Freedom is a fragile thing and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Governor Ronald Reagan, January 5, 1967.
Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. – President Obama to House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, January 23, 2009.
These are among the darkest days of American democracy. With nearly airtight totalitarian uniformity, the American media robotically repeats that there is no possible argument to be made that the 2020 presidential election produced an unjust result-- “Democrats Cling Desperately to Trump Hatred, January 14, 2021.
The following extensive—but far from exhaustive—critique of the first month of the Biden presidency comprises the following paragraphs:
1. Implausible but not impossible
2. Espousing Black supremacy…
3. Confirming & commending anti-Semitism as “indisputably fact-based”
4. Inverting MLK’s “I have a dream”: Prioritizing color over character?
5. Iran: Ominous omens
6. Iran: Determined to duplicate disaster
7. “Palestine”: Perturbing predilections
8. Storm clouds on the horizon?
9. “Falesteen” and the Foggy Bottom folks
10.Ushering in 1984 and “Newspeak”
11.“Big Brother is watching you”
12.“…police state with KGB-style surveillance”?
13.Militarizing the capital; politicizing the military?
14.Militarizing & politicizing (cont.)
16.Egregious executive edicts-- Blurring biology & bigotry
17.Egregious executive edicts—Making America dependent again
18.Egregious executive edicts—Making America Mexico?
19.Biden: The unavoidable outcome
The deed is done! The inauguration of Joseph R. Biden as the 46th President of the United States is now a fait accompli. Indeed, for just over one—ill-omened—month he has now been in office.
Despite this—and the drive to de-legitimize doubt or dissent—the controversy as to the authenticity of the election results and the legitimacy of their outcome refuse to subside.
Implausible but not impossible
Of course, it is not totally beyond the realms of possibility that an insipid challenger and his unpopular running mate amassed almost 83 million votes, outstripping the previous record popular vote cast for the far more vibrant Barack Obama in 2008 by around 12 million votes.
Likewise, it is not entirely impossible that an incumbent president, who:
- oversaw a remarkable economic recovery;
- achieved record low unemployment rates including for ethnic minorities and women;
- provided for the exceptionally swift production of a vaccination for the COVID-19 pandemic—within a time frame initially considered unrealistically short;
- built up the US armed forces without entangling the nation in any further foreign military campaigns; and;
- extended his overall electoral support by over 10% and 7 million votes to attain a popular vote higher than any previous incumbent;
was ousted from office by a lethargic, lackluster opponent and his low profile, evasive and non-committal campaign—after two distinctly unsuccessful attempts (in 1988 and 2008) to win the nomination as his party’s presidential candidate.
But even those who believe that Biden won the election “fair and square” without the aid of “underhand” shenanigans, should be able to understand why so many feel that a Biden-Harris victory—especially by such a wide margin—is to, say the least, highly implausible.
A pro-Biden “thumb on the scales”
Adding to the sense that Biden’s victory was aided by a heavy “thumb on the scales”, was the blatant collusion by major social network firms and mainstream media to refrain from reporting on potentially pertinent negative information on Biden, his family, and their shady business activities with America’s chief geostrategic rivals—and thus prevented it from reaching voters before they cast their ballots.
Significantly, The Media Research Center (MRC), a media watchdog group, conducted a survey in seven swing states. It found 1 in 6, or almost 17% of those who voted for Joe Biden would have changed their vote had they known about the events which the national media and social network companies decided not to cover.
But no matter how gullible or skeptical over the electoral outcome one might happen to be, the die has now been cast. The ominous trajectory for the American people—and for much of the world—has been set.
Once again, the perilous pitfalls of political correctness will seize center stage on government policy—both within the American homeland and beyond—and weigh heavily on the American people and on US allies. All we can do for the moment is to brace for their impending impact.
While many may try to find solace in some of Biden’s appointments of several bland Obama retreads for senior positions in his administration, a glance at some of his other picks tells a different story altogether—as do the executive orders he hurriedly signed immediately following his inauguration.
