of principle ’ in favor of permitting the president to deploy troops abroad on his whim ( as Clinton did in Somalia , Haiti , Bosnia , Kosovo , and elsewhere ) , permitting the government to waive the Posse Comitatus Act and use military equipment against American civilians ( as happened at Waco ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wiretapping by up to a hundred-fold ?
“ Will of the people ” provides pre-absolution for any use of power by a winning politician .
Two days after his 2004 reelection victory , President George W. Bush declared : “ When you win , there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view… and the people made it clear what they wanted.
” But was Bush ’ s vengeful obliteration of Fallujah , Iraq in the following weeks the “ will of the people ” ?
Did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s medieval-like attempt to use tortured confessions as bona fide evidence in federal court ?
Did voters subconsciously will the National Security Agency ’ s vast illegal surveillance regime of their emails and phone calls ?
Since the Electoral College designated Biden the winner of the 2020 election , should we presume that every policy that Biden and his advisors approved in his Delaware basement during the campaign is the will of the American people ?
Biden said that he would appoint Beto O ’ Rourke as “ the one who leads ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beto was famous for his “ Hell yes , we ’ re going to take your AR-15 ” campaign promise .
Does that mean it is the “ will of the people ” to confiscate more than ten million firearms ?
And shall we pretend it is the “ will of the people ” if Biden attacks and topples the Assad regime in Syria , one of the obsessions of his retread foreign policy team from the Obama era ?
The “ will of the people ” switcheroo is even more farcical for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When Los Angeles residents voted for mayor in 2017 , did they have any idea that Eric Garcetti would prohibit them from taking any walks outside of their home as part of a demented Covid prevention policy ?
Did Virginian voters in 2017 realize that the candidate who won the most votes would be entitled to prohibit them going out of their homes from midnight to 5 a.m. , as Governor Ralph Northam did last week ?
Did Michigan voters in 2018 secretly will that the winning gubernatorial candidate could prohibit anyone from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends , as Gretchen Whitmer did earlier this year ?
After the election , Biden ’ s buildbackbetter.gov website announced that “ social distancing is… a dial ” that Biden will twist to determine whether people can go to work , school , or church .
How many Americans realized that they were voting for a candidate who could dial away almost everything in their daily lives ?
Over the last four months , Biden has flip-flopped on whether he will impose a national economic shutdown as part of his Covid policy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans under house arrest early next year , rest assured that liberal newspaper editorials will insist that people have no right to complain because they did this to themselves by voting for Biden .
Exalting “ the will of the people ” is another sign of the downward spiral of representative government–as if the personal preferences of one politician are the essence of democracy .
The Founding Fathers designed a political system in which the Constitution perpetually trumped periodic vote counts .
At the time of the American Revolution , elections were seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves against rulers—kings , ministers , or any other official wrongdoer .
Law professor John Phillip Reid observed , “ Eighteenth-century representation was primarily an institution of restraint on governmental power.
” But nowadays , rather than serving as leashes , elections are more likely to be dangerous propellants–especially with ready-made phrases to hallow winning politicians .
Don ’ t expect to hear any doubts or insights into “ the will of the people ” phrase from editorial writers .
The typical Washington pundit could explain the philosophical controversies regarding “ will of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arkansas high school dropout explains Einstein ’ s Theory of Relativity .
( “ Rousseau who ?
” said the PBS panelist . )
Many of the commentators who echo Biden ’ s “ will of the people ” invocation are also champions of Leviathan .
They hail “ democratic ” processes that often enable politicians to capture nearly unlimited government power to impose policies favored by the elite .
Nor will Biden ’ s cheerleaders stoop to explain how the “ will of the people ” can be divined from 65 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ Vox Populi , Vox Dei ” is being deduced simply from the sum total of pieces of paper with a blot near Biden ’ s name that happened to turn up in a government bin or mailing address by a certain date .
For most federal policies , the 2020 election results provide as reliable guidance as that proffered by Roman priests reading entrails of sacrificed animals to reveal the will of the gods .
In lieu of credible evidence , we will be endlessly reminded that submitting to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manifested in Biden ’ s executive orders ) is the cornerstone of our “ civic religion.
” Should we presume Biden can be trusted with vast new powers because of a Holy Ghost of Democracy hovering above the Oval Office ?
“ Democracy requires faith , ” declared Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson , who was yelping “ God Bless the ‘ Deep State ’ ” not long previously .
“ Will of the people ” is one of those intellectual circus-shell games in which freedom almost always loses .
Admittedly , Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again.
” But the same media cadre now working overtime to valorize his career and legitimize his power will also exploit any deference-inducing shibboleth they can find .
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 cough-ridden victory speech Monday night, President-elect Joe Biden proclaimed again that “the will of the people prevailed” in the 2020 election. Biden invoked that phrase four times in one speech, and he’ll likely recite it often in the coming months to sanctify his new policies and proclamations. Biden also declared, “In America, politicians don’t take power — the people grant it to them.” But invoking the “will of the people” helps president seize all the power they claim to need, regardless of the Constitution or any provision of federal law.
Americans are encouraged to believe that their vote on Election Day somehow guarantees that the subsequent ten thousand actions by the president, Congress, and federal agencies will embody their wishes, spoken or otherwise, known or unknown. In reality, the more edicts a president issues, the less likely his decrees have any connection to popular preferences. And campaign promises are even less legally binding than a Tinder tryst’s promise to stay in touch.
Franklin Roosevelt was the first president to invoke “the will of the people” to consecrate his most audacious power grabs. In a 1937 fireside chat, he denounced the Supreme Court for thwarting “the will of the people” – which FDR supposedly incarnated because he had been re-elected the previous year. The court had struck down several New Deal laws as unconstitutional in part because they turned federal bureaucrats into tinhorn dictators. FDR sought to pack the Supreme Court with appointees to rubberstamp his policies, sparking a backlash in Congress and the nation that hobbled him for years afterwards. If Biden decides to follow FDR’s footsteps in seeking to vastly expand the number of justices, expect “will of the people” to shroud his infamy.
FDR invoked “will of the people” to provide a Teflon shield for his sign-off on the enslavement of East Europeans. In the summit communique at the 1945 Yalta conference with Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill, the three leaders “pledged to the earliest possible establishment through free elections of governments responsive to the will of the people” in the former Axis nations and liberated countries of Europe. A few weeks later, FDR told Congress that the Yalta agreement was “the most hopeful agreement possible for a free, independent, and prosperous Polish people.” Even before Roosevelt died in April 1945, it was clear that the secret deals cut at Yalta guaranteed that a hundred million people in eastern and central Europe would fall under the Soviet boot. But the claptrap in the Yalta communique helped fawning historians protect FDR’s legacy.
Presidents sometimes invoke the “will of the people” to shroud the vast damage Washington inflicts on the citizenry. At a 1974 White House Conference on Domestic and Economic Affairs, President Gerald Ford declared, “Federal, State, and local units of government responding to the will of the people will whip inflation.” Ford trumpeted a “Whip Inflation Now” campaign and boasted that 150,000 people had requested WIN buttons. Ford labeled inflation, running at a 12% annual rate, as “public enemy number one.” Ford talked as if inflation was a moral failing of the American people–rather than primarily the result of the government printing extra money to finance deficit spending. Thanks to the Federal Reserve’s monetary spigots, the U.S. dollar has lost more than 80% of its purchasing power since 1974.
