Monday, January 10, 2022

‘New Order’ Is a Warning to Mexico—and to America

Why should Americans concern themselves with Mexico? 
Though the media underplays it, 
what happens in Mexico doesn’t stay in Mexico.


Americans have a rough time talking about their southern neighbor. A frayed shared history combined with a sensitivity to xenophobia makes it difficult for Americans to speak of a country which has a greater impact on the United States than any other. As such, it’s sometimes best to allow Mexicans to speak for themselves, as they reveal the country’s underlying realities that are fraught topics of discussion among those living in America.

Director Michel Franco’s film “New Order” (“Nuevo Orden” in Spanish) is an example of such a message. Produced in Mexico, it debuted at the Venice Film Festival and was released in Mexico in 2020, before arriving in the United States in 2021 in select theaters. It depicts a near-future Mexico wracked by civil unrest that suddenly turns into widespread looting and rampant violence. A high-class wedding falls victim to this uprising, leaving bloodshed and carnage in its wake. Once the dust settles, a “new order” is established in the form of a dictatorship enforced by the military in brutally oppressive fashion.

The new order depicted in the film would, arguably, resonate in a country which, for most of its history, existed under diverse iterations of authoritarianism. The Mexican Revolution, which ended 100 years ago, culminated in the entrenchment of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) within Mexico politics. For 71 years, the PRI possessed a stranglehold on governance, winning every presidential election until 2000. This amounted to a de facto single-party state, leading Peruvian Nobel Peace Prize-winner Mario Vargas Llosa to describe this regime as “the perfect dictatorship.” The veneer of republicanism from 1929 to 2000 allowed the Mexican government to fly under the radar, while more bluntly dictatorial regimes in the region, like the National Reorganization Process of Argentina and Pinochet’s Chile, received more global attention.

Like Argentina, Mexico, under the PRI’s monopoly on governance, fought its own “dirty war” from 1964 to 1982. Like its South American counterparts, the Mexican authorities battled left-wing groups and had the support of Washington in doing so. At the hands of Mexican military, intelligence, and police services, thousands of Mexicans (some guilty, some innocent) were disappeared, killed, and tortured during this period. They were incarcerated in secret prisons throughout the country, enduring beatings, harsh interrogations, and rape, among other atrocities.

It appears “New Order” draws upon this ghoulish aspect of Mexican history to illustrate a dystopian vision of what the country’s future could hold in store. In that sense, there’s nothing “new” about this order. If anything, it’s a regression to the old ways: brute force and state terror. 

The movie contains unyielding depictions of disappearances, merciless killings, torture, and rape, leaving no doubt how unforgiving the consequences of a social collapse would be. “New Order” isn’t for the faint of heart, both on a visceral and psychological level, posing very uncomfortable questions about how we’d each endure such an awful change. 

The film generated considerable controversy in Mexico, mainly due to its depiction of Indigenous peoples or darker-skinned Mestizos exacting violence against a mostly-white upper class. This is a strange criticism, however, given that advocates of the poor often cite racial disparities when talking about inequality. There exists extensive literature linking poverty and race in Mexico, with one fairly recent study finding that “one’s race is the single most important determinant of a Mexican citizen’s economic and educational attainment.” 

While American racism is often cited in conversations concerning cross-border relations or immigration, Mexico, too, has serious problems related to race; despite darker-skinned people making up the majority of the population, they not only lag in economic status, but on the social hierarchy also, perhaps a legacy of Spanish colonization. Mexico’s immigration policy, in fact, favors lighter-skinned migrants.

The race controversy aside, there’s no question economic inequality is a serious problem in Mexico. Absent a deeper dive, it’s impossible to know how likely it is that inequality alone would spark a violent uprising on the level depicted in “New Order.” However, Mexico is routinely described as a “failed state” or on its way to being one. Mexico is mired in its second decade of civil war, against powerful drug cartels across the country, costing tens of thousands of lives annually as a direct consequence and hundreds of thousands of more dead due to cartel-related organized crime. This makes America’s southern neighbor one of the most war-torn countries in the world, rivaled only by countries like Afghanistan and Yemen.

Government corruption is rampant and there are daily reminders the country hasn’t quite overcome its authoritarian past. Just as recidivism is prevalent among criminals, countries that have a long history of authoritarianism find it tough to break old habits. If Mexico were to encounter serious social turbulence resulting from inequality, war, crime, or any combination of stressors, it isn’t entirely out of the realm of possibility that widespread unrest would result. When that happens, don’t expect the Mexican military to stand idly by, especially since President Andrés Manuel López Obrador further entrenched its role in providing internal security.

All this matters because what happens in Mexico doesn’t stay in Mexico, and routinely spills over onto our side of the fence. Its civil war has, directly and indirectly, cost the lives of countless Americans. 

Difficult as it is to fathom, a war-torn country exists just over yonder. It exacerbates not only illegal immigration, which Mexico has also soured on, but also the fentanyl crisis killing thousands of Americans yearly. For now, the United States has managed to contain much of Mexico’s problems inside Mexico, but it will become increasingly difficult to do so in the years ahead, especially as the border crisis worsens.

