Tuesday, June 15, 2021

Biden makes several gaffes at G7, at one point world leaders openly laugh at his forgetfulness

BY PAUL SACCA | BLAZE MEDIA

Photo By Phil Noble - WPA Pool/Getty Images

When on the world stage with his peers at the G7 summit this weekend, President Joe Biden had several mental lapses and gaffes. At one point, fellow world leaders openly laughed at Biden over his forgetfulness at the G7 conference in Cornwall, England.

During a press conference on Sunday, Biden stumbled while speaking about Russia ahead of his June 16 meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Geneva, Switzerland.

"We can work together with Russia – for example, in Libya. We should be opening up the passage to be able to go through, provide food assistance, and economic... I mean, vital assistance to a population that's in real trouble," Biden said, confusing Libya with Syria. Biden confused Libya for Syria on two more occasions in his meandering diatribe.

Previously, first lady Jill Biden proclaimed that her husband was "so well prepared" for the conference.

"He's been studying for weeks working up for today," she said. "He knows most of the leaders that will be here. Joe loves foreign policy. This is his forte."

Time magazine was ridiculed last week for an extremely flattering cover featuring an illustration of Biden appearing years younger and a headline that read, "Taking on Putin."

Biden already said he won't hold a joint press conference with Putin because he doesn't want to get "diverted" by who "talked the most."

Also during the presser, Biden said, "I'm sorry, I'm going to get in trouble with staff if I don't do this the right way," before selecting Bloomberg to ask him a question. At a prior press conference at the White House, Biden was using a "cheat sheet" to determine which reporters to call on.

When asked a question by the press, Biden responded in a strange whispering voice, "120 days, gimme a break. I need time."

Biden delivered a befuddling comment during the presser, saying, "COVID, I know you all know, but a lot of people may not know what COVID is, that is a system whereby they're going to provide funding for states to get access to vaccines."

The White House issued a correction for the president, saying that when he said "COVID," he meant to say "COVAX." Biden reportedly made this same error on three different occasions during the press conference. COVAX is a worldwide initiative aimed at equitable access to coronavirus vaccines.

During the summit, there was a conference between the G7 leaders of the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Canada, and Japan, along with other leaders from India, South Korea, and South Africa.

U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson introduced the leaders, who were not G7 members, "Welcome, those who have just joined us, we have some pretty spectacular weather. We have Prime Minister Modi [India], President Ramaphosa [South Africa], President Moon [South Korea] in just a minute."

A confused Biden interrupted Johnson to inform him that he didn't introduce Ramaphosa, despite Johnson introducing the president of South Africa literally seconds earlier.

"And the president of South Africa," Biden said, who was sitting next to Johnson.

Johnson replied, "And the president of South Africa as I said early on."

The world leaders laughed at Biden's forgetfulness at the G7 roundtable. Then the press was rushed out of the room.

There was another awkward moment during the G7 conference when Biden was walking through a section and was asked a random and easy question, "How are your meetings going in Cornwall, Mr. President?"

Jill Biden quickly interrupted the impromptu question, and frantically said, "Joe, c'mon," as she waved her hands for him to come with her, which elicited laughter from the people nearby. She then grabbed his hand and lead him away.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/biden-gaffes-g7-summit-video

Monday, June 14, 2021

The Soul of Black Conservatism

By Jason Riley | The Wall Street Journal

ILLUSTRATION: BARBARA KELLEY

Thomas Sowell has spent a lifetime challenging the orthodoxy on race, economics and more—and produced an impressive body of scholarship along the way.

Economist Thomas Sowell has grown accustomed to a certain type of media query, usually from white interviewers. They want to know how, as a black conservative, he has dealt with criticism from fellow blacks. Charlie Rose once asked: “How was it, though, for you . . . to be an African-American man respected by a cross-section of your peers and yet be so against the grain of fellow African-Americans?”

Mr. Sowell, 90, usually responds by challenging the premise. “I don’t know if we can say [that I go] ‘against the grain of fellow African-Americans,’ ” he told Mr. Rose. “You mean fellow African-American intellectuals. But I don’t think African-American intellectuals are any more typical of African-Americans than white intellectuals are of whites.”

