Tuesday, October 19, 2021

Caught by surprise

“Woke” Military and CIA caught asleep at the switch as China successfully tests a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile.



Isn’t the entire purpose of having military and intelligence services to avoid being caught by surprise when our enemies do something?

Have I got that wrong?

I mean, I know that the CIA is busy recruiting non-binary vegans with anxiety disorders who can find a home in the Central Intelligence Agency where their quirky eccentricities and gross emotional problems can be validated. But shouldn’t the CIA also be, you know, keeping tabs on what our enemies are up to?

We should never ever read something like this:

Caught by Surprise

China does something like this and our military and intelligence officials are caught by surprise?

Really?

Sweet, merciful Zeus.

I know what you’re thinking. Surely if China has hypersonic missiles, we do too, right?

Well, they’re working on them. But according to Reuters, the Pentagon thinks they’re too expensive so they want defense contractors to find a way to cut the cost.

Russia tested its first hypersonic missile in July. Then China tested theirs in August — catching us completely by surprise.

Meanwhile, here in the US, the Pentagon is haggling over the cost of hypersonic missiles while rooting out the “Non-Woke” from its ranks, threatening to discharge any service member who won’t take the COVID vaccine, and focusing on “inclusion,” “equity,” and “Climate Change.”

The other day, after one of our military officials tweeted about her French manicure, Jesse Kelly summed up the situation perfectly.

JK Tweet-01 Caught by Surprise

Yes, perhaps it makes sense that our military was caught by surprise.

This Major General was none too happy with the responses to her tweet. She got all huffy and, like any good Major General in the US Armed Services, decided to “clap-back” on Twitter.

Caught by Surprise

China has hypersonic missiles, and we have hysterics with French manicures prattling on about Girl Power.

But let’s not pick on Major General French Manicure. She’s just one person.

The rot in our military and intelligence community goes deep.

Remember back in March when Tucker Carlson torched the Pentagon for its focus on “equity,” “inclusion” and maternity flight suits rather than military-readiness?


My, but the brass was upset. And in an effort to inadvertently prove Tucker right, military officials took to Twitter to “well-I-never” over Tucker’s comments. These idiots had harsher words for a cable news host than they do for China.

There’s a reason I called them “Pussies in Uniform.”

Naturally, Tucker addressed the thin-skinned military’s hysterics on his show a few days later.


”Here’s a reminder: the U.S. military exists to fight and win wars. That is its only purpose. The U.S. military is not an NGO. It is not a vehicle for achieving equity. It is not a social experiment.”

And while the entire US Military clutched its pearls over Tucker Carlson’s warning about China, China was developing a hypersonic missile.

Is it any wonder that military officials were caught by surprise over this? These are the same people who were caught by surprise when the Taliban bulldozed over the Afghan security forces and took over Kabul.

While America’s enemies churn out recruitment ads like this:

The US Army gives us recruitment ads like this:


The Army isn’t the only one trying to recruit people using identity politics.

Remember when the CIA started releasing it’s own “Woke” recruitment ads?


Golly. Why were these guys caught by surprise over China testing a hypersonic nuclear missile?

Everything Tucker said about the Woke Military back in March has withstood the test of time, hasn’t it?

On the one hand, it’s laughable.

On the other hand, it is deeply worrying.

When corporations “Get Woke,” they “Go Broke.”

But this is what happens when the US military and intelligence community “Get Woke.” They get caught completely by surprise when China surpasses the United States in missile technology.

As Jesse Kelly often points out, there is not one single institution in this country the Communists won’t infect and destroy. And what they’ve done to the institutions that exist solely to protect this country from our enemies has left us vulnerable and unprepared.

They went “Woke,” and now they’re asleep at the switch.



Exposing the Left’s Border Scam Is Now a ‘Hate Crime’

The anti-borders policies of the Left clearly seek to change the voting demographics of the country to enshrine an extreme agenda that native-born American citizens would likely not support.