More ominously, Mexico represents what the United States could become on a long enough timeline. Though it seems worlds away, inequality, government corruption, and systemic dysfunction are all increasingly prevalent in the Land of the Free. It often takes a crisis to show what sort of stuff a society is made of, and while America held on in the face of COVID, mass civil unrest, and a fraught election, serious cracks were exposed. 

The United States would have to fall a long way to end up even with Mexico, but none of this precludes it becoming a more chaotic, disorderly, and violent society. Even the American upper class isn’t exempt from the escalating carnage, the same as the Mexican upper class depicted in “New Order.”

What ails America isn’t the same as what ails Mexico, but the latter is merely an example of what a country can become when inequality, corruption, and dysfunction become endemic. If living standards continue to deteriorate and the state proves unable to address critical issues, over time, the United States, too, will experience tumult in the form of mass violence and unrest. The last two years have proven the critical mass is there.

“New Order” isn’t for everyone. The story lacks a big pay-off, which may disappoint some viewers, leading one to surmise that the depiction of carnage and cruelty is the point. At the end of the film, audiences may be asking, That’s it? What comes next? But maybe that’s Michel Franco’s message: the sheer awfulness of the new regime leaves nothing to look forward to. In that sense, “New Order” is a warning, to both Mexico and America, not to continue down their respective paths. It also asks a question that just might make “New Order” 2021’s most important film: can either country turn around, or is it too late?



X22, And we Know, and more-Jan 10


 



Feels nice to have a day where my nerves about possibly losing someone that I really care about aren't acting up. Here's tonight's news:

GAC Family news (I expected this 😊): https://deadline.com/2022/01/jen-lilley-multi-picture-overall-deal-gac-media-1234906605/


What Makes Riots, Conspiracies, Cabals, and Insurrections ‘Good’ or ‘Bad’? ~ VDH

Shut up and keep quiet; that is all ye need to know.


Indeed, men too often take upon themselves in the prosecution of their revenge to set the example of doing away with those general laws to which alike can look for salvation in adversity, instead of allowing them to subsist against the day of danger when their aid may be required.

Thucydides, on the stasis at Corcyra

 If the Republicans take the House or perhaps even the Senate, what new norms will they inherit from the Democratic majority of 2019-2021? 

Will Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on national television ritually tear up the text of Joe Biden’s State of the Union Address and grimace while he speaks? Was that Speaker Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) intended vision of her new “narrative” for the 21st-century Congress?

Will the new majority, calling back to 2018, almost immediately begin impeaching an unpopular Biden? And will Republicans likewise dispense with a special counsel’s report, or with formal hearings with an array of witnesses with spirited cross-examinations? 

Will they establish a special committee to investigate the rioting of summer 2020? Perhaps, in the new cannibalistic spirit of the age, will they dig into which national political figures—or colleagues—communicated with the Antifa or Black Lives Matter riot leaders, or offered them bail?

Will Speaker McCarthy veto Democratic committee members and instead appoint his own Democrats—on three criteria: one, that they have previously voted to impeach Biden; two, that either they cannot realistically again run for, or cannot conceivably be reelected to, the House; and three, that in advance they publicly praise and agree with McCarthy on the unwarranted virulence of the 2020 riots?

Will Republicans claim as reason to impeach Joe Biden that he failed to execute the laws as he swore to, by nullifying U.S immigration law? Was he not also guilty of an “abuse of power” and “obstructing Congress,” as he allowed 2 million aliens unlawfully to cross the southern border, during a pandemic without either testing or vaccinations, helping to spread the disease with reckless disregard? Will the new Congress subpoena generals to investigate the surrender and flight from Afghanistan, and especially who ordered it and why?

Would the Republicans follow the new norms and thus impeach a once-impeached and acquitted Biden a second time as he leaves office, and have the Senate try Biden in 2025 as a private citizen—again with neither a special counsel nor formal report—nor with the chief justice presiding over the trial, as the Constitution demands?

Will they appoint a special counsel to appoint a dream team of conservative lawyers? And would they allot a budget of $40 million and a lifespan of 22 months to get to the bottom of the Biden family pay-for-play syndicate, as federal investigators try to square Biden family expenditures and lifestyles with reported incomes? 

Would such a counsel subpoena all the records of the Biden family, especially those concerning the financial labyrinth of Hunter Biden, to determine whether the Bidens registered as lobbyists for foreign governments, declared to the IRS their entire incomes, told the truth while under oath, or contacted public officials to influence U.S. foreign policy?

As far as “domestic terrorists”—who, according to Vice President Kamala Harris, rival the Imperial Japanese Navy’s killing of 2,400 Americans at Pearl Harbor or Bin Laden’s 9/11 hit team that murdered 3,000 civilians—should a bipartisan Warren Commission of distinguished citizens, without politicians of either party, be convened and entrusted to look at both the January 6 and summer 2020 riots? 

The goal would be complete transparency: the FBI would turn over all records concerning the use of informants in both riots. Former Attorney General Merrick Garland would be called in to detail what the FBI did and did not do—as the investigation also queried the agency’s other efforts monitoring parents at school board meetings or serving as the Biden family clean-up and retrieval service. 

All communications during days of riot between law enforcement and politicians, and within law enforcement, likewise would enter the public domain. 