The “will of the people” encourages the delusion that ballots have magical powers to control the following four years. On the eve of the 1992 election, President George H. W. Bush told a Texas audience: “With your vote, you are going to help shape the future of this, the most blessed, special nation that man has ever known and God has helped create…. Look at your vote as an act of power, a statement of principle.” Yet, few if any of the people who voted the following day were making “a statement of principle’ in favor of permitting the president to deploy troops abroad on his whim (as Clinton did in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and elsewhere), permitting the government to waive the Posse Comitatus Act and use military equipment against American civilians (as happened at Waco), or permitting the FBI to expand its wiretapping by up to a hundred-fold?
“Will of the people” provides pre-absolution for any use of power by a winning politician. Two days after his 2004 reelection victory, President George W. Bush declared: “When you win, there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view… and the people made it clear what they wanted.” But was Bush’s vengeful obliteration of Fallujah, Iraq in the following weeks the “will of the people”? Did voters consent to the Bush administration’s medieval-like attempt to use tortured confessions as bona fide evidence in federal court? Did voters subconsciously will the National Security Agency’s vast illegal surveillance regime of their emails and phone calls?
Since the Electoral College designated Biden the winner of the 2020 election, should we presume that every policy that Biden and his advisors approved in his Delaware basement during the campaign is the will of the American people? Biden said that he would appoint Beto O’Rourke as “the one who leads” his efforts to restrict gun ownership. Beto was famous for his “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15” campaign promise. Does that mean it is the “will of the people” to confiscate more than ten million firearms? And shall we pretend it is the “will of the people” if Biden attacks and topples the Assad regime in Syria, one of the obsessions of his retread foreign policy team from the Obama era?
The “will of the people” switcheroo is even more farcical for state and local elections. level. When Los Angeles residents voted for mayor in 2017, did they have any idea that Eric Garcetti would prohibit them from taking any walks outside of their home as part of a demented Covid prevention policy? Did Virginian voters in 2017 realize that the candidate who won the most votes would be entitled to prohibit them going out of their homes from midnight to 5 a.m., as Governor Ralph Northam did last week? Did Michigan voters in 2018 secretly will that the winning gubernatorial candidate could prohibit anyone from leaving their home to visit family or friends, as Gretchen Whitmer did earlier this year?
After the election, Biden’s buildbackbetter.gov website announced that “social distancing is… a dial” that Biden will twist to determine whether people can go to work, school, or church. How many Americans realized that they were voting for a candidate who could dial away almost everything in their daily lives? Over the last four months, Biden has flip-flopped on whether he will impose a national economic shutdown as part of his Covid policy. If he places hundreds of millions of Americans under house arrest early next year, rest assured that liberal newspaper editorials will insist that people have no right to complain because they did this to themselves by voting for Biden.
Exalting “the will of the people” is another sign of the downward spiral of representative government–as if the personal preferences of one politician are the essence of democracy. The Founding Fathers designed a political system in which the Constitution perpetually trumped periodic vote counts. At the time of the American Revolution, elections were seen as a means for people to protect themselves against rulers—kings, ministers, or any other official wrongdoer. Law professor John Phillip Reid observed, “Eighteenth-century representation was primarily an institution of restraint on governmental power.” But nowadays, rather than serving as leashes, elections are more likely to be dangerous propellants–especially with ready-made phrases to hallow winning politicians.
Don’t expect to hear any doubts or insights into “the will of the people” phrase from editorial writers. The typical Washington pundit could explain the philosophical controversies regarding “will of the people” as well as an Arkansas high school dropout explains Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. (“Rousseau who?” said the PBS panelist.) Many of the commentators who echo Biden’s “will of the people” invocation are also champions of Leviathan. They hail “democratic” processes that often enable politicians to capture nearly unlimited government power to impose policies favored by the elite.
Nor will Biden’s cheerleaders stoop to explain how the “will of the people” can be divined from 65 million mostly unverified mail-in ballots. This year’s “Vox Populi, Vox Dei” is being deduced simply from the sum total of pieces of paper with a blot near Biden’s name that happened to turn up in a government bin or mailing address by a certain date. For most federal policies, the 2020 election results provide as reliable guidance as that proffered by Roman priests reading entrails of sacrificed animals to reveal the will of the gods. In lieu of credible evidence, we will be endlessly reminded that submitting to the “will of the people” (manifested in Biden’s executive orders) is the cornerstone of our “civic religion.” Should we presume Biden can be trusted with vast new powers because of a Holy Ghost of Democracy hovering above the Oval Office? “Democracy requires faith,” declared Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who was yelping “God Bless the ‘Deep State’” not long previously.
“Will of the people” is one of those intellectual circus-shell games in which freedom almost always loses. Admittedly, Biden never campaigned to “make America constitutional again.” But the same media cadre now working overtime to valorize his career and legitimize his power will also exploit any deference-inducing shibboleth they can find.
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--2020-12-18--Answering the ACLU’s Questions about ICE

The American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) has recently released a blog post that appears to be an attempt to get the new incoming Administration to make radical changes to the immigration system .
The title of the post is , “ The Questions You Probably Think You Know the Answer to—But Likely Don ’ t—About ICE Detention.
” When I read the post , my first thought was that it was nothing more than propaganda by an organization that has actively worked against the enforcement of immigration laws across this country .
I decided I would directly address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they vilify the very people I have spent my 34-year law enforcement career with : the U.S. Border Patrol and ICE .
They also attack the private detention companies that ICE has worked with for decades .
These private contract partners know the detention business better than anyone , they do it well , and they save the taxpayers millions of dollars every year .
The posting said that ICE detention conditions are often as bad or worse than those you find in prison , including rampant abuse , neglect and degradation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that a majority of ICE detainees are housed in private detention facilities contracted by ICE , and these companies are only in it for the money .
Nothing could be further from the truth .
Here are the facts that the writer obviously chose to ignore in writing this fictional story .
ICE contracts most of its detention to outside companies that construct and operate facilities not only for the federal government but also for state and local governments .
The left likes to call then “ for-profit ” prisons as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies are used widely because they do the job better and cheaper than the local , state or federal government could .
Using outside contractors not only saves millions in taxpayer funds , but it increases the quality of care those being detained receive .
The quality of care afforded those in ICE contract detention is better than you would find in any federal or state institution .
ICE also contracts some beds from local sheriffs , and when I was the ICE Director I had numerous sheriffs across the country end their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because our detention standards were too high for them to maintain .
Numerous sheriffs would tell me that they would not provide such high standards for illegal aliens when they don ’ t give those same standards to U.S. citizens in their jails .
ICE operates its detention system under a set of National Detention Standards , which were based upon policies and procedures that existed at the issuance of these standards in September 2000 .
ICE subsequently undertook a revision of these standards to more clearly delineate the intended results of adherence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Detention Standards ( PBNDS ) , developed in coordination with agency stakeholders , prescribe both the expected outcomes of each detention standard and the expected practices required to achieve them .
PBNDS 2008 was also designed to improve safety , security and conditions of confinement for detainees .