Espousing Black supremacy…
Indeed, an ominous omen of things to come was Biden’s appointment of Kristen Clarke as head the powerful Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, responsible for enforcing federal statutes that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, or national origin.
As was recently revealed, when at Harvard, Clarke espoused—somewhat incongruously given her new appointment—a blatantly racist credo invoking a biochemical claim for…Black supremacy.
In her capacity as the president of the Black Students Association, Clarke wrote a letter to The Harvard Crimson to explain her views on race science: "Please use the following theories and observations to assist you in your search for truth regarding the genetic differences between Blacks and whites [sic]."
She continued: "One: Dr Richard King reveals that the core of the human brain is the 'locus coeruleus,' which is a structure that is Black, because it contains large amounts of neuro-melanin, which is essential for its operation.
"Two: Black infants sit, crawl and walk sooner than whites [sic].
"Three: Carol Barnes notes that human mental processes are controlled by melanin -- that same chemical which gives Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.
"Four: Some scientists have revealed that most whites [sic] are unable to produce melanin because their pineal glands are often calcified or non-functioning. Pineal calcification rates with Africans are five to 15 percent [sic], Asians 15 to 25 percent [sic] and Europeans 60 to 80 percent [sic]. This is the chemical basis for the cultural differences between blacks and whites [sic].
"Five: Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities -- something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards."
Confirming & commending anti-Semitism as “indisputably fact-based”
A few weeks later, Clarke invited the well-known anti-Semite, Tony Martin, to speak on campus. Martin, then a professor at Wellesley College, was the author of a self-published manifesto called "The Jewish Onslaught." In it, Martin chronicled the "escalating Jewish onslaught" against Black people.
In his talk, he attacked both Jews and Judaism as a religion and denounced Jews as the earliest racists in recorded history. He referred to a Jewish student group as "the campus-based shock troops in the ongoing Jewish onslaught against black progress”, alleging that Jews dominated the slave trade and controlled the mass media.
During the controversy provoked by the speech, an unapologetic Clarke warmly commended Martin, telling the “Crimson”: "Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact."—thus suggesting that his incandescent anti-Semitism was likewise indisputably fact-based.
Martin, who died in 2013, spent his final years on the Holocaust-denial circuit, lecturing to like-minded organizations on topics such as "tactics of organized Jewry in suppressing free speech."
For those who might feel that it is unfair to rake up positions articulated by Clarke as a Harvard student, it should be noted that her race-dominated views appear to have endured decades later. Indeed, in a 2018 television interview, Clarke, then the president of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, essentially insisted that ability, aptitude and acumen were less important than “diversity” in determining who should be employed—even in positions where lives may depend on the manner in which the job is discharged.
Inverting MLK’s “I have a dream”: Prioritizing color over character?
Astonishingly—or perhaps not—when asked about whether airline pilots or surgeons should be employed because of their professional proficiency or their racial/ethnic/gender identity, she replied that there ought to be “a premium on diversity”—i.e. that appearance should trump competence! When challenged further as to whether it was more important how a pilot looked or how skilled a pilot was, Clarke responded that diversity –i.e. one’s race, ethnicity and/or gender—was “incredibly important”—i.e. it should be the dominant consideration.
Clearly then, it would appear that Biden’s pick for the guardian of civil rights and protector against discrimination has a world-view that is the diametric inversion of the credo espoused by Martin Luther King in his seminal “I have a dream” address in August 1963, when he called for a nation where men “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” After all, there seems no way to interpret her credo other than as one that considers the color of one’s skin a more important criterion than the content of one’s character in judging one’s fellow man.
Indeed, Clarke seemed unconcerned when asked about the lack of “diversity” in the composition of the teams in the NFL, which are made up overwhelmingly by Black male players (reportedly 70% in 2020) and certainly did not even remotely reflect the “diversity of the country”. Admittedly, she did appear to be a little perturbed over the make-up at the coaching level, where Blacks are overwhelming outnumbered by Whites.