The violent deaths of Ashli Babbitt and more than 30 victims of the 2020 riots would be fully reinvestigated: who were the parties responsible for their deaths? Were they arrested, indicted, convicted, and incarcerated—or exempted? Would there be dozens of indictments, in Kyle Rittenhouse fashion?

Which social media platforms were used during both the 2020 and January 6 riots, if any, to coordinate violent activity? Did public officials or candidates contribute to the violence by encouraging exemptions, or offering to bail out offenders? 

Did demonstrators in the violent weeks before the election and in the street modulate their high profiles and calibrate violence on the prompt of “powerful people” in politics and the media, as seemingly suggested in a recent Timemagazine braggadocious article (e.g., “There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans.” [emphases added])

 “Good” and “Bad” Riots?

 Now too many see the protests as the problem. No, the problem is what forced your fellow citizens to take to the streets: persistent, poisonous inequities and injustice . . . And please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful. Because I can show you that outraged citizens are what made the country what she is and led to any major milestone. To be honest, this is not a tranquil time.” 

CNN anchorman Chris Cuomo

What if there had been a quite different national reaction following the shooting of military veteran Ashli Babbitt, the petite woman who was killed by an unnamed law-enforcement officer while unarmed and committing the crime of unlawfully entering the U.S. Capitol? 

What if from January to May 2021, 120 days of looting, arson, and violence had followed the killing of the unarmed Babbitt by a policeman whose identity federal police would not divulge? As a result, what if right-wing thugs and criminals for four months in late spring and summer of 2021 had engaged in rioting, arson, and looting that resulted in over 30 deaths and $2 billion in property damage, flame-seared police precincts and torched federal courthouses, and caused 2,000 police injuries? 

What if red state governors gave the rioters and protestors a pass to violate quarantines, given the outrageous killing of an unarmed woman? What if national figures such as a Republican vice presidential candidate bragged of contributing to bail funds for any rioters and looters and arsonists who were arrested? 

Yet what if most of those hypothetical right-wingers in 2021 reacting to the Babbitt killing and responsible for trying to burn down government buildings were either not arrested, or subsequently released after being arrested, or had their charges dropped? And imagine if such exemptions accorded to right-wing thugs and miscreants stood in contrast to the hundreds of summer 2020 rioters still sitting in jail—often in solitary confinement, without recourse to bail—and watched by abusive right-wing deplorable guards?

What would be the reaction if local law enforcement were ordered by red state mayors not to stop such post-January 6 violence, as governors refused to call out their National Guards? What if the top retired military echelon in 2021 had libeled a Democratic president for even suggesting that federal troops were necessary to reestablish calm? What would happen if for days on end, zany armed right-wingers carved out a swath of downtown Phoenix, declaring it their own autonomous zone, and warned police not to dare enter their domain?

Beautiful Conspiracies, Lovely Cabals?

There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs . . . Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears . . . That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.

Molly Ball, Time

So left-wing Time journalist Molly Ball wrote in obvious admiration of the supposed real “heroes” of the 2020 election.

But what if in the next election, copycat, private citizen, right-wing billionaires likewise in “secret” and through a “shadow campaign” pull off a successful “conspiracy”?

What if in this new normal a “well-funded cabal of powerful people” on the Right managed to “influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information”? What would the Left say of all that after their candidate lost the 2024 election?

What if right-wing journalist hacks bragged post facto that their successful effort was the epitome of a “conspiracy,” and “well-funded” cabals—given their noble efforts to modulate and calm down right-wing protests in the streets before the election, and get their allies in the media “to control the flow of information”? 

Would leftists allege that right-wing looters and arsonists obeyed commands from colluding right-wing billionaires and politicians to clean up their act, temporarily, given the bad pre-election media optics? Would that be racketeering across state lines or a conspiracy or an insurrection turned off and on? Would right-wing freelancers be praised for trying to warp the media and channel the “flow of information”? Perhaps, the noble conspiracy would succeed, with the aid of the media and FBI, to squash any embarrassing story about a Trump family diary or laptop?

What if Joe Biden was not just dealing with his own self-created disasters that have dropped his polls below 40 percent, but also simultaneously with such a right-wing cabal suing in the courts, after failing to persuade purple-state legislative majorities to overturn existing voting laws? What would Biden do if dozens of right-wing funded lawsuits, adjudicated by right-wing Trump-appointed judges, began systematically altering purple-state balloting procedures passed by their legislatures?

What if suddenly and mysteriously in 2024 there were no longer 102 million early and mail-in voters, but a more typical 30-40 million voters casting ballots outside of Election Day? What if the abnormal and surreal 2020 ballot disqualification rate of 0.1 to 0.4 percent in many states, returned to a more normal two to four percent? 

Would any on the Left object if a single right-wing billionaire stealthily channeled $419 million into preselected swing-state red precincts, effectively to take over public oversight of the balloting? Would Hillary Clinton then again say the Republican winner was “illegitimate”? Would celebrities once more appear in videos urging the electors not to honor their states’ voting tallies?

All Ye Need to Know

The point of these hypotheticals is that there is no point, no consistent theme, no constant principle concerning riots, conspiracies, cabals, and insurrections—except one. 

There is only the left-wing desire through any means necessary to obtain, increase, and use power to alter the Constitution and our long-held traditions and customs of governance, especially when the majority in a constitutional republic opposes such efforts. The lesson then is that all means are justified to obtain morally superior ends—with the caveat that only leftists can be morally superior.