In keeping with its commitment to reform the immigration detention system , ICE further revised its detention standards in 2011 .
The ACLU story conveniently forgot to mention that .
The Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011 ( PBNDS 2011 ) reflect ICE ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigration detention to its unique purpose while maintaining a safe and secure detention environment for staff and detainees , and represent an important step in detention reform .
They were drafted with the input and perspectives of nongovernmental organizations .
PBNDS 2011 is crafted to improve medical and mental health services , increase access to legal services and religious opportunities , improve communication with detainees with limited English proficiency , improve the process for reporting and responding to complaints , reinforce protections against sexual abuse and assault , and increase recreation and visitation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its detention facilities several years ago , with priority initially given to facilities housing the largest populations of ICE detainees .
For the reader , hit on that link above and look for yourself .
I don ’ t believe there are many , if any , state prisons or jails that come close to these high standards .
I also believe they don ’ t have the same level of medical services , dental services , law libraries , visitation , recreation , etc .
The bottom line is that ICE , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been fully committed to the highest level of quality , providing safe , secure , and humane environments for those in ICE custody and care .
These contract facilities operate in compliance with strict governmental standards , national accreditation and certification standards , medical accreditation agencies , educational agencies and the ICE Detention Standards .
These detention standards are the highest in the entire industry .
The ACLU post drew attention to the fact that in FY2020 ICE had the most deaths in custody of the last 15 years .
What they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still much lower than any other detention system being run by any local , state , or federal entity .
Here are the facts .
People die in custody sometimes and it ’ s always unfortunate , but ICE has one of the lowest deaths rates in custody of any program within the state and federal detention system .
The Department of Justice ’ s Bureau of Justice Statistics ( BJS ) tracks the mortality rate of incarcerated individuals across the nation .
A quick review of those reports will show that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was 256 deaths per 100,000 persons .
The mortality rate in federal prisons during the same period was 225 deaths per 100,000 .
Now , since more than 400,000 people go through the ICE system every year and ICE averages nine total deaths per year , exempting the unusual year of COVID , the mortality rate in ICE custody is 2.25 per 100,000 .
That ’ s extraordinary , considering most of the ICE population are from countries that don ’ t have good medical systems and many ICE detainees have never seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as can be seen in news reports , many people sent to ICE detention are in terrible shape because of the long trek they made to get to the U.S .
The low death rate in ICE detention can only be attributed to an outstanding medical program and the dedicated personnel of private contract companies .
The story also talked about how immigration detention rips tens of thousands of people away from their families and their communities , claiming that a better option is to use Alternatives to Detention ( ATDs ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( FCMP ) used by the Obama Administration .
They state that it is more humane and ensures people show up to court without having to be detained—another false narrative .
The fact is that out of all the arrests ICE makes in the U.S. , almost 90 percent of those arrests are of people here illegally in violation of federal law , and they are also either convicted criminals or pending criminal charges .
These private contract facilities are helping to keep our communities safe and free of public safety threats .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all aliens removed from the U.S. are removed from formal detention .
If they are not detained when ordered by a judge to be deported , the chances are they will never be deported because they flee .
That is why there are over 638,000 immigration fugitives in the U.S .
These are people who received due process at great taxpayer expense and were ordered removed by a federal judge and chose to ignore that court order and run .
That is a clear example why detention is important .
Without it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deterrence to breaking our laws .
These alternatives to detention may improve court appearances , but when it comes to actual removal they are dismal at best .
Why do you think there are between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. ?
These are people who chose to violate our laws and disrespect our country .
Do you think they have enough respect to comply with court orders if they are not detained ?
The numbers say no .
Lastly , the FCMP they speak so highly of was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was there during that program .
They say it is more humane and ensures people go to their immigration court proceedings at a low cost of $ 36 a day , much less than formal detention .
However , what they didn ’ t share with the reader it that the FCMP resulted in very few deportations because it took so long to get through the non-detained court process and because of that , the end costs were much higher than formal detention .
Only 11 aliens total were removed through that program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million per removal .
About 80 % of the cases within FCMP are still pending in the courts after 5-7 years .
The ACLU and other advocates of replacing ICE detention capacity with ATD are either misguided or choose to deliberately advance flawed policy for political or ideological gain .
ATD is not a viable replacement for detention in the same way that detention is not a viable replacement for all ATD .
ICE needs both options in sufficient quantity to be successful .
Equally disturbing is the false narrative that continues to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evaluated FCMP and found the program to be cost-prohibitive and determined that FCMP did not outperform other ATD options .
What fails to be mentioned by those calling for the resurrection of FCMP is that ICE still preserved the services offered by FCMP , incorporating them into the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program ( ISAP ) at one sixth the cost while also expanding the availability of the services from 5 to 54 locations .
FCMP services were not cancelled .
ICE simply renamed the services Extended Case Management Services ( ECMS ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expanded availability nationwide .
As far as other ATD programs , the data shows that there is a 27 percent absconder rate for family units .
A total of 3,125 removals came from the other ATD programs at a cost of $ 190,000 per removal .
Compare either of these ATD programs to a detained cost .
If an alien is detained for the average of 35 days at $ 70 per day the total cost is $ 2,450 per removal .
Detention is much more cost-effective and it allows a judge ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding hundreds of thousands more fugitives to the already overburdened docket .
The average length in detention is around 35 days .
The immigration courts prioritize the detained docket so they move quickly .
The non-detained docket can take as much as 3-7 years depending on the specifics of the case , so those initial daily-cost savings quickly disappear , and it ends up costly much more in the end .
Another downside is that during those many years , the subject can have U.S.-citizen children and build equities in this country ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these same open-border groups ( to include the ACLU ) will scream about removing them from their communities .
Those are the facts .
You can be the judge .
The hateful rhetoric being pushed by the left is just plain wrong .
Facts will beat them every time .
Thomas Homan formerly served as acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) during the Trump administration .
He has devoted nearly 34 years of his life to immigration and law enforcement positions .

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has recently released a blog post that appears to be an attempt to get the new incoming Administration to make radical changes to the immigration system. The title of the post is, “The Questions You Probably Think You Know the Answer to—But Likely Don’t—About ICE Detention.”
When I read the post, my first thought was that it was nothing more than propaganda by an organization that has actively worked against the enforcement of immigration laws across this country. I decided I would directly address the false claims in that story, because they vilify the very people I have spent my 34-year law enforcement career with: the U.S. Border Patrol and ICE. They also attack the private detention companies that ICE has worked with for decades. These private contract partners know the detention business better than anyone, they do it well, and they save the taxpayers millions of dollars every year.
The posting said that ICE detention conditions are often as bad or worse than those you find in prison, including rampant abuse, neglect and degradation of detained people. They also attack the fact that a majority of ICE detainees are housed in private detention facilities contracted by ICE, and these companies are only in it for the money. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are the facts that the writer obviously chose to ignore in writing this fictional story.
ICE contracts most of its detention to outside companies that construct and operate facilities not only for the federal government but also for state and local governments. The left likes to call then “for-profit” prisons as a way to raise controversy. These companies are used widely because they do the job better and cheaper than the local, state or federal government could. Using outside contractors not only saves millions in taxpayer funds, but it increases the quality of care those being detained receive.