"Mr. Ness, everyone knows where the booze is. The problem isn’t finding it. The problem is, who wants to cross Capone?"
— Sean Connery, “The Untouchables” (1987)

Like Prohibition-era bootleggers unloading barrels of whiskey in broad daylight, the anti-borders Left has been flouting the law in public for decades as it enables a vast and profitable human trafficking operation through south Texas. In today’s gaslit, no-accountability culture, the problem isn’t finding the crime, but in naming the perpetrators and exposing their motives. 

Financial gain is obviously a big incentive in the immigration scam  against America. Numerous beneficiaries include the cartels that traffic the people, “charities” that get a piece of the action for moving the human cargo throughout the country, and stateside businesses that reap the benefit of cheap foreign labor. 

These parties seem largely indifferent to being called out for their roles in the scam. It comes from a confidence in knowing that, regardless of who knows what, the operation will roll on without so much as a speed bump. 

Calling out the political actors and their motives is a different animal altogether. Even the most naïve political dilettante can see that importing large swaths of impoverished foreign nationals will ultimately benefit the Democratic Party at the local, state, and national levels. 

Many traditional Democratic voters—including union members, ethnic minorities, and working-class people in general—have become swing voters. A newly arrived permanent political underclass will rely on and reward the party for the cradle-to-grave entitlements that are embedded in the party’s platform, and so these older constituencies are no longer as necessary to Democrats.

Calling out what is patently obvious to most has been met with self-righteous indignation. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson found that out when he explained the political side of this scam on his highly rated show. The Left deployed its surrogate attack dogs, in this case the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). 

Once a highly respected group that fought anti-Semitism, the ADL has since descended into the world of partisan politics. Its current CEO, former Clinton Administration aide Jonathan Greenblatt, injected race into the debate and demanded Carlson be dismissed for what he described as the host’s “dog whistle” to racists and for pushing a “great replacement” theory that, he argues, could only be advanced by white supremacists. 

The racism charge has become a tiresome, default attack by the Left against anyone who opposes its agenda. Greenblatt and his fellow travelers don’t deny the charge that they are using illegal immigration to win more elections, they only hurl the rock of meritless racism allegations in an attempt to silence the accusers. As Carlson has often stated, this is an issue of protecting the voting rights of all Americans, not an issue of race. 

The duplicity of the Left on this can be seen by the example of Cuba. In July, Cubans shocked the world by showing up in large numbers to protest the totalitarian communist government that has ruled the island since 1959. Many on the Right called for these demonstrators to be given asylum in America. Even though Cubans oppressed by their government for protesting would seem like ideal candidates for asylum in the United States, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas announced that anyone seeking asylum from Cuba would be denied because of laws pertaining to those seeking asylum via the sea. 

Residents of Cuba have skin that is as brown as that of anyone who was admitted into the United States from Central America. So why the refusal? Maybe because Cubans are generally staunch anti-Communists who have helped turn Florida into the red state it is today. Adding them to our electorate would hurt the Democrats in elections, so they are denied entry. 

There are laws on the books that make it illegal to walk across our borders, yet Democrats turn a blind eye and encourage more of these illegal crossings. With the Cubans, Democrats cite the rule of law and coldly slam the door shut to legitimate victims of government persecution. If Cubans were inclined to vote differently, does anyone doubt that Democrats would tell us we have a moral imperative to ignore the written law and allow these victims safe passage? If Central Americans voted like Cubans, Democrats on Capitol Hill would be leading the charge to build the wall and deport illegal aliens. 

The anti-borders policies of the Left clearly seek to change the voting demographics of the country to enshrine an extreme agenda that native-born American citizens would likely not support. Calling out that agenda has nothing to do with race, but with the opposition to having our votes diluted and cancelled out by foreign nationals who entered our country illegally. Bringing attention to such nefarious plans is not a hate crime, but a civic duty. 


X22, Red Pill news, and more-Oct 19th


 

Having a great day! Here's tonight's news:


Christopher Steele: Product of a Corrupt FBI

Christopher Steele is a symptom, not a cause, of what ails the FBI. The nation’s top law enforcement agency flagrantly involves itself in U.S. elections on behalf of the Democratic Party. 