As a result, sometimes “dark money” cabals and “unfolding” conspiracies of “powerful people,” who vow to rid the world of Trump, successfully can and should “change rules and laws” and again “control the flow of information” and modulate “protests” and coordinate private enterprise “ resistance.”

But what of the supposedly clueless public? What of the non-powerful people, the clingers, the dregs, and the irredeemables, the smelly in Walmart, and the toothless who have no inkling of such a smug, hip “shadow campaign”? What of those without Mark Zuckerberg’s billions, or Silicon Valley’s control of “the flow of information” or vast sums of “hundreds of millions in public and private funding”?

They are left with only the surreality that sometimes elected legislatures passing laws to require a voter to present an ID is “racist” and “voter suppression,” but at other times private “cabals” and conspiracies of “powerful people,” who outside of government and in secret, should certainly be “changing,” “steering,” and “controlling” voting procedures and the media coverage of such efforts. 

In their deplorable ignorance, they are to accept that sometimes 120-day big riots are admirably not “tranquil,” but smaller one-day ones are terrorism and insurrection. Sometimes unarmed suspects, with a long record of meritorious military service, lethally shot by a policeman deserved it, as the law enforcement shooter becomes heroic and the victim demonized and slandered, as the killing is no indictment of policing.  But then again, sometimes unarmed suspects, with lengthy arrest records, who die while in police custody are deified, as the death contextualizes ensuing riots and mayhem. 

Sometimes renegade impeachments without rules are wonderful to behold; sometimes they would be hateful, vindictive, and destructive of American democracy. 

A cynic who knew nothing of politics, nothing of the contemporary American Left or Right,  might instead conclude in Orwellian fashion that big, lengthy deadly riots, are “good,” smaller, shorter, less-lethal ones “bad”; that bigger, more secret, and more successful cabals are good; but smaller, more open, and less successful ones would be bad. 

Also good is a Congress going to unprecedented lengths to destroy an effective president with a successful record. Bad is a Congress impotently attempting to block a failed president with a catastrophic record. 

And so shut up and keep quiet, since that is all ye need to know . . .


What to Do with Feckless Republicans?

 

Well, maybe it's not that bad, but...terrorist attack? Seriously. Ted?

 

Article by Steve Feinstein in The American Thinker


What to Do with Feckless Republicans?

It seems as if pretty much all the news these days is bad, doesn't it?  When things aren't good, the one thing the average person wants is to feel that he has some real, dependable representation in D.C., someone who empathizes and cares about his concerns.  For conservatives, this means they want trustworthy Republican representation.  Unfortunately, today's Republicans are generally feckless.  They do not fight for their constituents' concerns and principles.

Whether it's a matter of gross incompetence or willful intention, nothing the current Democratic administration is doing is improving the lives of the average American citizen.  Nothing.  Consider:

  • Inflation is raging out of control.  Gasoline prices — splattered in huge lettering on the "daily scorecard" of every local gas station — are a constant reminder of how far behind everyone feels like they're falling.
  • Month after month, the new jobs data disappoint, missing the so-called experts' projections by a country mile.
  • The divisive seeds of racial division are being sown by the Democrats like never before, for the inexcusable reason of political leverage.
  • Illegal immigration is not merely out of control.  It is being actively encouraged.
  • American energy production is intentionally curtailed, while we beg our OPEC rivals for greater production to make up for our shortfall.  Try to figure that one out.
  • Russia and China — our main global adversaries, both economically and militarily — are gaining on us (if not surpassing us) with nary a whimper of opposition from the Brandon administration.

And there's the Big One: the COVID pandemic.  Despite Biden's risible campaign squawking of "I'm not gonna shut down the economy; I'm gonna shut down the virus!," he's managed to do the exact opposite.  The virus is running rampant while the economy is staggering along like a drunken sailor who picked an ill advised fight with George Foreman.

Our hapless government gives every indication that it's making up its COVID policy as it goes along, without any regard for actual science.  Instead, complete and utter allegiance to political considerations (such as perpetuating the "threat" of COVID in order to maintain fraudulent mail-in voting) rules the day.  The opening in the common cloth mask is four times larger than the virus particle (500 nanowebers vs. 125 nanowebers, giving rise to the saying, "It's like trying to stop a swarm of mosquitoes with a chain-link fence"), yet the government tells the public to "mask up."  Children have a demonstrable natural resistance to COVID, yet the government imposes vaccine mandates on children under 12 years of age when the statistical likelihood of an adverse reaction to the vaccine greatly exceeds the chances of a bad COVID event in children.

The government yelps daily that we are experiencing a "pandemic of the unvaccinated," yet a huge proportion of new omicron COVID infections are those who've been not only vaccinated, but boosted as well.

In short, from every angle — economic, foreign relations, immigration and especially public health/safety — this Democratic administration is a total, abject failure, the likes of which have never been seen before.  It's truly historic.

But you wouldn't know any of this from the way the Democrats control the public narrative.  Republicans do not fight.  They let the Democrats set the agenda and present all the public talking points.  Whether Republicans are incapable of effectively countering the Democrats or are simply too afraid to try to is an open question.