Iran: Ominous omens
For Israel, dealing with the Biden-Harris administration presents, arguably, the greatest challenge on the national strategic agenda of the Jewish state. Indeed, the are disturbing signs that the Biden White House is set on the predetermined course to severely degrade Israeli security on two of the major issues confronting the Jewish state—Iran and the Palestinians.
Regarding Iran, the forecast is decidedly ominous. Biden’s pick of Robert Malley for special envoy to Tehran and Jake Sullivan, as the National Security Advisor, are both deeply disconcerting for Jerusalem—as well as Iran hardliners in the US.
Both men were deeply involved in concocting the disastrous JCPOA and still remain strongly committed to it—despite its myriad and manifest defects.
According to AP, Iran hawks in the US are aghast at Biden's appointments of Malley, who they consider a key architect of the 2015 nuclear deal, from which former President Donald Trump withdrew. They fear the Biden administration is bent on rejoining the 2015 Iran deal at any cost and may be willing to sacrifice the security of Israel and the Gulf Arab states to do so.
In Israel, the generally dovish Jerusalem Post ran a recent editorial, designating Biden’s Iran appointments as “disconcerting”. According to the editorial: “Israel is particularly worried about Robert Malley, who was named special US envoy for Iran. Malley, who was a key member of president Barack Obama’s nuclear negotiating team, is considered in Israel as soft on Tehran and tough on Jerusalem.”
Iran: Determined to duplicate disaster.
Biden’s new appointee for National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, told the Washington Post that the incoming administration is eyeing an urgent restoration of the international nuclear deal with Iran, suggesting a more immediate schedule than candidate Biden had outlined during his election campaign.
Significantly, Sullivan refrained from mentioning Biden’s oft-stated precondition that Iran must make the first move by rolling back its nuclear activities to comply with the terms of the 2015 deal.
In an earlier interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Sullivan was asked to explain why the 2015 JCPOA deal did not result in any easing of tensions and improved cooperation with Tehran. He responded by rebuffing the notion that the Obama administration had any such expectation.
When pressed further by his interviewer on this matter, Sullivan retorted: “It’s not like we went into this thinking, hey, we’ll get the nuclear issue plus, we’ll just assume Iran changes its behavior overnight. But he did acknowledge that “We did believe that if you had the Iranian nuclear program in a box, you could then begin to chip away at some of these other issues.”
However, in view of the later recalcitrant realities, he was forced to admit: “Obviously, that did not come to pass.”—leaving viewers to puzzle over why that which had failed miserably in the past might somehow succeed in the future.
“Palestine”: Perturbing predilections
No less perturbing than the emerging signs of Biden’s policy on Iran, are those regarding his nascent predilections on “Palestine”.
Arguably one of the most disconcerting developments in this regard is the appointment of Maher Bitar as Senior Director for Intelligence at the National Security Council. Bitar has a long and documented history of radical anti-Israel activities. As a student at Georgetown University, he was a leader of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a virulently anti-Israel organization with prolific contacts to the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and its terror affiliates such as Hamas. In his SJP capacity, he organized a Palestinian Solidarity Movement (PSM) conference (2006) calling for a campaign of Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment against Israel. Indeed, the PSM was considered so pernicious that even the usually left-leaning Washington Post ran a piece entitled Why Is Georgetown Providing a Platform for This Dangerous Group?
In 2008, Bitar participated in the Seventh Biennial Meeting Of The International Association Of Genocide Scholars, hosted by the Institute for the Research of Crimes Against Humanity and International Law of the University of Sarajevo. In a session, which included talks on the murderous massacres in Rwanda, Cambodia and Bosnia, Bitar delivered a paper entitled Ethnic Cleansing and the Falling Apart of Palestinian Society—thus clearly implying that the intentional slaughter that took place in these other cases was comparable to Israel’s policy vis-a-vis the Palestinian Arabs.
In 2008, while at Oxford, Bitar authored a paper, in which he wrote that Israel’s “political existence as a state is the cause for Palestinian dispossession and statelessness [and bears] ultimate responsibility toward the refugees. Israel’s rejection of their right to return remains the main obstacle to finding a durable solution.” For the uninformed, the “right of return” entails inundating Israel with millions of often impoverished and overwhelmingly hostile Arab refugees, obliterating its Jewish character—and is, as such, merely a sinister euphemism for a call to annihilate Israel as a Jewish state.