Christopher Steele is a symptom, not a cause, of what ails the FBI. The nation’s top law enforcement agency flagrantly involves itself in U.S. elections on behalf of the Democratic Party. 

Just as the special counsel’s investigation into the origins of Crossfire Hurricane—the FBI counterintelligence probe launched in the summer of 2016 to sabotage Donald Trump’s presidential campaign—is showing signs of life, one of the central figures in the hoax is attempting to burnish his sullied image.

ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos has produced a documentary featuring Christopher Steele, the man responsible for the so-called dossier bearing his name. “Out of the Shadows: The Man Behind the Steele Dossier,” streamed on Hulu Monday night; promotional clips hinted that, far from a hard-hitting interview exposing Steele for the charlatan he is, Stephanopoulos gave Steele a chance to spin his story ahead of possible new indictments related to John Durham’s inquiry into the Trump-Russia election collusion hoax. 

Rather than depict Steele accurately, Stephanopoulos and ABC News social media interns repeatedly describe Steele as an “ex-British spy” or “former intelligence officer” even though Steele left MI6, the UKs version of the CIA, in 2009 to start a consulting business. (That same year, Steele presented a report on Russia to President Obama.) Steele’s now-discredited dossier, which Stephanopoulos tries to portray as “raw intelligence,” was the basis not just for the entire Russian collusion hoax but also served as key evidence to support four illicit FISA applications to obtain warrants to spy on Donald Trump and his associates.

Stephanopoulos’ goal, of course, is to convince uninformed viewers—in other words, most of Stephanopoulos’ audience on any given day—that Steele was working in an official national security capacity instead of as a Democratic political operative paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to dig up dirt on Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential race.

But Steele, many folks forget, also had another funder in 2016: the Federal Bureau of Investigation. An often overlooked fact about Steele is that at the same time he was being paid by the Clinton campaign and DNC, he also was being paid by the FBI as a “confidential human source,” otherwise known as an “informant.”

Without James Comey’s FBI, there would be no Steele dossier and no Russian collusion hoax. And Christopher Steele is the most glaring example of the slimy relationship between the FBI, partisan operatives, and the American news media.

Steele began working with the FBI shortly after forming his consulting business, Orbis Business Intelligence, in 2010. In addition to his work on the FIFA corruption investigation, Steele routinely passed along information to the FBI on Russian oligarchs. According to a lengthy report issued in December 2019 by Michael Horowitz, inspector general of the Justice Department, the FBI completed necessary paperwork in 2013 to authorize Steele as a confidential human source.

Acting as a paid lobbyist on behalf of his consulting clients, which includedRussian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, Steele used the FBI to launder his political work. “Steele furnished intelligence information that the FBI disseminated, including in four Intelligence Information Reports (IIRs) sent throughout the U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) concerning the activities of Russian oligarchs,” Horowitz confirmed. “By the time Steele was closed by the FBI as a CHS in November 2016, the FBI had disseminated 10 IIRs based on Steele’s reporting.”

In other words, Steele, with a clear fiduciary interest in what he presented to the FBI under the guise of a confidential human source, influenced both the U.S. Department of Justice and the national intelligence community. What did those reports say about Deripaska, a Putin pal in trouble with the U.S. government and tied to former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, or other Russian tycoons? Was Steele providing useful information to the FBI at that time or was he illegally lobbying the agency for desired outcomes on behalf of his wealthy foreign benefactors?

Between 2014 and November 2016, when he was terminated as a CHS, Steele was paid $95,000 by the FBI.

For what?

Fusion GPS, the firm led by Glenn Simpson, leveraged Steele’s status as an FBI informant and trusted source to seed the Russian collusion storyline at the highest levels of the Obama Administration right before the 2016 presidential election. Steele’s approach followed a similar pattern. “According to FBI records, Steele thereafter produced reports related to the 2016 U.S. elections, of which he provided to the FBI and others that were provided to the FBI by third parties,” Horowitz wrote. “The FBI obtained reports directly from Steele during the time period of July through October 2016.” Steele personally delivered the first report to his FBI handler, Michael Gaeta, during a meeting in Rome in July 2016.