In another interview, Mr. Sowell told C-Span’s Brian Lamb that black strangers regularly stop him in public and compliment his views: “When I checked out of my hotel this morning, the black security guard came over and said, ‘Are you Sowell?’ And I said, ‘Yes,’ and he shook my hand warmly and we walked—he walked me the length of the corridor and talked about this and about that. . . . So, it’s not Sowell versus blacks. It’s the black intellectuals.”

There is a long history of conflating the interests of black Americans with those of black organizations, black journalists, black academics and other elites. The media lazily continues to turn to these groups, from the NAACP to Black Lives Matter, as if they speak for all black people.

In December 1980, Mr. Sowell headlined the “Black Alternatives” conference in San Francisco. Its goal was to showcase the variety of perspectives among black politicians, intellectuals and civil-rights activists. “The people who were invited,” he began his keynote address, “are people who are seeking alternatives, people who have challenged the conventional wisdom on one or more issues, people who have thought for themselves instead of marching in step and chanting familiar refrains. . . . We have come through a historic phase of struggle for basic civil rights—a very necessary struggle, but not sufficient. The very success of that struggle has created new priorities and new urgencies. There are economic realities to confront and self-development to achieve, in the schools, at work, in our communities.”

Liberal elites expected whites to solve the problems of blacks. They still do. Newer movements like Black Lives Matter, and younger public intellectuals such as Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram X. Kendi, are far more interested in white behavior than in black behavior. In his speech, Mr. Sowell took a different approach. “The sins of others are always fascinating to human beings, but they are not always the best way to self-development or self-advancement,” he said. “The moral regeneration of white people might be an interesting project, but I am not sure we have quite that much time to spare. Those who have fought on this front are very much like the generals who like to refight the last war instead of preparing for the next struggle.”

The 1980 conference received extensive press coverage, and there was talk of a sequel and of creating an organization that challenged the civil-rights old guard. The plans faltered amid internal disagreements, and Mr. Sowell realized such an entity would take too much time away from his research and writing. We will never know how such an organization might have fared, but it’s probably not a coincidence that the conference took place when it did. Beginning in the late 1970s, a dozen or so serious black thinkers gained attention for challenging various aspects of the civil-rights orthodoxy that had solidified in the 1960s. On a few issues at least, Mr. Sowell seemed at the time to be gaining some black intellectual allies.

They included Randall Kennedy, William Julius Wilson, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Glenn Loury, Walter Williams, Stephen Carter, Orlando Patterson, Stanley Crouch, Anne Wortham and Robert Woodson. The media would refer to them as “black conservatives” or “black neoconservatives,” although the labels didn’t fit some of them. Mr. Kennedy, a law professor, was open-minded on some racial issues but firmly entrenched on the political left. Mr. Wilson, a sociologist, was a European-style social democrat. The writings of Ms. Wortham and Williams, respectively a sociologist and an economist, had a strong libertarian bent. The “conservative” labels were a kind of shorthand to describe any black intellectual who took a position on a racial or cultural topic contrary to the received wisdom among black elites.

Black elites on the left have only tightened their grip on the prevailing racial narrative. That had less to do with the efficacy of their policies than with their ability to convince the media that other black perspectives were illegitimate, if not harmful. Typical of the dominant view is legal scholar KimberlĂ© Williams Crenshaw’s assertion that “the Black community must develop and maintain a distinct political consciousness” because “the most valuable political asset of the Black community has been its ability to assert a collective identity and to name its collective political reality.”

Mr. Sowell fleshed out his philosophical conservatism in books such as “Knowledge and Decisions” (1980) and “A Conflict of Visions” (1987). His approach is rooted in the classical liberal tradition, and it’s nuanced: “It is hard to think of anyone who is, or has been, a black conservative, in the full sense of the word ‘conservative,’ ” he wrote in a 2001 article. “Most of those who are called black conservatives are certainly not interested in preserving the status quo. That status quo includes welfare, failing schools, quotas, and separatism that most black conservatives deplore and attack. Still less are they seeking to return to a status quo ante, such as the Jim Crow era.”