Storm clouds on the horizon?
On entering public service, Bitar served on the National Security Council as Director for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs under the Obama administration. During the Trump incumbency, he acted as general counsel for House Intelligence Committee Democrats and played a key role during the first impeachment of former President Donald Trump.
His recent appointment in the Biden administration as the senior director for Intelligence at the National Security Council is one of the most influential posts in the US intelligence community. As Caroline Glick points out: “The senior director is the node to which all intelligence from all agencies flows….He decides what to share with the President. And in the name of the President, he determines priorities for intelligence operations and collection”. Politico aptly describes his role as serving “as the day-to-day connective tissue between the intelligence community and the White House.”
Indeed, a former NSC insider was reported as commenting: "The senior director for intelligence controls the information everyone sees. And by controlling information, he controls the conversation."
Moreover, the senior NSC director for Intelligence determines what information the US intelligence community will share with foreign intelligence services; and how to relate to information which such services share with the Americans. Clearly, this is a crucial matter for Israel, as it is likely to impact the relationship and operational collaboration between the entities such as the CIA and FBI on the one hand, and Mossad and the Shin Bet on the other.
Thus, not unexpectedly, one seasoned Mid-East analyst expressed alarm and angst, asking: “The job of Senior Director for Intelligence at the National Security Council is supposed to go to an intelligence professional. How did an anti-Israel activist go from helping host a conference for an organization whose speakers have supported Islamic terrorism to a top intelligence job?”
“Falesteen” and the Foggy Bottom folks
There are clear signs that the Biden administration intends to reverse much—if not all—of the Trump policies regarding the Palestinian issue—which of course dovetails with this choice of Maher Bitar for such a senior and powerful post in the NSC.
Thus, Biden moved rapidly to overturn Trump’s decision to defund the Palestinian Authority (PA) and other dysfunctional organizations such as UNRWA.
Accordingly, a US State Department spokesman asserted that the previous administration’s cutting off aid to the Palestinian Arabs had failed to produce results and announced that the incoming president’s intention to restore financial support—as if the policy prior to Trump’s defunding had shown any signs of reaping even the most modest successes.
The State Department spokesman continued: “The suspension of aid to the Palestinian people has neither produced political progress, nor secured concessions from the Palestinian leadership. It has only harmed innocent Palestinians”.
Putting aside for the moment the fact that the “innocent” Palestinian public strongly supports terror attacks against Israel/Israelis —this still begs the question of how the folks at Foggy Bottom would explain the Clinton administration’s policy of sanctions against Iraq, which reportedly caused the death of 500,000 children—without dislodging Saddam Hussein, who was subsequently only removed by military might. Or how would they justify decades of US sanctions against North Korea, which have resulted in widespread starvation and malnutrition among the civilian population—without chastening the regime or impacting its policy.
But beyond restoring economic aid, the Biden administration also plans to reinstate diplomatic relations with the PA. Thus, in what was the first major public policy statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by an official from the Biden administration, Acting US Ambassador to the UN, Richard Mills, declared that the Biden administration was restoring relations with the Palestinian leadership and will reopen the diplomatic offices serving the Palestinians, reversing previous Trump administration policies.
Ushering in 1984 and “Newspeak”
Fueled by the vitriolic anti-Trump animus, Biden’s election soon began to usher in phenomena starkly reminiscent of the conditions so vividly portrayed in Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984.
Thus, the radical Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.)—aka “AOC”—launched an initiative in the spirit of the all-pervasive autocracy in 1984’s Oceania. First, she called for the “reigning in of recalcitrant—read “pro-GOP”—media. Blithely dismissing the first amendment, she pronounced: “We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation. It’s one thing to have differentiating opinions, but it’s another thing entirely to just say things that are false, so that’s something that we’re looking into...”