Gaeta, according to his testimony summarized in the Horowitz report, knew the initial report had political motivations. Nonetheless, Steele sent another report to Gaeta on July 19, 2016 with the subtitle, “Secret Kremlin Meetings Attended by Trump Advisor Carter Page in Moscow,” alleging Page discussed lifting Russian sanctions with a top Russian energy magnate.

On September 19, 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane team received those reports and four more authored by Steele. Gaeta then organized an early October meeting between Steele and members of the Crossfire Hurricane team in Rome. “Unknown to the FBI at the time, Steele was working with his client, Fusion GPS, to alert select media outlets about his reporting concerning Russian interference with the 2016 U.S elections and allegations regarding the Trump campaign and candidate Trump,” Horowitz reported. Even so, Crossfire Hurricane officials shared details about the probe to Steele, including classified information, during that meeting.

After the meeting, Steele not only continued to send reports to the FBI through his “middleman,” Michael Gaeta, he also met with top officials in John Kerry’s State Department.

Quite the man about town.

Thanks to Steele’s successful courting of influential journalists such as Michael Isikoff, the Trump-Russia collusion narrative gained traction just weeks before Election Day 2016. The FBI filed its first FISA application on October 21, 2016 using Steele’s “dossier” and Isikoff’s Yahoo News article as evidence to convince the FISA court that Carter Page was a suspected foreign agent of Russia.

Then Steele’s hubris finally caught up with him. After David Corn published a bombshell article, “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump,” in Mother Jones on October 31, 2016, Steele admitted to the FBI he had been Corn’s source. While the FBI officially scuttled Steele as an informant, “the Crossfire Hurricane team continued to obtain information from Steele” through Bruce Ohr, a top Justice Department official whose wife, Nellie, also worked for Fusion GPS on the anti-Trump project.

But Christopher Steele is a symptom, not a cause, of what ails the FBI. The nation’s top law enforcement agency—by employing untrustworthy informants at taxpayer expense, peddling garbage documents throughout government agencies, and leaking classified information—flagrantly involves itself in U.S. elections on behalf of the Democratic Party. The concocted plot to “kidnap” Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer last year is the most recent example.

Stephanopoulos might temporarily succeed in refurbishing Steele’s reputation. It’s the FBI, however, that is in need of a desperate, and likely futile, major makeover.


Oberlin Beclowns Itself Again

Oberlin Beclowns Itself Again

Baldwin Cottage @Oberlin 

Steven Hayward for Powerline

We’re covered the disgrace that is Oberlin College repeatedly (hereherehere, and here, for starters), but there’s a fresh embarrassment to pass along. From the Oberlin Review student paper—one of those “you have to read it, not to believe it” stories:

Male Workers Allowed Into Baldwin, Unsettling Residents

Peter Fray-Witzer

On Oct. 7, residents of Baldwin Cottage received an email from Josh Matos, the area coordinator for Multicultural and Identity-Based Communities.

“I am reaching out to you to give you an update on the radiator project,” Matos wrote. “Starting tomorrow (Friday, 10/8) the contractors will be entering rooms between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. to install the radiators. This will mean that they will be in your room for a period of time to complete the work.”

I had not been contacted about any sort of radiator installation before this email, so right away the word “update” stood out to me as untrue. I grew concerned reading the second line, which informed me that I had less than 24 hours to prepare for the arrival of the installation crew, and I was further perturbed by the ambiguous “for a period of time.”

In general, I am very averse to people entering my personal space. This anxiety was compounded by the fact that the crew would be strangers, and they were more than likely to be cisgender men.

Baldwin Cottage is the home of the Women and Trans Collective. The College website describes the dorm as “a close-knit community that provides women and transgendered persons with a safe space for discussion, communal living, and personal development.” Cisgender men are not allowed to live on the second and third floors, and many residents choose not to invite cisgender men to that space. . .

I was angry, scared, and confused. Why didn’t the College complete the installation over the summer, when the building was empty? Why couldn’t they tell us precisely when the workers would be there? Why were they only notifying us the day before the installation was due to begin? . . .