The quality of care afforded those in ICE contract detention is better than you would find in any federal or state institution. ICE also contracts some beds from local sheriffs, and when I was the ICE Director I had numerous sheriffs across the country end their contract with ICE or refuse a contract because our detention standards were too high for them to maintain. Numerous sheriffs would tell me that they would not provide such high standards for illegal aliens when they don’t give those same standards to U.S. citizens in their jails.
ICE operates its detention system under a set of National Detention Standards, which were based upon policies and procedures that existed at the issuance of these standards in September 2000. ICE subsequently undertook a revision of these standards to more clearly delineate the intended results of adherence to the requirements. The 2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS), developed in coordination with agency stakeholders, prescribe both the expected outcomes of each detention standard and the expected practices required to achieve them. PBNDS 2008 was also designed to improve safety, security and conditions of confinement for detainees.
In keeping with its commitment to reform the immigration detention system, ICE further revised its detention standards in 2011. The ACLU story conveniently forgot to mention that. The Performance-Based National Detention Standards 2011 (PBNDS 2011) reflect ICE’s ongoing effort to tailor the conditions of immigration detention to its unique purpose while maintaining a safe and secure detention environment for staff and detainees, and represent an important step in detention reform. They were drafted with the input and perspectives of nongovernmental organizations. PBNDS 2011 is crafted to improve medical and mental health services, increase access to legal services and religious opportunities, improve communication with detainees with limited English proficiency, improve the process for reporting and responding to complaints, reinforce protections against sexual abuse and assault, and increase recreation and visitation. ICE began implementing PBNDS 2011 across its detention facilities several years ago, with priority initially given to facilities housing the largest populations of ICE detainees. For the reader, hit on that link above and look for yourself. I don’t believe there are many, if any, state prisons or jails that come close to these high standards. I also believe they don’t have the same level of medical services, dental services, law libraries, visitation, recreation, etc.
The bottom line is that ICE, along with its private detention contractors, has been fully committed to the highest level of quality, providing safe, secure, and humane environments for those in ICE custody and care. These contract facilities operate in compliance with strict governmental standards, national accreditation and certification standards, medical accreditation agencies, educational agencies and the ICE Detention Standards. These detention standards are the highest in the entire industry.
The ACLU post drew attention to the fact that in FY2020 ICE had the most deaths in custody of the last 15 years. What they failed to mention is that those numbers are still much lower than any other detention system being run by any local, state, or federal entity. Here are the facts. People die in custody sometimes and it’s always unfortunate, but ICE has one of the lowest deaths rates in custody of any program within the state and federal detention system. The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) tracks the mortality rate of incarcerated individuals across the nation. A quick review of those reports will show that the average mortality rate in state prisons was 256 deaths per 100,000 persons. The mortality rate in federal prisons during the same period was 225 deaths per 100,000. Now, since more than 400,000 people go through the ICE system every year and ICE averages nine total deaths per year, exempting the unusual year of COVID, the mortality rate in ICE custody is 2.25 per 100,000. That’s extraordinary, considering most of the ICE population are from countries that don’t have good medical systems and many ICE detainees have never seen a doctor in their lives. Also, as can be seen in news reports, many people sent to ICE detention are in terrible shape because of the long trek they made to get to the U.S. The low death rate in ICE detention can only be attributed to an outstanding medical program and the dedicated personnel of private contract companies.
The story also talked about how immigration detention rips tens of thousands of people away from their families and their communities, claiming that a better option is to use Alternatives to Detention (ATDs) such as the Family Case Management Program (FCMP) used by the Obama Administration. They state that it is more humane and ensures people show up to court without having to be detained—another false narrative. The fact is that out of all the arrests ICE makes in the U.S., almost 90 percent of those arrests are of people here illegally in violation of federal law, and they are also either convicted criminals or pending criminal charges. These private contract facilities are helping to keep our communities safe and free of public safety threats.
The fact is that over 90 percent of all aliens removed from the U.S. are removed from formal detention. If they are not detained when ordered by a judge to be deported, the chances are they will never be deported because they flee. That is why there are over 638,000 immigration fugitives in the U.S. These are people who received due process at great taxpayer expense and were ordered removed by a federal judge and chose to ignore that court order and run. That is a clear example why detention is important. Without it, there is no consequence and no deterrence to breaking our laws. These alternatives to detention may improve court appearances, but when it comes to actual removal they are dismal at best. Why do you think there are between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S.? These are people who chose to violate our laws and disrespect our country. Do you think they have enough respect to comply with court orders if they are not detained? The numbers say no.
Lastly, the FCMP they speak so highly of was a massive failure. I know because I was there during that program. They say it is more humane and ensures people go to their immigration court proceedings at a low cost of $36 a day, much less than formal detention. However, what they didn’t share with the reader it that the FCMP resulted in very few deportations because it took so long to get through the non-detained court process and because of that, the end costs were much higher than formal detention. Only 11 aliens total were removed through that program at the approximate cost of $1.16 million per removal. About 80% of the cases within FCMP are still pending in the courts after 5-7 years.
The ACLU and other advocates of replacing ICE detention capacity with ATD are either misguided or choose to deliberately advance flawed policy for political or ideological gain. ATD is not a viable replacement for detention in the same way that detention is not a viable replacement for all ATD. ICE needs both options in sufficient quantity to be successful.
Equally disturbing is the false narrative that continues to be perpetuated regarding the FCMP. ICE evaluated FCMP and found the program to be cost-prohibitive and determined that FCMP did not outperform other ATD options. What fails to be mentioned by those calling for the resurrection of FCMP is that ICE still preserved the services offered by FCMP, incorporating them into the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) at one sixth the cost while also expanding the availability of the services from 5 to 54 locations. FCMP services were not cancelled. ICE simply renamed the services Extended Case Management Services (ECMS), reduced the cost to taxpayers, and expanded availability nationwide.
As far as other ATD programs, the data shows that there is a 27 percent absconder rate for family units. A total of 3,125 removals came from the other ATD programs at a cost of $190,000 per removal. Compare either of these ATD programs to a detained cost. If an alien is detained for the average of 35 days at $70 per day the total cost is $2,450 per removal. Detention is much more cost-effective and it allows a judge’s order to be enforced rather than adding hundreds of thousands more fugitives to the already overburdened docket.
The average length in detention is around 35 days. The immigration courts prioritize the detained docket so they move quickly. The non-detained docket can take as much as 3-7 years depending on the specifics of the case, so those initial daily-cost savings quickly disappear, and it ends up costly much more in the end. Another downside is that during those many years, the subject can have U.S.-citizen children and build equities in this country; when it comes time for removal, these same open-border groups (to include the ACLU) will scream about removing them from their communities.
Those are the facts. You can be the judge. The hateful rhetoric being pushed by the left is just plain wrong. Facts will beat them every time.
Thomas Homan formerly served as acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the Trump administration. He has devoted nearly 34 years of his life to immigration and law enforcement positions.


theamericanconservative--2020-12-21--A Restoration Agenda for Congress

A Restoration Agenda for Congress

B. Carroll Reece delivering a speech at the Republican Convention .
( Photo by Leonard Mccombe/The LIFE Images Collection via Getty Images/Getty Images ) It ’ s become fashionable to praise the idea of agonistic politics , but many of these same people tend to sniff at any actual agonism when it ’ s put forward , especially from the right .