Of course, one can only assume that she was NOT referring to the NYT, the Washington Post, or the LA Times, whose reporting was replete with references to fictional “Russian collusion” and “Ukrainian connivance”, but to more “errant” channels.
She then proceeded to couch her initiative in terms chillingly similar to those of 1984’s Newspeak, a contrived linguistic construct, designed to “tailor” (read “pervert”, even “invert”) the meaning of words to preserve and advance the ideological agenda of the regime—as a means to criminalize as “thoughtcrimes” the expression of opinions that may counter or impede that agenda.
According to AOC, “several members of Congress in some of my discussions have brought up media literacy because that is part of what happened here.”
In precisely this context, Robby Soaveunderscores that: “The phrase media literacy ordinarily implies helping individuals make sense of the media landscape, but AOC seems to have more in mind than that…”:
Indeed, since AOC explicitly ties her version of “media literacy” to “reining in the media”, it is clear that her real meaning is “media muzzling”.
“Big Brother is watching you”
One of the hallmarks of the dystopian tyranny of 1984 was the long tentacles of the divisiveness that the regime extended into the family, setting offspring against their perhaps insufficiently compliant parents. Thus, in the world of 1984 “… children were systematically turned against their parents and taught to spy on them and report their deviations. The family had become in effect an extension of the Thought Police.”
Indeed, “It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which [the press] did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak—'child hero’ was the phrase generally used—had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Thought Police.”
Interestingly, The Washington Post ran an article under a headline proclaiming “… people are reporting their family and friends to the FBI”. Thus, for example, after seeing her mother’s Facebook page with pro-Trump posts and screenshots of her mother, apparently on the Capitol stairs during the January riots, one liberal daughter reported her to the FBI—commenting “actions should have consequences.”
Expressions of criticism and concern were not limited to Republicans. Thus, as the Washington Timesreported, the former Democratic Party Congresswoman for Hawaii (2002-2013) and the first Hindu member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, expressed concern that the Democratic-led initiative to combat “domestic terrorism” could eventually be used to target “anyone who loves freedom.” [sic].
“…police state with KGB-style surveillance”?
Interestingly, Gabbard was considered a fairly strong candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, dropping out of the race (in March 2020) well after Kamala Harris was forced to quit (December 2019).
She condemned recent remarks by John Brennan, former CIA Director, who alleged that, in response to the January Capitol riot, the Biden administration, was trying to “uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that we’ve seen overseas, it brings together an unholy alliance, frequently, of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians.”
The ex- Hawaii Democrat Representative posted a warning on her social media that Americans will be in “great peril” if Biden did not stand up to the likes of Brennan, Big Tech insiders, and others who make a moral equivalence between the Jan. 6 Capitol rioters and organized terror groups overseas.
Although she conceded: “The mob who stormed the Capitol…were behaving like domestic enemies of our country,” she cautioned: “… let us be clear, the John Brennans, Adam Schiffs and the oligarchs in Big Tech who are trying to undermine our constitutionally-protected rights and turn our country into a police state with KGB-style ‘surveillance’ are also domestic enemies — and much more powerful, and therefore dangerous, than the mob which stormed the Capitol.”
Militarizing the capital; politicizing the military?
In the immediate wake of the January 6 riots on Capitol Hill, National Guard troops from across the country were deployed in the capital. The haste with which this was done contrasts starkly with the reticence that Democrat governors and mayors displayed in mobilizing Federal law enforcement personnel during the “largely peaceful” riots by Leftist/anarchist mobs in 2020—when entire city sectors were razed and ravaged; when stores were ransacked and robbed; businesses burnt and burglarized; police stations overrun and occupied, vehicles trashed and torched…
By January 17, around 25,000 members of the National Guard were deploying into Washington to secure the presidential inauguration ceremony on the 20th. This was a staggering 250% more than the number for previous inaugurals. Indeed, this was the greatest military presence ever in the capital—including during the Civil War, when, with fighting just across the Potomac, fewer Federal forces were defending Washington.