The next day, I waited apprehensively. The workers began installing in common spaces, and I could see immediately that they were all men. It was clear that the College had not made a special request that male workers not be allowed onto the upper floors of Baldwin. Predicting when they would reach my room was pure guesswork. I was trying to anticipate whether I would be in class when they arrived, or if I’d have to welcome strangers into my room only to be ejected to allow them space to work. . .

Why didn’t the College make a schedule detailing when the workers would be likely to arrive at each dorm and in each room? They should have taken measures to keep students comfortable and safe — especially those who have elected to live in a specifically designated safe space.

Someday, maybe, Peter Fray-Witzer will be out in the real world, and imagine the trauma that will ensue if he has to call for a tow-truck or a plumber.


Marine veteran to sue Walmart after pharmacist denied him access to ivermectin


A retired marine from Albert Lea, Minnesota, wants to take Walmart to court after a pharmacist refused to fill his doctor's prescription for ivermectin to treat his case of COVID-19. 

Bill Salier, a Marine Corps veteran who served in Somalia and a former U.S. Senate candidate, shared his story Monday on the "Steve Deace Show," describing how a local Walmart pharmacist refused to fulfill a doctor's prescription for ivermectin for both him and his wife, who had each come down with COVID-19. 

Salier, 53, told BlazeTV host Steve Deace that he began feeling sick on Oct. 1, and after testing he was found positive for COVID-19. After his diagnosis, Salier said he attempted to receive monoclonal antibody treatments by applying through the Minnesota Resource Allocation Platform, but his requests went unanswered. 

"We never so much as heard a word back, not even in acknowledgement that the requests had been put in," Salier said. 

Failing that, Salier obtained a doctor's prescription for ivermectin, a drug approved for use against parasites but not Food and Drug Administration authorized for use in treating COVID-19. The Biden administration, state health departments, and Merck, the manufacturer of the drug, have all warned againstusing it for treatment of COVID-19. 

The FDA has specifically warned against the use of ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19, noting, "Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19." 

"Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing," the agency said.

Nevertheless, groups like the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance and America's Frontline Doctors have touted the drug's benefits, claiming the Nobel-prize winning drug is very effective at treating COVID-19. Some scientists disagree, highlighting flaws in studies cited in support for ivermectin as a COVID treatment and urging people that more research is necessary before the drug should be prescribed for COVID patients. 

In response, pharmacies and hospitals in the U.S. have generally followed the government's recommendations and have denied iverrmectin to COVID-19 patients. Salier says that's what happened to him and his wife. 

"The prescription was sent in to our local Walmart, here in Albert Lea, Minnesota, and it was refused to be filled by the pharmacist. This pharmacist contacted my wife, telling her that he would not fill it. My wife stated that he did not have the right to stand between our physician's prescription and the patent, he asserted that he did have that right and he refused to do so," Salier said. 

Salier says he and his wife were left in "limbo" after the pharmacist continued to deny them access to ivermectin, even after their physician called him to discuss the matter.

"We were faced with either continuing to suffer and quite possibly ending up in the hospital," he told Deace, explaining that they decided to take a risk and purchased a horse paste version of the drug that is not intended for human consumption and could be dangerous if overdosed.

"I was forced with this decision and I was either going to lay there, suffer, and be at life's peril of losing my time with my family, or I was going to eat that horse paste. And down the hatch it went," Salier said. 

Fortunately, Salier did not overdose and reported to Deace that "within eight hours" he began to feel relief from his COVID-19 symptoms. 

Now, he says he wants a reckoning with Walmart and the pharmacist who denied him access to ivermectin. 

"If you ever wanted to find out what it is to punch a Marine in the face and what type of response you're gonna get, well, America, you're about to see the type of response that you get. Because if you take on me and my family, and you stand between our physician and the health care that they have prescribed to me as a life-saving thing — in my opinion that is what it did — then you have got a fight on your hands and I am coming for that fight." 

Salier is partnering with We the Patriots USA, a nonprofit organization that defends civil liberties, to raise money to file a federal lawsuit against the pharmacist and Walmart. 