Black conservatism is often equated with an emphasis on self-help in the mold of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington. Mr. Sowell has shown in his writings that groups that confront and address internal problems are best able to rise socially and economically. “If the history of American ethnic groups shows anything, it is how large a role has been played by attitudes of self-reliance,” he wrote in “Race and Economics” (1975). “The success of the antebellum ‘free persons of color’ compared to the later black immigrants to the North, the advancement of the Italian-Americans beyond the Irish-Americans who had many other advantages, the resilience of the Japanese-Americans despite numerous campaigns of persecution, all emphasize the importance of this factor, however mundane and unfashionable it may be.”

For Mr. Sowell, however, initiative alone is insufficient. “It would be premature at best and presumptuous at worst to attempt to draw sweeping or definitive conclusions from my personal experiences,” he wrote in “Black Education: Myths and Tragedies” (1972). “It would be especially unwarranted to draw Horatio Alger conclusions, that perseverance and/or ability ‘win out’ despite obstacles. The fact is, I was losing in every way until my life was changed by the Korean War, the draft, and the GI Bill—none of which I can take credit for. I have no false modesty about having seized the opportunity and world to make it pay off, but there is no way to avoid the fact that there first had to be an opportunity to seize.” Government has a role to play in social mobility, albeit a limited one, and incentives matter. Handouts that ask little or nothing of the recipient, and thus risk creating dependency, were the kind that worried Mr. Sowell.

Nevertheless, it is a pragmatic individualism, along with self-help, that defines Sowellian black conservatism. Ms. Crenshaw’s “collective identity” mindset is anathema to Mr. Sowell, who sees little evidence that embracing a racial or ethnic identity and flaunting it helps underperforming groups excel. More fundamentally, Mr. Sowell argued in “Race and Culture: A World View” (1994) that “the history of ideas—both social and scientific—shows again and again that even the most brilliant thinkers typically grasp only part of the truth, and a fuller understanding comes only after a clash of ideas with others, even when those others are fundamentally mistaken on the whole. Those who insist on a monolithic group ideology are gambling the group’s future on being able to achieve such an understanding without this process.”

One of the first places Anne Wortham published her work was the Freeman, a now-defunct libertarian magazine. After reading one of her submissions in the mid-1960s, an editor told her that it reminded him of the writings of black journalist George Schuyler (1895-1977). Schuyler was a political conservative and fierce anticommunist who also wrote satirical novels and cultural criticism and published regularly in H.L. Mencken’s American Mercury magazine.

In his history of black conservatism, Christopher Alan Bracey wrote that Schuyler’s “lifework proves useful in understanding the trajectory of black conservatism in the modern era.” Schuyler “lived and died believing that blackness and conservatism were not antithetical, yet he ultimately failed to persuade the masses of black people as to the ‘correctness’ of his position.” Nevertheless, his work “ensured that the legacy of black conservative thought would remain available for resuscitation within black political discourse.”

In my discussions about Mr. Sowell’s legacy with Ms. Wortham, Walter Williams, Gerald Early and others, Schuyler’s name arose more often than either Frederick Douglass’s or Booker T. Washington’s. Schuyler also came up in my conversations with Mr. Sowell. This was not necessarily because he agreed with the positions Schuyler took on this or that issue. Rather, it reflected an appreciation of the example the journalist set in fearlessly challenging, on principle, orthodox thinking on racial matters.

In a review of a collection of Schuyler’s writings, Mr. Sowell called him perhaps “the first black conservative” and “one of the best” besides. “Booker T. Washington may come to mind as a predecessor, but . . . [Washington] was primarily an educator, rather than someone who made his living from his writings, as Schuyler did. Moreover, the circumspection that marked Booker T. Washington’s words, during a particularly bitter and dangerous time for black Americans, was nowhere to be seen in Schuyler’s later witty, cutting and brutally honest writings that took no prisoners,” Mr. Sowell wrote. “His insights were always enlightening, even if his conclusions were not always easy to agree with.”