Likewise, the Democrat legislators suddenly seemed eager to embrace another idea they once shunned—that of a security barrier (wall or fence) to thwart would-be infiltrators.
Thus, despite their vehement and vociferous opposition to a barrier along the US’s southern border to stem the tide of illegal immigration, they voiced little protest over the speedy construction of a “forebidding”, unscalable 7ft. high fence, amply draped in menacing razor wire, to encompass the entire Capitol building.
Although the fence was intended originally to remain in place for no more than three months, ideas are now being floated that call for it to remain in place indefinitely.
Militarizing & politicizing (cont.)
But it was not only the unprecedented military build-up in the capital that was exceptional. No less so was exceptional political scrutiny of the troops themselves. Indeed, up to a dozen National Guardsmen were relieved from inaugural duty after vetting.
According toCBS News, while the military routinely reviews service members for extremist connections, the additional FBI screening was over and above any previous monitoring. Indeed, as acting Defense Secretary, Chris Miller remarked “vetting often takes place…” but “this case is unique”.
Illustrative of the post-election political witch-hunting fervor, which the Jan 6 riots ushered in, was a CNNinterview with Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn). After referring to the assassinations of Anwar Sadat and Indira Gandhi, he commented to anchor, Jim Sciutto: “…the [National] Guard is 90 some odd percent, I believe, male. Only about 20 percent of white males voted for Biden. You have got to figure that the guard, which is predominantly more conservative and I see that on my social media, and we know it, they are probably 25 percent of the people that are there protecting us who voted for Biden. The other 75 percent are in the class that would be the large class of folks who might want to do something.”
The unavoidable conclusion is the Democratic lawmaker actually believes the outlandish and outrageous allegation that a vote for Trump is, in and of itself, a warning indication of incipient sedition.
In response, one prominent conservative commentator expressed shock and indignation at the nascent political trends: “Democrats in Congress demanded that the troops sent to Washington this week submit to a political purity test—'ideological vetting’, as they put it--to make certain that every soldier professed loyalty to the new regime. Not loyalty to our country, not loyalty to our Constitution, but loyalty to the aims of a specific political party.”
As to the unprecedented nature of the measures, he noted: “Nothing like that has ever happened in America and just a few months ago, it would have been unimaginable. Suddenly it's compulsory.”
With regards to the massive deployment of armed forces in the capital, he argued “…keeping the city safe is hardly the point of this exercise. The murder rate in the District of Columbia has risen with terrifying speed over the last six months… but no one in charge seems to care…So no matter what they are telling you, those 26,000 federal troops are not there for your safety.”
With a sense of foreboding, he asserted: “…the Democratic Party is using those troops to send the rest of us a message about power: ‘We're in charge now…Do not question us men with guns’.”
But his words of reprimand extended to the GOP as well: “Republicans have spent years ignoring the leftward drift of our officer corps…Once they did that, they allowed Democratic politicians to degrade and politicize the military itself.”
Recalling how previous cases of extremism in the military were handled, he observed with a tinge of bitterness: “On Nov. 5, 2009, Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire on innocent people at Fort Hood, Texas. He shot 45 people…13 of them died. When it emerged…that Hasan was an Islamic extremist…the rest of us sat through months of lectures about how we had no right to come to broader conclusions…”
He concluded caustically: “Yes, the shootings were bad…But far worse than mass murder, we were told, would be the sin of drawing any connection between Nidal Hasan's beliefs and the beliefs of anyone else in our country…That's what they told us. And…it's OK that they told us that. Bigotry is immoral…There is nothing more un-American than that…”
Egregious executive edicts-- Blurring biology & bigotry
Sadly, the only apparent rationale underlying this initial display of verve was an obsession with undoing anything reminiscent of his predecessor’s policy—regardless of the consequences—or any benefits it had for the American public at large—and even certain significant segments of his own constituencies.
A few selective examples will serve to illustrate the point and dispel any illusions of the “moderation” of the new regime.
On his first day, President Biden issued an executive order, purportedly to contend with discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. According to NPR’s Leila Fadel, LGBTQ advocates consider the moves “transformational.” She labels Biden's executive order as “the most far reaching” of its kind ever.