Brian Festa, an attorney with We the Patriots USA, told Deace that it was "abhorrent" for the Walmart pharmacist to "play God" with the Saliers' lives. 

He observed that even the FDA acknowledges there are circumstances where health care providers prescribe certain drugs for unapproved use "when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient." 

"You may be asking yourself why your healthcare provider would want to prescribe a drug to treat a disease or medical condition that the drug is not approved for. One reason is that there might not be an approved drug to treat your disease or medical condition. Another is that you may have tried all approved treatments without seeing any benefits. In situations like these, you and your healthcare provider may talk about using an approved drug for an unapproved use to treat your disease or medical condition," the FDA stated in a FAQ on its website. 

"So, this is talking about off-label usage. This has been done for years," Festa said. "We're talking about a drug, ivermectin, that was part of a treatment protocol that won the Nobel Prize in 2015 as an anti-parasitic for malaria. This is FDA-approved, it's been used for decades as an anti-parasitic, and now you're suddenly telling us in 2021 that it's unsafe because it's being used for off-label usage? Which again, is so common in the practice of medicine." 

Festa added that the pharmacist "had absolutely no right to tell Bill and his wife that he was not going to fill this prescription" and that Walmart needs to be held accountable for what happened. 

Festa said We The Patriots USA has committed $25,000 to Salier's legal fund and that once the group raises $50,000 to cover legal fees, they will be ready to file the lawsuit.


Washington Post moans about cost of Justice for J6 rally

Washington Post moans about cost of Justice for J6 rally


Paul Mirengoff for Powerline


In the lead story in its local news section, the Washington Post reportedlast week that the Justice for J6 rally in D.C. cost government agencies that assisted Capitol Police at least $790,000. The Post seems bothered by this expenditure. So I infer from the fact that the paper rarely reports on the price tag of marches and protests by leftists or, for that matter, their rioting.

Whatever one thinks of the events of January 6, the protest on behalf of the defendants who stormed the Capitol was well within the rights of the protesters. Supporting folks charged with crimes is a time-honored form of American protest, especially when the alleged crimes are committed in a political context. And, of course, these rallies are protected by the First Amendment.

In this case, moreover, it’s not the protesters’ fault that government agencies spent so much in connection with the protest rally. The event was sparsely attended and did not require the expenditure of nearly $1 million. According to the Post, fewer than 500 people attended, a goodly share of whom were (in the Post’s words) “journalists and bystanders.”

Yet, the D.C. police mobilized its entire force of more than 3,500 members to work on both the day before and the day of the rally. 

The excessive amount of money was spent because the government believed its own BS. It chose to believe that this event might be a repeat of January 6 — another “insurrection.” There was no sound basis for this belief, which was widely ridiculed by sensible conservatives. Rather, the belief was founded in some combination of paranoia and the desire to advance the view that “insurrectionists” are a genuine threat in America. 

To be fair, the Justice for J6 rally isn’t the first time D.C. authorities spent way too much money policing a right-wing rally. According to the Post, a Unite the Right rally in 2018 cost the city an estimated $2.6 million. Fewer than 40 people attended that one. 

It’s good to see the city moving towards more cost-effective policing of political rallies.



Nine months into Biden’s presidency, faith in government has plummeted

Nine months into Biden’s presidency, faith in government has plummeted


Paul Mirengoff for Powerline 

Dan Balz, the Washington Post’s senior writer about politics, looks at the results of a recent Gallup poll on trust of government. Based on these results, he suggests that the public’s souring on government bodes ill for Joe Biden’s agenda.

That’s a fair conclusion. 

Gallup conducts an annual survey of attitudes about government. Last year, as the pandemic raged, 54 percent of Americans said the government should do more to solve America’s problems. This year, with the government having tried to do plenty and the pandemic persisting, 53 percent told Gallup that the government is trying to do too many things that are better left to businesses and individuals.

Balz calls this a reversion to the norm. The only other time the poll showed the public wanting a more active government was in 2001, after 9/11. However, Balz also notes that the public’s faith in the government’s ability to handle both domestic issues (39 percent) and international problems (also 39 percent) is “anemic” compared to the average response in the past two decades.