Republicans sit by passively as the Progressive Big Tech monopoly bans one conservative after another.  Marjorie Taylor Greene is banned by Twitter — another in a far too long line of Republicans removed for the "crime" of presenting conservative views — and her party says nothing.  If there were a reciprocal situation in which a Democrat was unfairly targeted by a conservative media source, the entire liberal machine would kick into high gear and beat the publicity drums with unrelenting outrage.  Yes, the liberals do retain control of the old-line legacy media (network TV, printed newspapers, CNN/MSNBC, NPR/PBS, etc.), but there is far more alternative media reach today than there was even five or ten years ago.  Yet the Republican leadership is mostly silent.

During the recently passed anniversary of the over-hyped January 6, 2021 Capitol riot (an event in which not a single person has been charged with "insurrection," nor was a single elected government official so much as scratched), the supposedly brilliant and articulate Senator Ted Cruz described the event on the Senate floor as a "terrorist attack."  It was nothing of the sort, and Tucker Carlson took Cruz to task for Cruz's wildly inaccurate and arbitrarily histrionic remarks.

The question that needs to be answered is, why did Senator Cruz use that terminology?  It's as if conservatives are so browbeaten by their liberal overlords that they feel the need to curry favor by ceding some positions to the liberals.  It was as if Cruz was essentially saying to the liberal establishment, See?  I can call it 'terrorism.'  I can condemn it.  Aren't you proud of me now?  Won't you give me some credit now and say I'm a pretty good guy?  Please?

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/what_to_do_with_feckless_republicans.html 

 







Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Stop Calling It a ‘Voting Rights’ Bill

PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION DOESN’T PROTECT DEMOCRACY. 
IT PROTECTS DEMOCRATS.

One-party rule and the destruction of an effective opposition might seem like a counterintuitive goal for “democracy journalists” pushing the “voting rights” legislation. But democracy journalists have been refreshingly candid in their goal to destroy competitive opposition in order to “save democracy.” Don’t believe me? Read below how these self-appointed heroes of democracy explain that nullifying their political opponents will preserve democracy from election results that contradict their political views.

This campaign has gone on for a long time in one form or another. But the New Republic offered this opinion piece early in the 2020 election season, “End the GOP—In order to save our democracy, we must not merely defeat the Republican Party.” Osita Nwanevu wrote: 

We cannot afford to wait the GOP out; its power is not a problem to be worked around. The only way to take on the problems posed by the Republican Party is to take on the Republican Party itself. The forces of demographic change and structural reforms must be joined with direct action. . . . We must wrest that choice back and set the country forward. We must end the GOP.

In December, the New York Times treated us to an opinion column disguised as a news story headlined, “Voting Rights and the Battle Over Elections: What To Know.” In it the author pooh-poohed Republican efforts to improve election integrity writing, “Republicans have often sought to limit absentee-ballot drop boxes by claiming without evidence that they are susceptible to fraud.” Without evidence? The author failed to acknowledge that Project Veritas filed a defamation lawsuit against the Times after the Times falsely accused Project Veritas of faking the video footage of an operative bragging about stealing and forging absentee ballots. 

The Times story goes on, “Other new laws tighten identification requirements for voting by mail, bar election officials from proactively sending out ballot applications or shorten the time frame during which absentee ballots can be requested,” adding (without evidence), “Some are also likely to affect voters of color disproportionately, echoing the country’s long history of racial discrimination at the polls, where Black citizens once faced barriers to voting including poll taxes, literacy tests, intimidation and impossible hurdles, like guessing the number of butter beans in a jar.”

Wait, are Republicans passing laws to require a poll tax, literacy test, and a requirement to count butter beans? No, the author doesn’t say that. He simply argued that asking for an ID to confirm voter identity is exactly the same as a poll tax and not at all like the very acceptable requirement of showing a COVID card to enter government buildings. Oh, and also, “You’ll need to show a photo ID that matches your vaccine record.”

After baselessly speculating that legitimate voters are prevented from voting because of voter ID laws, the Times story then lets slip what this is all really about. “The stakes are enormous: In battleground states like Georgia and Arizona, where the 2020 presidential margins were less than 13,000 votes, even a slight curtailment of turnout could tilt the outcome.” 

This is about engineering Democratic victories. Everyone knows that.

The Washington Post recently added its contribution to the, “save democracy by destroying political opposition,” campaign. In the ironically titled piece, “The rise of a pro-democracy media,” columnist Perry Bacon, Jr. wrote approvingly of the coordination of legacy media to a single “Republicans are bad for democracy” message. But, “the story of GOP . . . democracy erosion isn’t being covered extensively or aggressively by a big, important chunk of the media—the morning and nightly news shows of the big broadcast channels (NBC, CBS, ABC) and in local television news.” 

The coordinated media messaging (and I can’t believe the media is actually admitting to this) is missing sectors of our society. But, in Bacon’s estimation, the rich liberal class will drink the Kool Aid and help end Republican competitiveness. 

“Rich people, corporations, foundations, politicians and other elite individuals and organizations have outsize power,” Bacon writes. “The media that those people consume is telling them clearly that the current Republican Party is a threat to the nation’s future. Let’s hope they listen—and do something about it.” 