Unsurprisingly, the order roused resistance from various sectors. Politicoreported that legislators from least six states as well as from Congress introduced bills to curtail opportunities for transgender athletes. The major purpose of these proposed bills would be to preclude people assigned male at birth from competing in girls’ sports.
Egregious executive edicts-- Blurring biology & bigotry (cont.)
The Wall Street Journalposted several eminently grounded and commonsensical reactions to Biden’s initiative from US college students.
One commented incisively: “Nobody can seriously argue that biological males playing in girls’ sports is remotely fair, but the threat is bigger than that. Decisions like the Biden administration’s are part of a broader effort to make gender identity a protected category on par with race, worthy of intrusive federal intervention…”
He added dourly: “The effect is to equate everyone who doesn’t believe a man can transform into a woman by wishing it with George Wallace and Bull Connor [both ardent segregationists; both Democrats—MS]…If there was ever any hope that our new president’s rhetoric about unity meant something, these executive orders killed it.”
Another warned: “As for high-school sports, allowing biological males to compete with girls will make a mockery of fair play and equal opportunity. The sexes possess vastly disparate physical capabilities. Sports leagues have tried to observe a healthy respect for these differences by separating competitors by biological sex.”
Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina and U.S. ambassador to the UN summed up the issue succinctly: “The world’s fastest female sprinter has nine Olympics medals, but nearly 300 high-school boys are still faster than her. In states where biological boys compete against girls, the girls almost always lose — not just the match, but also possible college scholarships and a lifetime of success in their favorite sport. Their chance to shine is being stolen.”
Acerbically, she added: “The order was framed as a matter of transgender rights. But really, it was an attack on women’s rights.”
Egregious executive edicts—Making America dependent again
Another executive order that Biden rushed to sign on the first day of his presidency effectively shut down the Keystone XL oil pipeline, intended to convey almost 900,000 barrels of oil daily from Alberta, in Western Canada to US refineries mainly in the Mid-West and Texas. Moreover, the White House issued a statement, according to which Biden had directed “…the Department of the Interior to pause oil and gas drilling leases on federal lands and water ‘to the extent possible’ and to launch a review of existing energy leases.”
On the face of it, this was a decision that is likely to imperil thousands of US jobs and increase US dependence on less than amicable governments such as Russia and Venezuela—while providing additional sources of supply to energy-ravenous China.
Thus, the Wall Street Journalwarned: The U.S…still gets half of its oil imports from Canada. Refiners in the Midwest and the Gulf Coast are geared toward accepting the sort of heavy oil that Canada produces and could now be forced to buy more oil from adversarial states like Russia and Venezuela.
Reiterating this point, one energy analyst remarked somewhat brusquely: “Russia and Venezuela will be thrilled…Losing our northern neighbor’s reliable, inexpensive, and abundant crude to the Chinese Communist Party nation would be a foreign policy collapse. ”
Egregious executive edicts—Making America dependent (cont.)
As for the loss of jobs the executive order is likely to wreak, there is some disagreement between proponents and opponents of the pipeline. Its effect, however, is certainly liable to be considerable. Indeed, labor unions associated with its construction, who gave Biden pre-election support, are reportedly already expressing regret in the light of the White House’s decision to curtail the project.
But the negative impact on employment is not likely to be limited to welders and pipefitters engaged in the Keystone XL project itself, but also to all those affected by the decision to prevent oil and gas drilling on Federal land or off-shore in Federal waters. Moreover, it is not only positions and professions directly involved in the drilling operations that will be lost. Many peripheral enterprises that service the gas and oil workers will also suffer. Hotels, cafes, restaurants, groceries fear being brought to the brink of ruin as a result of Biden’s executive order.
A slew of public opinion polls over the past decade showed that consistent majorities favored the project—with one of the most recent surveys, published on January 2021 finding that support for the project (51%) clearly outweighs opposition to it (36%). Even the occasional poll that showed a slight majority opposing the pipeline, still found an almost equal minority supporting it.