Mr. Sowell could be describing himself, but even Schuyler was no Thomas Sowell. Schuyler was one of the most prominent black journalists of his day, but by the time he died his star had faded, and today his work is largely forgotten. Even in his prime, which lasted from the 1920s through the 1960s, Schuyler was known almost exclusively for his writings on racial issues. Mr. Sowell, by contrast, has a distinguished body of work in social theory and economic history that is separate from his scholarship on race, culture and inequality. The sheer volume of Mr. Sowell’s writings is surpassed by few contemporaries, black or nonblack. The breadth and depth of his erudition makes the label “black conservative,” however the term is defined, too limiting. His scholarship will be studied and grappled with long after he’s gone.

When I asked Mr. Early, a professor of African American studies at Washington University in St. Louis, why Mr. Sowell hadn’t received the same recognition as less-accomplished scholars, he said it was “because the liberal left dominate intellectual circles. They dominate intellectual circles at universities. They dominate intellectual circles at foundations. They dominate intellectual circles insofar as intellectual prizes and awards are given.” Mr. Sowell hasn’t sought the approval of these circles, and he has paid the price. Still, Mr. Early believes that Mr. Sowell will get his due sooner or later.

For his part, Mr. Sowell doesn’t seem worried about his intellectual legacy. When I asked him where he’d made his mark, he said he’ll leave it to others to determine. “One of the things I admire about John Stuart Mill—despite some things I don’t admire—is that he never tried to toot his horn about contributions that he’d made to economics,” he said. “And he made some. There were things that hadn’t been said by his predecessors. But when he wrote his ‘Principles of Political Economy,’ he just blends it all together. His point is to get across a certain unified body of knowledge and analysis to the reader without bothering to say how much of it came from him, how much from [David] Ricardo, how much from [Adam] Smith and so forth.”

Mr. Sowell sees his own work as part of a continuum. In a 2006 letter to Walter Williams, who died in December at 84, he wrote: “Back in earlier years, you and I were both pretty pessimistic as to whether what we were writing would make any impact—especially since the two of us seemed to be the only ones saying what we were saying. Today at least we know that there are lots of other blacks writing and saying similar things—more than I can keep track of, in fact—and many of them are sufficiently younger that we know there will be good people carrying on the fight after we are gone.”

Mr. Riley is a Journal columnist, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and author of “Maverick: A Biography of Thomas Sowell,” from which this article is adapted.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-soul-of-black-conservatism-11622226565?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Sunday, June 13, 2021

Yale Is Dead—and That’s a Good Thing

By Roger L. Simon

Students walk through the campus of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., on Sept. 27, 2018. (Yana Paskova/Getty Images)

I, frankly, had enough at the top. I was more concerned with what had happened to Yale, an institution I attended in the sixties as a playwriting student in the drama school.

In those days we had the likes of Marc Chagall as speaker (exceptional, I admit) who spoke of the necessity of love in the creation of his art. Now the “learning objective” on the poster advertising Dr. Khilanani’s talk is to “understand how white people are psychologically dependent on black rage.”

On that same announcement it reads: “It is the policy of Yale School of Medicine, Continuing Medical Education, to ensure balance, independence, objectivity and scientific rigor in all its educational programs.”

Like “five holes in the brain”?

What a farce Yale has become.

And of course it’s not alone. The entire Ivy League is sinking under a lava flow of endless, mind-rotting woke drivel.

Just the other day the Princeton classics department announced it would no longer require Latin and Greek for classics majors. What are they supposed to study then? Classic comics? I remember reading one of the Iliad when I was kid. It must still be around.

What motivates this and similar decisions (they’re being made across the country) is racism pure and simple, the assumption being—though they would of course vigorously deny it—that minorities don’t have the intelligence or the rigor to learn anything difficult. How insulting and how despicable.