What does “do something about it” mean? The New Republic piece from 2020 makes the answer clear. True “democracy” can never be achieved so long as Republicans can compete effectively in elections.

The legislation pending in Congress has little or nothing to do with “voting rights.” It’s all about facilitating a preferred election outcome. “Voting rights,” legislation doesn’t protect democracy; it protects Democrats. The Democrats selling the plan expressly equate permanently defeating Republicans with “saving” democracy. This is the outcome achieved in China that, no joke, argues that its one-party state is closer to a true democracy than the American two-party system. The Peoples’ Democratic Republic of North Korea has also “saved” its democracy from opposition parties.

In fairness, it’s not just the Democrats attempting to end Republican opposition. Republicans like Representatives Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) have also warned darkly of offending the consensus uniparty. Sometimes it feels like the leadership of the Republican Party yearns for the golden age of permanent irrelevance in federal elections.

International election standards call for neutral election rules that do not favor one party over the other. These standards provide that, “Election administration must be non-partisan and neutral.” And legitimate anti-fraud measures must be employed that, “ensure that voters are adequately identified and that other mechanisms are in place to prevent fraudulent or double voting.” The push to facilitate voting without confirming the identity of the eligible voter undermines the integrity of elections and has nothing to do with “voting rights.” 


The Federal Government Has Become Pablo Escobar

 

 

Pablo Escobar: "Plata o plomo" (silver or lead)

 

Article by J.B. Shurk in The American Thinker


The Federal Government Has Become Pablo Escobar

In two and a half centuries, we have gone from this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

To this:

You must, against your conscience and free will, submit to forced government injections of experimental chemicals developed by pharmaceutical companies motivated by profit and their bottom line, accept that medical treatments will be administered according to race, and consent to being digitally tracked in perpetuity to ensure your continued compliance with any future mandates the State may deem necessary for the "common good" — or you can lose your job, your property, your liberty, and any possibility for future happiness.

Is it any wonder that Democrats work so hard to "cancel" the Founding Fathers and their project for human freedom?  If Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were alive today, they'd take one look around, spit on their hands, grab some soft dirt, and get back to work.  The American Leviathan can't have that.

If we were being honest, we would acknowledge that the current U.S. government has much more in common with Pablo Escobar than Thomas Jefferson.  The Colombian drug lord and terrorist who controlled the Medellín Cartel in the late 20th century was fond of telling those who considered opposing him that they could choose either plata o plomo — silver or lead — riches or execution.  I'm not saying that these experimental injections for the Chinese Flu are a death sentence — although for anybody who experiences an adverse reaction from forced treatment, especially when we won't know the potential long-term side-effects for a decade or longer, all of this still has to feel like a game of Russian roulette in which the first five players have already pulled the trigger and your turn's up next.

No, the real bullet the U.S. government has loaded in the chamber is for those who resist its medical dictatorship and find themselves denied their natural rights altogether.  Plata o plomo, America!  Reap the rewards of obeying the government's new authorities, or find out what life is like for those who will not comply.  Following in Escobar's footsteps, the U.S. government has decided that threats and coercion are effective tools for selling a lot of drugs!

From my vantage point, the federal authorities have lost all goodwill with the people.  Our current circumstances bring to mind a question posed by Boston clergyman and Loyalist Mather Byles (one revived by Mel Gibson in The Patriot): "Which is better — to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?"  I know this much: if we could rid ourselves of all three thousand tyrants today by sending them all three thousand miles away, we as a people would be much more safe, secure, prosperous, and of course free.

In reflecting upon the crises collectivists and globalists have unleashed on civilization, Brandon Smith over at Alt-Market asks an important question: "Is there a way to prevent psychopaths from getting into positions of power?"  He rightly sees free societies as being under sustained attack by a collection of narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths who have effectively taken over government and today conspire for "mutual gain" at the expense of those governed, "much like a pack of wolves" hunting and tearing apart their prey.  He sagely notes that our current situation is ironic because the construction of democratic institutions over the last three centuries was intended, among other things, to liberate populations living under daily threats of death and turmoil brought by the rule of royal dynasties genetically predisposed to psychopathy and self-grandeur.  Democratic institutions, in contrast, were supposed to provide strong mechanisms for "weed[ing] out aberrant individuals" through transparent elections.  

Looking around today at who runs for office and holds power, though, it would seem that having an "aberrant" personality is more of a requirement than a disqualification.  Our ruling psychopaths make running for office highly undesirable for good decent people, and the psychopathic 1% of the 1% pushing globalism down our throats have found it perhaps even more easy to control the votes and actions of poor elected representatives and bureaucrats than to deal with all-powerful kings or mercurial dictators.  Smith sees an unavoidable fight coming in our future but does recommend a future electoral system should the psychopaths ever be "exiled" where a random public lottery (à la mode de William F. Buckley, Jr.) aided by strict term limits fills every available political and government job.  Hear!  Hear! 

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, and we do have a problem today: our "precious democracy" is filled with government actors you wouldn't trust to dog-sit, let alone babysit.  This phenomenon is nothing new; power tends to attract the worst kinds of people.  The good news is that our Founding Fathers devised a system that protects individual rights, champions liberty at the expense of government, and inherently limits power by separating it into distinct jurisdictional branches that compete against each other.  The bad news is that the modern federal government threw out the Constitution decades ago so that the Supreme Court could act as a supra-legislative oligarchy, congressional authority could be controlled by a small monied international ruling class, the president could use his "pen and phone" as would a king, and administrative agencies could simultaneously harness the powers of all three branches of government with hardly any accountability owed to the voting public at all.  