In the latest survey, the views of Republicans and Democrats haven’t changed all that much. But independents have done an about-face. A year ago, 56 percent of them wanted more government action. That number is now down to 38 percent, with 57 percent saying government is trying to do too much.

I find the new numbers particularly interesting given claims by some Democrats that Congress needs to enact massive spending packages lest the electorate be turned off by the failure of Democrats to deliver. The Gallup poll suggests that the only thing worse, electorally, than failing to deliver vast of amounts of new government activism and spending would be to deliver them.

That’s why the more honest Democrat case for the spending/activism packages is that this is likely the last chance the Dems will have in many years to enact them.

The latest poll results may be, to some extent, a reversion to the norm, as Balz says. But I still believe the Democrats are victims of their own BS. They made it sound like the pandemic and its scope were due to inaction by Donald Trump — a lie. Biden made it sound like electing him, so he could unleash the federal government, would put an end to the high death toll associated with the Wuhan coronavirus.

Now that Biden’s presidency hasn’t produced this result, and now that we’re experiencing all sorts of new problems, it’s natural to conclude that government isn’t the answer to our problems. A bit more modesty about what government can and cannot do might have produced less disillusionment. But who makes modest claims in politics these days?

I’ll conclude with my favorite passage from Balz’s piece:

Trust in the government to handle international problems is at an all-time low, at 39 percent. As a cautionary note, this survey was done shortly after the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, which could have negatively affected the findings.

For sure. And once Joe Biden cleans things up in Afghanistan, disarms the Iranian regime, and brings China to its knees, those powerful, haunting images from the Afghan debacle will recede and America’s faith in the government’s ability to handle international problems will be restored. 


Universities Deputize Students As Mask Police To Snitch On Peers For Money

Colleges have begun hiring student hall monitors to enforce mask and distancing restrictions, a move that has given students authority over their peers for their obedience to the state's COVID diktats.


How much would you have to be paid to commit social suicide? What if a paycheck wasn’t the only perk, but it also entitled you to a sickening sense of self-righteousness and an air of superiority? 

This appears to be the tradeoff many college students have made this semester as universities’ “Student Health Ambassadors,” paid adult hall monitors whose job is to patrol their campuses and enforce mask policies and distancing regulations. Several different institutions have opened this position, each one slightly different but all giving students authority over their peers in the name of public health. 

One of the most egregious examples comes from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), where student Covid commissars have been given the authority to “break up social gatherings” and to check students’ “clearance certificates.” Students who violate COVID policies can face suspension and expulsion. The enforcers, who are paid $15 an hour, even don vests and T-shirts emblazoned with the health ambassador logo. 

Other universities have taken similar approaches. The school that I attend, Pepperdine University, has launched a program to “train and deploy” students to “monitor” their peers for “COVID-19 policy compliance,” a gig that conveniently comes with a high visibility bright blue T-shirt. Pepperdine has also decided to use the carrot instead of just the stick, now giving out raffle tickets to those who are wearing masks. 

Similar “health ambassador” positions have opened up at various universities, including at the University of Rochester, the University of California at DavisNew York UniversityPenn State, and the Washington University in St. Louis, where the student workers wear yellow shirts bearing the phrase “If you can read this, you’re too close” and an elite division has been dispatched to be “cubby monitors” who monitor private study rooms.

Sycophancy As Virtue

Although these paid roles are new, they formalize a preexisting social dynamic in which average citizens have been taught that fear is a virtue and sycophancy makes them morally superior to their peers. Accordingly, they’ve been given authority over the super-spreading, science-denying troglodytes they find.

That this misguided sense of superiority has been institutionalized at various places of higher education only feeds the existing narrative that compliance is a virtue, regardless of whether it makes any sense, and that righteousness can be attained through obedience to even the most absurd diktats. 

The fact that it is other students who are enforcing mask and distancing policies makes the situation far worse. Not only are adults getting paid to be professional hall monitors, an embarrassing proposition in and of itself, but peers are being elevated above one another, ascending a hierarchy through dutiful compliance to asinine regulations. 