In response to the New York Times ’ Nick Kristof picking up on a story the conservative press has been talking about for the last 18 months or so , that the smut monopoly PornHub is profiting from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes the counterintuitive case that it proves conservatives should be more deferential to the mainstream media .
The “ war and enmity ” posture of postliberals like Sohrab Ahmari might scare a gumshoe like Kristof off the trail .
He writes : I ’ m one of the people he ’ s responding to , so here are two pointed questions : In what sense does Nick Kristof hold a lever of power ?
I don ’ t disagree , but I want Sibarium to show his work .
And second , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover between what he seems to want , which is for us to beg New York Times columnists to keep an open mind about what the religious freaks are saying , and “ all-out war ” ?
Between the two is where you find many of the great moments in liberalism ’ s own history , which as a rule emerged from violent contests : the Magna Carta , the Peace of Westphalia , the American Revolution .
Not all-out war , sure , but limited war , in defense of old rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be continued until an acceptable settlement is made .
Nobody is talking about marching on the New York Times building , but we are talking about the time-honored American tradition , when those in power have declared an appetite for our liberties , to bare one ’ s teeth and warn them , not one step further , or there ’ ll be trouble .
Rebellion in this sense is not unique to the anglophone world , but it is very characteristic of it ; I ’ d wager English-speaking nations have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t get their heads cut off after doing so , though the whole concept depends on the willingness to take that risk .
This is agonistic politics .
To say one needs Nick Kristof to fight the porn wars is to misunderstand what the role of people like Kristof is .
His piece didn ’ t unearth undiscovered facts about PornHub ’ s parent company .
It would be great if the New York Times could devote its considerable resources to figuring out the details of how , after being founded by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ porn industry , vertically integrating every bit as efficiently as Andrew Carnegie , but that ’ s an allocation of resources the New York Times reserves for making stuff up about ISIS or interrogating President Trump ’ s tax returns .
Nick Kristof ’ s purpose is to tell stories that make persuasive moral cases to liberals about things they might otherwise have reservations about , such as the Iraq War , which he boosted , as the president might say , bigly .
But whatever the merits of Nick Kristof ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is not a man in the business of afflicting the comfortable .
That ’ s why Kristof ’ s Wikipedia page quotes Jeffrey Toobin and Bill Clinton praising him as the conscience of the journalism profession .
Sibarium writes , “ maybe Kristof went viral , raised awareness about an important issue , and , though a combination of the free press and the free market , pressured the companies to act.
” Maybe he was honestly trying to sort out who did those anthrax attacks , too .
We may credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ utopia by pointing out that it rests on the systemic exploitation of children .
But Sibarium suggests that one must be a wild-eyed radical prepared to demolish honored American institutions if you think it might be a problem that Bill Clinton ’ s conscience is deciding the weighty moral issues of our day .
I don ’ t think that ’ s true .
I don ’ t think it ’ s true that we really need Kristof , either .
The New York Times doesn ’ t pass laws in this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins elections .
I ’ ll give Sibarium this : there is a certain type of movement conservative who constantly seems to be on an adrenaline IV , the whole # WAR mentality , that appears from time to time among postliberals as well .
There ’ s a time and place for it , but if you act that way all the time , you ’ ll go crazy .
So I ’ ll explain , very calmly , how and why the Republican Party should treat institutionalized liberalism as the enemy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s colleague Michelle Goldberg reaching for the klonopin .
It ’ s also a plan to restore to its rightful preeminence the most important of American institutions , Congress .
Let ’ s set Trump himself , and even his administration to the side for a moment .
The left got overextended this election cycle , and they are now waking up with the worst hangover of their lives .
The revelation in the past four years of just how much of our liberal order rests on raw power has been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans , and they aren ’ t going to forget it .
Over the last four years , top men and women in the intelligence community , with a record of having spied on members of Congress , sought to delegitimize the presidential election , taking up roles as public commentators in a way unprecedented in American life , with the support of a supine media that willingly supported their effort .
The largest charitable foundations in the country have supported groups linked to the burning of American cities , and are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The companies which control the people ’ s access to this information are hostile to conservatives and willing to act to suppress information damaging to their political allies in the Democratic Party , as big tech did with the Hunter Biden story .
The education system is engineered such that young people coming out of it are discouraged from ever noticing any of this .
Sounds like a pretty dire situation !
What , indeed , could possibly be equal to the task ?
It is fairly likely that Republicans will retake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future of the United States depends on what they decide to do with it .
An offensive strategy for conservatives rests on using Congress ’ s investigative powers much more freely , with the creation of two committees , both of which are repeats of past ones : a new Reece Committee , to investigate the power of the big foundations , and a new Church Committee , to investigate the deep state .
Both committees should seek out discrete acts of wrongdoing or betrayal of public interests , though that is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to prosecute a case to the American people that these two agglomerations of power , which more or less represent institutionalized liberalism , do not serve them well .
To my mind this is not a hard case to make , because it ’ s obviously true .
The alliance between the left and big business must be broken .
You can do that with boycotts , forcing companies to face consumer pressure from people who aren ’ t leftists and thereby making them behave better , or you can go directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together , which is foundation money .
The 1950s Reece Committee was led by a Tennessee congressman who had previously served as RNC chairman .
Carroll Reece argued that the foundations had colluded with radicals to impose a socialistic ideology on the United States , an insight so trivially correct that it had to be suppressed .
This wasn ’ t some back-bench rebellion acceded to by the party establishment , back then the party understood the threat the foundations represented .
But it was swept away in the backlash to McCarthyism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use the word “ subversive ” in public .
The disparity in expectations between the left and the Democratic donor class has never been greater than it is right now , so it ’ s a fine time to throw a wrench into things .
A well-timed , aggressive investigation into whether the foundations are truly serving public purposes could blow the whole thing up .
Asking these sorts of questions is precisely what Congress is for , though we have forgotten that in the last hundred years or so .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but its goal is to ask even more fundamental questions about the American regime .
The circumstances of the Cold War arguably made a certain amount of insulation from political control necessary for the intelligence agencies and civil service .
In the absence of that , either the political branches reassert control , or the long-run result is that they will rule the country .
Right now , you could make a good case that they do .
Either members of Congress have enough respect for the body they sit in to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has illegally spied on them , or they make it clear where power actually lies .
There ’ s no middle ground .
Apply Sibarium ’ s argument here and you see the absurdity : “ We understand the CIA is an important liberal institution we ’ ll need to make change , but please , John Brennan , think twice about spying on us next time.
” However tiresome you find the postliberals , the right word for this is cowardice .
In the case of both committees , this plan depends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fake , which is not a given when congressional Republicans would be leading them .
Given the record of the intelligence community ’ s interference with Congress—which also dates back to the McCarthy era—there ’ s every reason to expect this would be among the dirtiest fights in American political history .
You ’ d basically need to get the Republican caucus together in a Faraday cage , read them the Agincourt speech from Henry V , strongly suggest that anyone with potentially blackmailable material in their past resign , and tell everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their lives .