The Ivies are obviously not alone in the onslaught of woke that has destroyed American higher education with only a very few exceptions. It’s everywhere, in part because Ivy graduates—starting in traditional “woke” areas (humanities, social studies) that have metastasized to virtually everything now, including the sciences—go out to spread these noxious doctrines as if it were the Gospel in supposedly lesser colleges and universities.

It was the Ivies, as much or more than any other institutions, that during the eighties and nineties nurtured Marxist critical theory (deconstruction and the like) and its spawn critical race theory that is currently driving apart the citizens of this country, accusing practically everyone of being a racist, especially those who aren’t.

So, at least to this Yale MFA, Yale is dead. And that’s a good thing. And a liberating thing.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/yale-is-dead-and-thats-a-good-thing_3847587.html

Saturday, June 12, 2021

Biden throws his clueless vice president under the bus

By Kyle Smith | New York Post 

Vice President Kamala Harris telling Guatemalan migrants “Do not come, do not come” to the US on June 7, 2021.REUTERS

Kamala Harris is playing a historic role in 2021: the nation’s first black, Asian, female vice president to serve as a sacrificial lamb.

Like many other women before her, Harris has been tasked with coming in late to clean up a mess made by her boss. Joe Biden probably wouldn’t do too well in a “Jeopardy!” contest, or even on a circle-a-word puzzle, but he’s smart enough to know that when you’ve got a problem you can’t solve, you should grandly announce a plan to deal with it by … fobbing it off on someone else.

Alas, unlike Barack Obama’s plan to cure cancer by announcing that Joe Biden would cure cancer (yes, that really happened), Biden’s buck-passing set up Harris for a spectacularly visible failure.

When friendly questioner Lester Holt pointed out to Harris that she hadn’t visited the border once, she pulled her trademark move (whenever she gets busted) of breaking into that famously weird dismissive laugh and replied, “And I haven’t been to Europe,” as though an equivalent problem is coming out of Europe. Hordes of damp Irishmen desperately washing up on the shores of Maine, perhaps.

The Biden administration created the border crisis with a “Yay, illegal immigrants” rhetorical style that was received in Latin America like an embossed invitation: “President Joe cordially invites you to El Norte.

During the presidential campaign, Biden generously offered to suspend deportations and end family separations. In 2019, both Biden and Harris vowed to give health care to illegal immigrants, and two years before that, she insisted that “an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.”

Biden was so intent on reversing everything President Donald Trump did that he moronically reversed one of Trump’s biggest successes: the “Remain in Mexico” program that required asylum-seekers to stay south of the border while their claims were being heard. Unsurprisingly, there was a record-setting run on the border, and suddenly there was a serious human cost to all of the knee-jerk anti-Trumpism.

Enlarge ImageWhen Biden announced he was appointing the veep as his immigration czar, he was effectively passing her a grenade whose pin he had already pulled. When Harris went to Guatemala, that country’s president flat-out blamed Biden’s policies for the surge north. He said the United States’ “message changed to, ‘We are going to reunite families and we are going to reunite children’ … The very next day the coyotes here were organizing groups of children to take them to the United States.”

Trying to project authority and get a handle on the crisis, Harris was as convincing as Kevin Bacon at the end of “Animal House,” screaming, “Remain calm! All is well!” as the crowd stampedes over him.

“Do not come,” Harris said in Guatemala, addressing potential illegal immigrants thinking about entering the US. “We will discourage illegal migration. The United States will continue to enforce our laws and secure our border. … If you come to our border, you will be turned back.”

That’s not what Central Americans are hearing from their friends who are now comfortably ensconced in the US. Nearly half of those who show up at the border seeking asylum are being welcomed into the States, given orders to appear in court, and then set free. Biden and Harris haven’t just placed a Welcome mat on the border, they’ve announced to the world that we’re suckers.