Performative Pandemic Protection 

It’s worth pointing out that students taking on this role may genuinely believe what they’re doing will contribute to the public’s health. But even if masks do work, a proposition that has by no means been conclusively confirmed and deserves a healthy degree of skepticism, the realities of college life, coupled with the contradictions within the regulations, render the mask policies that these “health ambassadors” are enforcing little more than petty, performative exercises in compliance. 

After roughly a year and a half apart from our friends, “social” distancing has been entirely discarded as college students desperately attempt to make up for lost time. Anyone who believes that mask policies in libraries and classrooms, no matter how meticulously enforced, will have virtually any beneficial effect on transmission in light of all of college’s parties, social gatherings, bar-hopping, and even just the day-to-day unmasked interaction that happens as soon as the library is left, is kidding himself. 

Those in a social gathering that UCLA Covid commissars are paid to break up will by all likelihood find themselves packed shoulder to shoulder sharing drinks in a frat house or a Santa Monica bar by the end of the week.

But even granted perfect enforcement and compliance with the regulations, such policies still won’t work on account of being utterly absurd and increasingly amorphous. It’s insulting that we’re expected to pretend the lone students behind closed doors in study rooms who are frequently pestered by the blue shirts pose a risk to campus safety. Equally laughable is the assumption that there’s a legitimate reason we’re only allowed to drink water when sitting down, not standing up.

It’s all theater, but refusing to believe in this cult of paranoia makes it all the more important that people are pressured into outward displays of obedience. The more absurd the rules get the more they require frequent social reaffirmation through unquestioning obedience.

The fragile trust that does remain is only dampened by the ever-changing goalposts. We were told by Joe Biden that the choice was “vaxxed or masked,” but now those with the jab are still being told to keep muzzled, and regardless of any antisocial distancing. 

Weaponized Neuroticism

It also cannot be denied that a very particular type of person is attracted to such a role. In an August article titled “America’s Elites Want To Control You More Than They Want To Control COVID,” I detailed an experience on the DC metro when a double-masked passenger got up from her seat, came within six feet of me, and told me to put on a mask. When I declined, she began filming me. 

This amalgamation of neuroticism, self-righteous condescension, paranoia, and a desperate need for authority is no doubt present among those who willingly sign up to be campus mask enforcers.

Defenders of the health ambassador program will point out that these restrictions, at least in the case of the schools in Los Angeles County, aren’t put in place by these universities. Such institutions are merely upholding policies they have no control over. Set aside the university’s ability to just say no on behalf of their students, or to even try to use their negotiating power with local authorities. The fact that students have become an enforcement wing of the state carries dangerous implications. 

We are hurtling towards a future where neighbors, coworkers, and even friends are turned on each other and the power of the state is diffused through the civilian population. In some ways we’re already there, with the existence of these paid, formal roles showcasing the encroachment of such a paradigm. Just like how the Soviets clung to control, with average citizens becoming informants for the state, the deputization of college students against one another creates a culture of social distrust. 

This sad state of affairs disproves the old libertarian talking point that “it’s not right versus left, it’s the people against the state.” Real cultural battles are much messier than that, particularly when the state has contracted out its work to college students, among others. This diffusion of power necessitates a newfound understanding of the threats to conservatism.

But this decentralization can also be demoralizing. When threats to the right are coming from the government, the corporate media, the entertainment industry, woke capital, and even student COVID commissars, it can be overwhelming to discern where to even begin pushing back.

The best place to start, perhaps, is to simply mock that which deserves to be mocked. Our opposition’s humorlessness is just as much a sign of their paranoia as it is a marker of their insecurity. As their grip over our minds slips, physical manifestations of their control become all the more important.

But all except for the most dedicated “science-trusters” realize how absurd and condescending it is to tell lone students sitting alone behind closed doors to put a mask on or to “break up social gatherings” at a university. Humor, derision, satire, and the occasional act of malicious compliance are the only appropriate responses.

It’s so self-evident that it hardly has to be argued, it just needs to be mocked. Only by supplementing intellectual takedowns with mockery and humor can the system’s self-indulgent totalitarianism be fully exposed — and eventually overcome.