I ’ m only slightly kidding .
A fake investigation designed to placate the base , like many others in the past , is worse than nothing .
The Benghazi inquiry , for instance , was a fake investigation , driven by a desire to wave the bloody shirt while refusing to show the public what the CIA was actually doing there .
The case to make selling this plan to the GOP establishment is a public-spirited one : ultimately having these fights out , publicly , is the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans who think their country has been taken from them that their government is still able to openly debate issues of this kind of gravity .
As conservatives we must deal with the world as it is , not how we wish it were .
There is a huge number of people today with fundamental doubts about the integrity of American government .
Insisting they are wrong , even if they are , is not going to make the problem go away , because it ’ s not the job of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people they ’ re wrong .
There is a very real sense in which Republicans who insist Trump ’ s supporters sit down and shut up , rather than vetting claims in public , are abetting a legitimacy crisis .
There is no getting around the fact that this plan to restore Congress to its rightful place as the preeminent branch will be called McCarthyism ( you see how this works ? )
.
So if it be McCarthyism , make the most of it .
In all likelihood the next Speaker of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last name as the Wisconsin senator , though unlike him , the California congressman has never bared his teeth at anything .
Much depends on whether Kevin McCarthy , who spent his early political career toddling around Silicon Valley with a tin cup hoping the money spigots might turn on for his party , has the honesty to admit that hasn ’ t worked and recognize an enemy when he sees one .
Some good old-fashioned red-baiting is well-suited anyway to an incoming administration led by a man whose son and brother have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communist power .
The Ford Foundation gave $ 80,000 to the party school of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China to help them research the impact of developments in domestic Chinese politics on their relations with the UK and U.S .
If ever there was a proper use of the term “ subversive , ” this is such a case .
Was there anyone in the intelligence agencies or the DOJ who slow-walked or obstructed efforts to get to the bottom of what appears to be a widespread Chinese blackmail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation ?
Do the media conglomerates ’ business relationships with that government color their willingness to cover these issues aggressively ?
I ’ d like to know .
And the American people deserve answers .
The second-order problem is having tools to speak directly to the American people without the intermediation of a hostile media ( please subscribe to TAC ! )
, otherwise the same thing will happen that happened the last time there was a Reece Committee and an investigation of un-American activities like those of the Ford Foundation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s a second-order problem .
The primary problem is getting Republicans to sign on to an effort like this .
If they do it , they will take the largest step ever made to restore constitutional governance in the United States .
If they don ’ t , we can expect things to get worse .

It’s become fashionable to praise the idea of agonistic politics, but many of these same people tend to sniff at any actual agonism when it’s put forward, especially from the right.
In response to the New York Times’ Nick Kristof picking up on a story the conservative press has been talking about for the last 18 months or so, that the smut monopoly PornHub is profiting from rape and child porn, Aaron Sibarium makes the counterintuitive case that it proves conservatives should be more deferential to the mainstream media. The “war and enmity” posture of postliberals like Sohrab Ahmari might scare a gumshoe like Kristof off the trail. He writes:
The problem is that by taking this attitude, conservative postlibs have set themselves against the institutions best situated to move public policy and shape public opinion. Wielding power, which liberalism’s critics claim to want, requires some engagement with the levers of power as they actually exist today, and it’s not clear how all-out war with them achieves that.
I’m one of the people he’s responding to, so here are two pointed questions: In what sense does Nick Kristof hold a lever of power? I don’t disagree, but I want Sibarium to show his work. And second, is there not a lot of ground to cover between what he seems to want, which is for us to beg New York Times columnists to keep an open mind about what the religious freaks are saying, and “all-out war”? Between the two is where you find many of the great moments in liberalism’s own history, which as a rule emerged from violent contests: the Magna Carta, the Peace of Westphalia, the American Revolution. Not all-out war, sure, but limited war, in defense of old rights or to establish new ones, to be continued until an acceptable settlement is made. Nobody is talking about marching on the New York Times building, but we are talking about the time-honored American tradition, when those in power have declared an appetite for our liberties, to bare one’s teeth and warn them, not one step further, or there’ll be trouble. Rebellion in this sense is not unique to the anglophone world, but it is very characteristic of it; I’d wager English-speaking nations have the highest proportion of rebels who didn’t get their heads cut off after doing so, though the whole concept depends on the willingness to take that risk. This is agonistic politics.
To say one needs Nick Kristof to fight the porn wars is to misunderstand what the role of people like Kristof is. His piece didn’t unearth undiscovered facts about PornHub’s parent company. It would be great if the New York Times could devote its considerable resources to figuring out the details of how, after being founded by a German criminal, it took over the porn industry, vertically integrating every bit as efficiently as Andrew Carnegie, but that’s an allocation of resources the New York Times reserves for making stuff up about ISIS or interrogating President Trump’s tax returns.
Nick Kristof’s purpose is to tell stories that make persuasive moral cases to liberals about things they might otherwise have reservations about, such as the Iraq War, which he boosted, as the president might say, bigly. But whatever the merits of Nick Kristof’s case for sweatshops, we should admit this is not a man in the business of afflicting the comfortable. That’s why Kristof’s Wikipedia page quotes Jeffrey Toobin and Bill Clinton praising him as the conscience of the journalism profession. Sibarium writes, “maybe Kristof went viral, raised awareness about an important issue, and, though a combination of the free press and the free market, pressured the companies to act.” Maybe he was honestly trying to sort out who did those anthrax attacks, too.
We may credit Kristof nonetheless for spoiling liberals’ sexual utopia by pointing out that it rests on the systemic exploitation of children. But Sibarium suggests that one must be a wild-eyed radical prepared to demolish honored American institutions if you think it might be a problem that Bill Clinton’s conscience is deciding the weighty moral issues of our day. I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think it’s true that we really need Kristof, either. The New York Times doesn’t pass laws in this country, they just think they declare who wins elections.
I’ll give Sibarium this: there is a certain type of movement conservative who constantly seems to be on an adrenaline IV, the whole #WAR mentality, that appears from time to time among postliberals as well. There’s a time and place for it, but if you act that way all the time, you’ll go crazy. So I’ll explain, very calmly, how and why the Republican Party should treat institutionalized liberalism as the enemy, a plan guaranteed to send Kristof’s colleague Michelle Goldberg reaching for the klonopin. It’s also a plan to restore to its rightful preeminence the most important of American institutions, Congress.
Let’s set Trump himself, and even his administration to the side for a moment. The left got overextended this election cycle, and they are now waking up with the worst hangover of their lives. The revelation in the past four years of just how much of our liberal order rests on raw power has been a wake-up call to tens of millions of Americans, and they aren’t going to forget it.
Over the last four years, top men and women in the intelligence community, with a record of having spied on members of Congress, sought to delegitimize the presidential election, taking up roles as public commentators in a way unprecedented in American life, with the support of a supine media that willingly supported their effort. The largest charitable foundations in the country have supported groups linked to the burning of American cities, and are in league with America’s foreign adversaries. The companies which control the people’s access to this information are hostile to conservatives and willing to act to suppress information damaging to their political allies in the Democratic Party, as big tech did with the Hunter Biden story. The education system is engineered such that young people coming out of it are discouraged from ever noticing any of this.