Harris can’t clean up the mess at the border unless her boss decides to clean up his policy mess — by reinstating some of Trump’s ideas. That’ll probably never happen, but in the meantime, Biden can deflect all questions to his clueless vice president.

https://nypost.com/2021/06/08/biden-throws-his-clueless-vice-president-under-the-bus/

Friday, June 11, 2021

Biden's border politics threaten U.S. security

By William Haupt III | The Center Square contributor 

Migrants walk on a dirt road after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, Tuesday, March 23, 2021, in Mission, Texas. A surge of migrants on the Southwest border has the Biden administration on the defensive. The head of Homeland Security acknowledged the severity of the problem but insisted it's under control and said he won't revive a Trump-era practice of immediately expelling teens and children. - Julio Cortez / AP Photo

"It's not rocket science. It's not super high technology to construct border barriers."

– Kris Kobach

The 9/11 attacks happened two decades ago, but many are still suffering from the aftermath. On that fateful day, 2,997 people died as a result of the pillaging of the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon and fatalities from the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Thousands were injured, and many more have become ill and eventually died from their heroic recovery efforts at Ground Zero.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 taught us that every nation has a duty to secure its borders and protect its people against threats. It exemplified the necessity for strong, secure, immigration entry policies. Once we identified what had led to the tragedy that bloodied our soil and broke the hearts of many Americans, we set out to avenge this attack – and reassured Americans it would not happen again.

The 9/11 attacks dramatized the strategy of Islamic Jihadism that employs violent media events to promote its agenda. The economic and psychological effect this has had on America is profound. Strict border security procedures went into effect immediately. National Guard units were assigned to protect airports. Fears of chemical warfare caused authorities to ground crop-dusting planes. The powers of law-enforcement agencies were expanded by the U.S. Patriot Act in October 2001.

In November 2002, Congress set up an independent commission to investigate why 9/11 suicide bombings happened and how to prevent future attacks. They established a new security officer, and recommended overhauling our intelligence system and a review of all border security policies.

“Our border policies must strengthen our security and prevent future attacks.”

– George W. Bush

George Bush’s new security measures prevented a terrorist plot involving the use of airplanes to kill a large number of Americans in 2006. They were backed by Al Qaeda. They were caught trying to smuggle liquid explosives aboard airplanes bound from Heathrow Airport in London to the U.S.

Strict border and immigration policies after 9/11 prevented any further terrorist attacks on America.

Barack Obama continued to successfully enforce the immigration and border policies established by George Bush. During Obama’s reign, Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. forces in Pakistan.

“The solemn responsibility for a President is keeping the American people safe.”

– Barack Obama

President Donald Trump was elected on a promise to increase border security and control illegal immigration. He canceled the failed “detain and release” Obama policy and deported everyone caught entering the U.S. illegally. Trump’s biggest hurdle in protecting our border was the TVPRA, a special agreement with Central America to protect children who were victims of sex trafficking.

These victims would be allowed to remain here and their parents could follow them.

By 2018, numbers at the border exploded beyond our capacity to control them. Trump asked DHS to examine how illegal immigrants had exploited the TVPRA and to insure it was being enforced legally and doing what it was meant to do. And by January 2020, he reduced illegal immigration by 75%.

In a report filed by an independent Commission on Immigration Reform, it was predicted if we did not reform our immigration laws legally, even with Trump’s strict adherence to the TVPRA laws, our immigration system would shortly implode. They recommended faster processing to increase illegal deportation and reform of TVPRA laws to insure only “true victims of sex trafficking were admitted.”

Yet the 2020 elections proved that, indeed, “elections have consequences.” As we were fighting a global pandemic that had ravaged our health care system, wrecked our economy and closed our schools, we decided to open our borders. Biden is allowing thousands of illegal immigrants to cross the U.S. border, granting them amnesty with no regard for national security, which is paid for by taxpayers.

Biden proposed a bill that grants amnesty to nearly 11 million illegal immigrants. While we welcome those who come here legally and bring value to America, this rewards those who break the law. Keeping America safe should be his highest priority. By removing border safeguards against illegal entry and visa overstays, he is betraying his oath of office to protect us.

“When people come here and work and send money back to their country, what does that do for America?”