Clearly then, there is anything but wide consensus over the cancellation of the pipeline—making the decision to halt it appear decidedly inconsistent with Biden's incessant election claims that he would strive to forge unity.
Egregious executive edicts—Making America Mexico?
Another executive order signed within hours of Biden taking office served as a bellwether regarding the lax attitude that the new administration planned to adopt regarding immigration across the US’s southern border. The opening paragraph of the order states: “It shall be the policy of my Administration that no more American taxpayer dollars be diverted to construct a border wall.” Accordingly, it calls for the immediate cessation of construction of the southern border wall—within seven days at the most—and “the redirection of funds” allocated for that purpose. Another executive order annulled a previous one that involved robust efforts to locate and deport illegal immigrants.
Moreover, during his first few weeks as president, Biden issued no fewer than eight separate executive actions related to immigration. According to the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, Biden’s “immigration policies are among the most progressive of any president” not only aimed at reversing Trump’s “America First” policy, but also “the policies designed and/or administered by previous presidents.”
Just how radical the new approach is can be gauged by a report that eighteen state Attorney-Generals implored the White House to reverse a recent decision to shelve an operation targeting illegal immigrants with convictions for sex crimes. One concerned AG warned: “The cancellation of this program effectively broadcasts to the world that the United States is now a sanctuary jurisdiction for sexual predators…This message creates a perverse incentive for foreign sexual predators to seek to enter the United States illegally..”
Of course, it is impossible to deny that the US has benefitted immeasurably from the waves of immigrants who have arrived on its shores over the centuries, bringing with them creativity, talent, ingenuity and grit. As a February 2 executive order states: They have helped the United States lead the world in science, technology, and innovation… Our Nation is enriched socially and economically by the presence of immigrants…”
Egregious edicts—Making America Mexico? (cont.)
As I recently wrote in De-Americanizing America, for well over the last half-century, the USA has arguably been the most remarkable—and certainly the most powerful and prosperous—country on the face of the globe—a magnet for immigrants around the world, wishing to partake in the material plenty and political and intellectual liberty it can provide. In many ways, it has been an inspiring—if not unblemished—model, showing how widely disparate societal elements can be synthesized into a functioning and cohesive entity, welding broad ethnic diversity, social tolerance, religious freedom, and individual liberties into a binding sense of national identity, that helped propel a highly effective and inclusive socio-political unit.
In essence, this success was fueled by an ethos of rugged individualism, self-reliance and personal responsibility. It fostered a sense of national exceptionalism and propelled it to rarely surpassed heights of achievement in virtually every field of human endeavor.
However, immigrants can only contribute beneficially to the US society if they absorb and internalize its values and they themselves become absorbed and integrated into the overarching socio-cultural fabric of the host nation—otherwise they will, almost inevitably, become an onerous and disruptive element.
But when immigrants arrive in unrestricted, unregulated masses, such integration and absorption are liable to be very difficult, indeed, virtually impossible. Thus, the social values and mores to which they are liable to be exposed and in which they remain immersed, are those of their country of origin, which they left, rather than those of the country of destination, in which they reside. As the presence of such immigrant inflows increase, the environment in which they live will inevitably begin to resemble that which they left. Thus, for example, instead of a Mexican immigrant becoming Americanized, more and more of America will be transformed into Mexico!!
Biden: The unavoidable outcome
Accordingly, the inevitable outcome of the sustained application of the emerging mode of governance adopted by the Biden administration will be to transform America into an unrecognizable remnant of its former self, increasingly reminiscent of realities in South and Central America. This will induce accelerating emigration, with increasing portions of the more mobile and successful population fleeing higher taxes, socio-cultural alienation and economic decline.
Increasingly unable to compete in international markets, the US will fall into steep decline, reeling ever closer to the status of a third-world nation—with a decaying nuclear arsenal—unable to keep up with more virile rivals. Soon it will begin to resemble the lands the immigrants left behind far more than the land to which they flocked—and with that, jeopardizing the very Union which, for over two centuries, held it together so successfully.