Sounds like a pretty dire situation! What, indeed, could possibly be equal to the task? It is fairly likely that Republicans will retake the House in 2022, and the future of the United States depends on what they decide to do with it. An offensive strategy for conservatives rests on using Congress’s investigative powers much more freely, with the creation of two committees, both of which are repeats of past ones: a new Reece Committee, to investigate the power of the big foundations, and a new Church Committee, to investigate the deep state.
Both committees should seek out discrete acts of wrongdoing or betrayal of public interests, though that is not their purpose. The purpose of both is to prosecute a case to the American people that these two agglomerations of power, which more or less represent institutionalized liberalism, do not serve them well. To my mind this is not a hard case to make, because it’s obviously true. The alliance between the left and big business must be broken. You can do that with boycotts, forcing companies to face consumer pressure from people who aren’t leftists and thereby making them behave better, or you can go directly after the glue holding the Democratic coalition together, which is foundation money. The 1950s Reece Committee was led by a Tennessee congressman who had previously served as RNC chairman. Carroll Reece argued that the foundations had colluded with radicals to impose a socialistic ideology on the United States, an insight so trivially correct that it had to be suppressed. This wasn’t some back-bench rebellion acceded to by the party establishment, back then the party understood the threat the foundations represented. But it was swept away in the backlash to McCarthyism, and since then very few people venture to use the word “subversive” in public.
The disparity in expectations between the left and the Democratic donor class has never been greater than it is right now, so it’s a fine time to throw a wrench into things. A well-timed, aggressive investigation into whether the foundations are truly serving public purposes could blow the whole thing up. Asking these sorts of questions is precisely what Congress is for, though we have forgotten that in the last hundred years or so.
A new Church Committee is a bigger ask, but its goal is to ask even more fundamental questions about the American regime. The circumstances of the Cold War arguably made a certain amount of insulation from political control necessary for the intelligence agencies and civil service. In the absence of that, either the political branches reassert control, or the long-run result is that they will rule the country. Right now, you could make a good case that they do. Either members of Congress have enough respect for the body they sit in to impose consequences on an intelligence community that has illegally spied on them, or they make it clear where power actually lies. There’s no middle ground. Apply Sibarium’s argument here and you see the absurdity: “We understand the CIA is an important liberal institution we’ll need to make change, but please, John Brennan, think twice about spying on us next time.” However tiresome you find the postliberals, the right word for this is cowardice.
In the case of both committees, this plan depends on the investigations being real and not fake, which is not a given when congressional Republicans would be leading them. Given the record of the intelligence community’s interference with Congress—which also dates back to the McCarthy era—there’s every reason to expect this would be among the dirtiest fights in American political history. You’d basically need to get the Republican caucus together in a Faraday cage, read them the Agincourt speech from Henry V, strongly suggest that anyone with potentially blackmailable material in their past resign, and tell everyone to get ready for the fight of their lives. I’m only slightly kidding.
A fake investigation designed to placate the base, like many others in the past, is worse than nothing. The Benghazi inquiry, for instance, was a fake investigation, driven by a desire to wave the bloody shirt while refusing to show the public what the CIA was actually doing there. The case to make selling this plan to the GOP establishment is a public-spirited one: ultimately having these fights out, publicly, is the only way to convince the tens of millions of Americans who think their country has been taken from them that their government is still able to openly debate issues of this kind of gravity. As conservatives we must deal with the world as it is, not how we wish it were. There is a huge number of people today with fundamental doubts about the integrity of American government. Insisting they are wrong, even if they are, is not going to make the problem go away, because it’s not the job of the people’s representatives to tell the people they’re wrong. There is a very real sense in which Republicans who insist Trump’s supporters sit down and shut up, rather than vetting claims in public, are abetting a legitimacy crisis.
There is no getting around the fact that this plan to restore Congress to its rightful place as the preeminent branch will be called McCarthyism (you see how this works?). So if it be McCarthyism, make the most of it. In all likelihood the next Speaker of the House will even share the same last name as the Wisconsin senator, though unlike him, the California congressman has never bared his teeth at anything. Much depends on whether Kevin McCarthy, who spent his early political career toddling around Silicon Valley with a tin cup hoping the money spigots might turn on for his party, has the honesty to admit that hasn’t worked and recognize an enemy when he sees one.
Some good old-fashioned red-baiting is well-suited anyway to an incoming administration led by a man whose son and brother have been involved in corrupt deals with a communist power. The Ford Foundation gave $80,000 to the party school of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China to help them research the impact of developments in domestic Chinese politics on their relations with the UK and U.S. If ever there was a proper use of the term “subversive,” this is such a case. Was there anyone in the intelligence agencies or the DOJ who slow-walked or obstructed efforts to get to the bottom of what appears to be a widespread Chinese blackmail operation carried out against elected officials across the nation? Do the media conglomerates’ business relationships with that government color their willingness to cover these issues aggressively? I’d like to know. And the American people deserve answers.
The second-order problem is having tools to speak directly to the American people without the intermediation of a hostile media (please subscribe to TAC!), otherwise the same thing will happen that happened the last time there was a Reece Committee and an investigation of un-American activities like those of the Ford Foundation. But it’s important to remember that’s a second-order problem. The primary problem is getting Republicans to sign on to an effort like this. If they do it, they will take the largest step ever made to restore constitutional governance in the United States. If they don’t, we can expect things to get worse.


theamericanconservative--2020-12-21--The Biden Administration Faces a Legitimacy Crisis

On December 14th , the Electoral College of the United States convened and voted to confirm Joe Biden as president-elect of the United States , achieving a major milestone on the path to the Oval Office .
Around the same time , at least two national polls ( CBS and FOX ) came out indicating that the substantial majority of Republicans , and somewhere between 35 % and 40 % of all voters , believe that the election was stolen and should be contested .
This represents over 60 million Americans .
Half of Trump voters , and a quarter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should not concede .
These statistics , and the convictions they represent , should be of serious concern to all Americans , whether Republican or Democrat , Trumpist , Never-Trumper , or the Moderate Middle .
Roughly three-quarters of Trump voters ( and 25 % of independent voters ) believe that the election was systematically and criminally flawed– “ stolen ” as it was described in one of the polls .
Cutting through all of it , the allegations take two forms : 1 ) traditional political-machine vote-rigging in large cities in battleground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve had in this country , and 2 ) software- and/or hardware- enabled through the voting machines , a relative novelty for America , but experienced elsewhere around the world in this decade .
This group comes to this startling conclusion from the sum total of what appears to them to be overwhelming evidence .
This evidence includes : hundreds of signed affidavits by Democrats , Republicans and Independents alike attesting ( under oath and penalty of perjury ) to witnessing various frauds ; statistical analysis of the voting pattern data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; unconstitutional last-minute changing of the rules of the game by certain states ( the basis for the Texas plus 18 supporting states suit which SCOTUS ultimately declined to hear , arguing that Texas lacked standing ) ; and potentially damning video evidence such as what was recorded on CCTV after hours in Atlanta and Detroit .
None of this is particularly evident to the casual observer .