– Gabriel Montalvo

Joe Biden has promised to tear down existing miles of barriers that we know work. They make us safer. Trump’s wall not only significantly curved illegal drug smuggling, it also reduced the need for additional manpower as apprehensions decreased by nearly 70%. Additionally, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol experienced a significant reduction in human smuggling where the wall was erected.

President Biden’s actions not only show us how far left his liberal wish list is, but how unfocused he is on our nation’s security. He is risking the lives of border agents and has created the worst border crisis in our history. He has slapped the American people in the face in favor of progressive politics.

“I will provide better and safer entry opportunities for all who want to come to America.”

– Joe Biden

U.S. Border Protection officials claim that Biden’s policies are forcing us to house children without parents from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico in crowded border facilities. The San Diego Convention Center has hired bi-lingual tutors and provides them three free meals each day.

After 9/11, anyone boarding a commercial air flight was forced to show a valid picture ID to protect national security. But recently a group of American pilots revealed that they have been forced to board many of these migrant kids for relocation without ID or security checks; no questions asked?

They complain that many are unruly teenagers that speak no English and fear transporting them.

In an interview this month with ABC, Biden said it was nonsense that more migrants were coming because of his policies. Yet border officials claim this increase is a direct result of Biden’s politics.

Under Title 42, Trump’s protection order, they were refused entry to limit the spread of COVID-19.

Lawmakers have asked Dr. Anthony Fauci to help stop “a dangerous new foreign pipeline for COVID-19” crossing our border. There is no COVID testing of immigrant children, yet Mexico has the highest per capita COVID fatality rate in Latin America. Over a third of those that are tested have COVID-19.

Seneca wrote, “It is unwise to keep bad promises.” Joe Biden promised open borders and in a few months he has eradicated everything we did to protect our borders after 9/11. His far leftist politics has not only destroyed America’s free market and economic greatness; he has turned America into a venerable weak global sister to empower our enemies.

“I don't want to impugn the motives of my colleagues but my attitude is, you either believe in border security or you don't.”

– John Kennedy

https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/op-ed-bidens-border-politics-threaten-u-s-security/article_72bd4af8-c7aa-11eb-9d6c-d718406361bb.html

Thursday, June 10, 2021

Trump in Fighting Trim as He Takes to the Campaign Trail Again

BY RICK MORAN | P J Media 

AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

A combative Donald Trump made his first public appearance in nearly four months at the North Carolina Republican State Convention and used the occasion to rally his supporters for the fight ahead.

“As we gather tonight, our country is being destroyed before our very own eyes. Crime is exploding, police departments are being ripped apart and defunded,” he told attendees.

“Drugs are pouring in, gas prices are soaring, our industries are being pillaged by foreign cyberattacks,” he added. “That’s a lack of respect for our country and our leaders.”

Trump saved his most potent ammunition to skewer Joe Biden for his family connections to China. In what will probably become a main line of attack for the next 3 years, Trump questioned why Biden has been so chummy with the Communist Chinese.

“Sadly, the current administration is very timid and frankly corrupt when you look at all the money they’ve been given as a family by China. And instead of holding China accountable, the Biden administration shut down the U.S. government’s investigation into the origins of the virus shortly after taking office. What’s going on?” Trump said.

“We must never forget that Joe Biden and his family took millions of dollars from the Chinese Communist Party. They bought him off. He flagrantly lied about it to the American voters. If you remember, it was a big deal at the time and all of a sudden it was canceled. They didn’t want to talk about it. The Big Tech and the fake news media didn’t want to talk about it.”

Also, a series of blockbuster articles from the New York Post regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop and his dealings with Russia was suppressed on social media and dismissed in the mainstream press as fake or unimportant. The FBI later confirmed at least some of the information on the laptop was true.

The mainstream media and Big Tech have run interference for Biden since it became clear that he was going to be the Democratic Party nominee for president. And now, Joe Biden is going to Europe to “rally the world’s democracies.” But the EU is going its own way on recovering from the pandemic and Joe Biden isn’t going to be able to change that.