It should be no surprise, then, that our political leaders talk only about "saving democracy" these days and have nothing to say about "preserving freedom."  If we actually preserved our freedom, they'd be out of office permanently.  If "democracy," on the other hand, means nothing more than Club Psychopath, then those in power will rush to preserve their abomination faster than they jumped at the chance to board Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita Express.  If "voting rights," as the Democrat Congress calls them, mean opening the electoral floodgates to large-scale mail-in balloting initiatives implemented by partisan political operatives and shielded from scrutiny by federal power-hoarders, then "democracy" is just another word for total and permanent control by an entrenched aristocracy.  Democratic institutions are no good in and of themselves if they do not serve to preserve and protect the very natural rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and given such robust spirit by our own Declaration of Independence.

It may be a modern proverb (one often incorrectly ascribed to Benjamin Franklin because it sounds as if it came straight from Poor Richard's Almanack), but it is no less true: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.  Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."  And when "our precious democracy" has more in common with Pablo Escobar's way of doing business than with Washington's or Jefferson's, we must always be prepared to contest the vote.

 

 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/the_federal_government_has_become_pablo_escobar.html

 






Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


A Ron DeSantis Master Class in Rope-a-Dope

Why Democrats were fools to cast him as MIA during the holidays.


Incoming criticism comes with the territory in politics, and responding to it is a skill. There are four, maybe five, schools of thought on how best to do so. Over the Christmas holidays, Ron DeSantis gave a clinic in one of them.

How to Respond

The first method of responding to criticism is simply to ignore attacks and hope they go away. Given the volume of criticism that faces any public official, everyone has to use this sometimes. In general, however, this tactic is only an option for dealing with real vulnerabilities if you can depend upon a sympathetic media to smother stories rather than escalate them when you are obviously hiding from them. No Republican on the national stage or in competitive jurisdictions can hope for that kind of media blackout.

The second option is to address criticism head-on, rebutting it and showing why it is wrong. One of the reasons why DeSantis has attracted a following outside his home state is that he has proven quite good at this on occasion, as has his communications team. For example, DeSantis won his battle with 60 Minutes last spring over using Publix to distribute vaccines when he rebutted his questioner so well and in such detail that she had to edit out most of his response — following which DeSantis and his team pounced by releasing the full video.

The third option is to counterattack: When the media or your political opponents attack, change the subject by hitting them back. George H. W. Bush going after Dan Rather or Newt Gingrich dressing down debate moderators for asking bad questions are famous examples of this tactic. Donald Trump, who hated to leave attacks unanswered but often faced criticisms for which he had no good answers, was especially fond of this approach. So were the Clintons in their heyday. A lot of Twitter spats between members of Congress go this way on both sides. DeSantis, for his part, also visibly enjoys playing the “there you go again, corporate media” card. Of course, voters eventually catch on if you lean too hard on counterattacks and never actually answer any questions. Overuse of this tactic also leads to misfiring. Leaders who are so thin-skinned that they need to personally counterpunch at everybody, rather than let their team or their surrogates carry some of the load, will end up alienating normal voters.

The fourth option is rope-a-dope: Let your critics think they are being unanswered and ignored, so that they become increasingly shrill and eventually make mistakes or turn people off in their desperation to get a response. From initial appearances, it can sometimes be hard to distinguish rope-a-dope from entirely ignoring attacks. Candidates who are way ahead in an election, such as Bill Clinton against Bob Dole in 1996, tend to use this tactic. George W. Bush loved it, and used it to great effect against Al Gore, but had so overused the tactic by his second term that his team’s capacity to do anything else had atrophied. Barack Obama’s version of this was termed “stray voltage” by his team: do something that is deliberately designed to attract criticism in order to make your critics look overwrought. Make them seem conspiratorial when they claim that the thing you did on purpose was done on purpose.

Like a great trap laid by a lawyer on cross-examination, a great rope-a-dope is hard to pull off. But, as Don Draper might say, it’s delicate, but potent. When perfectly executed, it not only exposes the adversary but leaves them open to a devastating blow when a response finally comes.

Those are the four traditional options. A fifth was unique to Trump: When you’re in a hole, either keep digging or start a new hole. Demonstrate that you will never back down, ever, no matter how red-handed your critics have you. Create such a huge, swirling vortex of simultaneous crises and criticisms that nobody can keep track of them all, and your critics start sounding like wild-eyed fanatics just trying to keep up and be heard over the din of each other. We can debate how well this worked out for Trump in the short and long terms: It’s an approach that helped him win the primary and general elections in 2016 and beat two impeachments, but it is also part of how he lost in 2020 and how he got impeached twice in the first place. In any event, this approach to criticism was so unique to Trump’s own personality that it would be madness to counsel anyone else to imitate it.

Where Is Ron?

That brings us to late December’s controversy: The usually omnipresent DeSantis went some two weeks without appearing in the media or at public events. Florida Democrats and national progressives thought that this opened him to a great attack: The governor has gone missing during a crisis! Never mind that the “crisis” was a pandemic that has been ongoing for two years now, and DeSantis — like any other governor who’s been in office the whole time — more or less knows what his menu of options are, and his team knows what he’d do.