The large social media platforms and mainstream media are refusing to cover any of it , other than in the most arrogant , mocking and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substance of the arguments and instead writing about typos in lawsuits and sweaty hair dye .
This is consistent with the strategy employed by these same media outlets in refusing to report on the criminal investigations into the Biden family ’ s alleged corruption with foreign powers … at least until after the elections .
This “ denial of service attack ” happened even though FBI investigations into Hunter Biden were going on for nearly two years .
There was a major break in the Biden family story in October from the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oldest daily with one of its largest circulations .
This bombshell was immediately blocked by Twitter and similarly buried elsewhere ( imagine if the equivalent had anachronistically happened to the Washington Post during Watergate ) .
The media ’ s rationale ?
The Russians did it .
Obviously .
That storyline was getting a bit old , and so the investigations are now being reported as accurate by these same media platforms .
Conveniently , this volte-face only occurred several weeks after the elections , with most Americans unaware of the investigations when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy , by the way , if the First Amendment is only selectively applied by those powerful interests with an oligopoly on our news , which hold the power to censor dissenting views ?
There is not even room for debate on these questions , as individuals and venerable institutions alike are booted from Twitter and Facebook for even daring to ask , “ What exactly happened ?
” Democrats should be equally interested in understanding what happened , if for no other reason than to de-bunk any falsehoods or unfounded conspiracies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimacy that is clearly missing now .
Election integrity is not a partisan matter .
All Americans should want to know if there were systemic flaws in the elections , whether intentional or accidental , and take steps to improve the process before the 2022 election cycle .
This clarification could be aided by congressional hearings on the 2020 election process .
This is happening to a limited degree at the state level in key battleground states , and the US Senate is holding hearings beginning this week .
As Americans invested in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all have a shared interest in shining the full light of day on what happened .
If there is nothing to hide , these Senators should be more than happy to confirm it , and to challenge those witnesses who say otherwise .
Mr. Biden has said , “ it ’ s time to turn the page ” and move on .
This would be unwise even if it were possible .
If these questions remain unanswered , and upwards of 40 % of Americans believe that there was systemic fraud in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lack of legitimacy from day one .
This will seriously undermine any efforts , no matter how vigorous and sincere , to “ build back better.
” The suggestion has been made that Americans will look past this contentious period and come together , much as we did following Bush v. Gore in 2000 .
I am much less confident that people will just “ move on ” this time around .
Unless there is a willingness on the part of the legislature to have transparent hearings on the matter , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis on our hands .
Lincoln ’ s famous recitation of the gospel quote , “ A house divided against itself can not stand , ” remains just as applicable…and as urgent…for America today as it was on the eve of the Civil War .
Michael Wilkerson , author of Stormwall : Observations on America in Peril , is Chief Executive Officer of Fairfax Africa , a publicly-listed company with a mandate to invest in high-quality African businesses .

On December 14th, the Electoral College of the United States convened and voted to confirm Joe Biden as president-elect of the United States, achieving a major milestone on the path to the Oval Office.
Around the same time, at least two national polls (CBS and FOX) came out indicating that the substantial majority of Republicans, and somewhere between 35% and 40% of all voters, believe that the election was stolen and should be contested. This represents over 60 million Americans. Half of Trump voters, and a quarter of all voters, believe that Trump should not concede. These statistics, and the convictions they represent, should be of serious concern to all Americans, whether Republican or Democrat, Trumpist, Never-Trumper, or the Moderate Middle.
Roughly three-quarters of Trump voters (and 25% of independent voters) believe that the election was systematically and criminally flawed–“stolen” as it was described in one of the polls. Cutting through all of it, the allegations take two forms: 1) traditional political-machine vote-rigging in large cities in battleground states, a long history of which we’ve had in this country, and 2) software- and/or hardware- enabled through the voting machines, a relative novelty for America, but experienced elsewhere around the world in this decade. This group comes to this startling conclusion from the sum total of what appears to them to be overwhelming evidence.
This evidence includes: hundreds of signed affidavits by Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike attesting (under oath and penalty of perjury) to witnessing various frauds; statistical analysis of the voting pattern data in the wee hours showing impossible probabilities; unconstitutional last-minute changing of the rules of the game by certain states (the basis for the Texas plus 18 supporting states suit which SCOTUS ultimately declined to hear, arguing that Texas lacked standing); and potentially damning video evidence such as what was recorded on CCTV after hours in Atlanta and Detroit.
None of this is particularly evident to the casual observer. The large social media platforms and mainstream media are refusing to cover any of it, other than in the most arrogant, mocking and belittling of terms, carefully avoiding the substance of the arguments and instead writing about typos in lawsuits and sweaty hair dye. This is consistent with the strategy employed by these same media outlets in refusing to report on the criminal investigations into the Biden family’s alleged corruption with foreign powers … at least until after the elections.
This “denial of service attack” happened even though FBI investigations into Hunter Biden were going on for nearly two years. There was a major break in the Biden family story in October from the New York Post, our nation’s oldest daily with one of its largest circulations. This bombshell was immediately blocked by Twitter and similarly buried elsewhere (imagine if the equivalent had anachronistically happened to the Washington Post during Watergate). The media’s rationale? The Russians did it. Obviously. That storyline was getting a bit old, and so the investigations are now being reported as accurate by these same media platforms. Conveniently, this volte-face only occurred several weeks after the elections, with most Americans unaware of the investigations when casting their ballots.
How is this democracy, by the way, if the First Amendment is only selectively applied by those powerful interests with an oligopoly on our news, which hold the power to censor dissenting views? There is not even room for debate on these questions, as individuals and venerable institutions alike are booted from Twitter and Facebook for even daring to ask, “What exactly happened?”
Democrats should be equally interested in understanding what happened, if for no other reason than to de-bunk any falsehoods or unfounded conspiracies, and to regain some confidence and a legitimacy that is clearly missing now. Election integrity is not a partisan matter. All Americans should want to know if there were systemic flaws in the elections, whether intentional or accidental, and take steps to improve the process before the 2022 election cycle.
This clarification could be aided by congressional hearings on the 2020 election process. This is happening to a limited degree at the state level in key battleground states, and the US Senate is holding hearings beginning this week. As Americans invested in the future of our democracy, we all have a shared interest in shining the full light of day on what happened. If there is nothing to hide, these Senators should be more than happy to confirm it, and to challenge those witnesses who say otherwise.
Mr. Biden has said, “it’s time to turn the page” and move on. This would be unwise even if it were possible. If these questions remain unanswered, and upwards of 40% of Americans believe that there was systemic fraud in the election process, the new Administration risks a lack of legitimacy from day one. This will seriously undermine any efforts, no matter how vigorous and sincere, to “build back better.”
The suggestion has been made that Americans will look past this contentious period and come together, much as we did following Bush v. Gore in 2000. I am much less confident that people will just “move on” this time around. Unless there is a willingness on the part of the legislature to have transparent hearings on the matter, I think we may yet have a real crisis on our hands. Lincoln’s famous recitation of the gospel quote, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” remains just as applicable…and as urgent…for America today as it was on the eve of the Civil War.
Michael Wilkerson, author of Stormwall: Observations on America in Peril, is Chief Executive Officer of Fairfax Africa, a publicly-listed company with a mandate to invest in high-quality African businesses.