“America’s being demeaned and ­humiliated on the world stage, our freedom is being overtaken by toxic cancel culture. Our border is wide open, illegal immigration is skyrocketing at a level that we’ve never seen before,” the former president said.

Trump said he felt vindicated by the renewed interest in investigating the theory that a lab in Wuhan, China leaked the coronavirus.

Trump believes the U.S. and the world should “demand reparations and accountability” from China, adding, “They must pay.” He said China should pay countries of the world “a minimum of $10 trillion” for the damage from COVID-19.

Trump was optimistic about the future of the GOP and the midterms.

“We are going to have a tremendous 2022 like we did frankly in 2020, more votes than any sitting president in the history of the US. We had a great election. Bad things happened, but we had a great election.”

While in North Carolina, Trump took time out of his speech to make an important endorsement. He announced that he would support Rep. Ted Budd for the seat being vacated by the retiring Sen. Richard Burr. His daughter Lara had been touted as a possible candidate in the race, but she said in a speech to the convention that she would not run.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/06/06/trump-in-fighting-trim-as-he-takes-to-the-campaign-trail-again-n1452430?utm_source=pjmedia&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=&bcid=227841a8b1ca836b99e21ea36efa6859&recip=28551147

Wednesday, June 09, 2021

WATCH: Angry mom goes nuclear over 'communist values' in schools

By Kaylee Greenlee | Daily Caller News Foundation 

Tatiyana Ibrahim (Video screenshot)

 'You're silencing the children. Where are their rights? They have no rights'

A parent criticized members of the Carmel Central School District school board for “emotionally abusing” the children and teaching them “communist values” in Putnam County New York, at a school board business meeting Thursday.

Tatiyana Ibrahim, whose child attends one of the schools in the district, criticized the school board for allowing teachers to allegedly promote Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ and anti-police ideologies in the district’s curriculum, video of the school board meeting shows. Ibrahim accused the teachers of allegedly discriminating against religious students and for promoting cancel culture.

“Stop indoctrinating our children. Stop teaching our children to hate the police. Stop teaching our children that if they don’t agree with the LGBT community that they’re homophobic. You have no idea each child’s life,” Ibrahim said. “You don’t know what their family lifestyle consists of, you don’t know the makeup of their life.”

School board members were mostly silent as Ibrahim spoke, though they said they would be willing to meet with her and the superintendent in another setting to address the issues she brought up.

Ibrahim specifically called out two teachers for posting about their political beliefs online before school board members told her she was not allowed to reference people by name, video shows. Ibrahim claimed the teachers in question called “for the death of a former president” and said students who don’t support Black Lives Matter should be “cancelled out.”

“Why are we not allowed to say names? Why am I not allowed when they purposefully expose themselves on social media, talking about calling for the death of a former president, or saying that any child who doesn’t believe in Black Lives Matter should be canceled out. Is this what my tax dollars are paying for?” Ibrahim asked the school board, video shows.

The Carmel Central School District held the meeting in an attempt to garner community support for their proposed budget of $133,581,366 for the 2021 – 2022 school year, according to 77 WABC. The budget failed to pass by 170 votes last month.

Ibrahim said she emailed the superintendent about the curriculum and he informed her that he was unaware of the issues, according to a video of the meeting. She added that she will not vote to approve the school’s budget, saying that the officials are “liars, thieves and have committed treason against the children.”

“You’re emotionally abusing our children and mentally abusing them,” Ibrahim said. “You’re demoralizing them by teaching them communist values, this is still America, ma’am.”

Ibrahim ended her speech after approximately 11 minutes despite her two-minute time allotment, video shows.

Officials within the Carmel Central School District did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. 

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS STUNNING VIDEO.


https://www.wnd.com/2021/06/watch-mom-goes-nuclear-communist-values-schools/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=wnd-breaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=breaking&ats_es=%5B-MD5-%5D

__________________

RELATED ARTICLE

Judge Rules Teacher Placed On Leave After Refusing To Use Trans Students’ Pronouns Must Be Reinstated