Moreover, DeSantis, unlike Pete Buttigieg last summer, wasn’t actually off the job. He was still holding regular meetings in Tallahassee. This was well known because Florida has an extensive legal and political culture of openness under its Sunshine laws. One can easily examine who DeSantis is meeting with. What’s more, his press office sends out a daily schedule to the Florida press.

An aside on claims that DeSantis was absent from his job: This is, ultimately, a process story. Process stories, though much beloved by the political media, tend to break through to the greater public and do real damage only if the voters actually think the politician is doing a bad job, or if they think the politician is hiding because they are actually unwell. Then again, ever since Mark Sanford’s absence from office turned into a sexual-affair story that ended his career in statewide office, people in politics have taken the view that a missing politician might be hiding something bigger.

But it was foolhardy to go after DeSantis on this for related reasons: It was the Christmas holidays. DeSantis has young children. He’s likely got a busy reelection schedule in 2022, perhaps followed by a presidential campaign. And his wife is battling breast cancer. Nobody would really begrudge the man spending a little more holiday time this year with his family.

Still, Florida Democrats are nothing if not fools. And the DeSantis haters nationally only loathe and fear him all the more for the sheer number of timesthey thought they had him only to see him, like the Road Runner, sprint away undamaged while his pursuers wiped the shrapnel off their own faces.

So, Nikki Fried (vying with Charlie Crist to be DeSantis’s hapless opponent this November) pushed hard on the “where is Ron?” theme. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, when caught vacationing in Florida, played that card as well: “Hasn’t Gov. DeSantis been inexplicably missing for like two weeks? If he’s around, I would be happy to say hello.” MSNBC’s Joy Reid claimed that DeSantis was “not governing during a crisis; and sunning his belly on vacation instead.”

There Is Ron

After letting this go on for two weeks, DeSantis answered his critics: He had been busy instead accompanying his wife to her cancer treatments. As he explained:

“I just looked at my wife. I’m like, ‘going to the hospital with you is not a vacation for you, I know that,’” DeSantis said. “This is something that as a husband, I think I should be doing. I’ve accompanied her to all her chemotherapy treatments. She’s there for a long time. I’m there most of the time.” “But it’s a draining thing,” the Governor added. “When she’s done with it, it’s not something that’s great to see.”

DeSantis said that for many people, including those who had gone through breast cancer treatments, “the notion that would be considered a vacation is offensive to a lot of those folks, and they understand what you’re doing.”

This was a textbook example of a perfect rope-a-dope. DeSantis could have shut down his critics earlier; instead, he let them wallow in their “trend this on Twitter” antics and increasingly overwrought rhetoric before finally wading in to present a reason for being out of the public eye that is beyond public criticism.

DeSantis then turned the knife on Ocasio-Cortez and other critics of his relatively unrestrictive COVID policies who nonetheless enjoy decamping to Florida for vacations:

“If I had a dollar for every lock-down politician who decided to escape to Florida over the last two years, I’d be a pretty doggone wealthy man, let me tell you,” DeSantis said Monday. “I mean Congresspeople, mayors, governors, you name it.”

“It’s interesting, though, the reception that some of these folks will get in Florida because I think a lot of Floridians say, ‘Wait a minute. You’re bashing us because we’re not doing your draconian policies and yet we’re the first place you want to flee to, to basically to be able to enjoy life,’” the Republican governor added. “So I’m not surprised to see that continuing to happen.”

They’re not the only ones; there has been a major exodus of Americans to Florida, while the more restrictive blue states have been bleeding people. It’s much more expensive now to rent a U-Haul from New York to Florida than from Florida to New York. If you look at net domestic migration between July 1, 2020 and July 1, 2021, as computed by the Census Bureau, the top three states gaining people were Florida (+220,890), Texas (+170,307), and Arizona (+93,026), while the top three losers were California (-367,299), New York (-352,185), and Illinois (-122,460). The impact on Florida’s politics is likely to only strengthen DeSantis, as Florida’s voter registration has become markedly more Republican:

Karol Markowicz of the New York Post, who is one of the most New York people I know, finally had it and moved to Florida in December, driven largely by exasperation with New York City schools and their COVID mania. As she noted in her column explaining why she left for Florida:

When I announced our family was leaving New York and moving to Florida, a state with a governor who has led the way on sanely managing COVID-19, I received dozens of messages from New Yorkers considering the same move. When I asked several if I could quote them, they asked to use a fake name. . . . It’s telling that we don’t see high-profile people on the left announcing their departures from red states without vaccine or mask mandates. If lives are actually on the line, we should see an exodus of people from states like Florida or Texas. Instead we are seeing influxes of people from states with tight restrictions to states with looser ones.

Any New Yorker can tell you stories of random conversations with cab drivers, bartenders, parents in their kids’ schools, all sorts of people who are picking up and moving to Florida, or trying to make it happen.

If you’re wondering why people have only grown more interested in sizing up DeSantis as presidential timber over the past two years, the combination of his political skill in dealing with critics and the exodus of people voting with their feet to go live in his state should help explain it.