Tuesday, January 23, 2024

White Americans are Quiet Quitting our Leading Institutions

Can America’s institutions run as well in the 21st century if white Americans are quiet quitting them in despair? 
It looks like we’re about to find out.


As the work-from-home trend took off during the COVID-19 pandemic, the term “quiet quitting” entered the contemporary lexicon.

According to the Harvard Business Review, “Quiet quitters continue to fulfill their primary responsibilities, but they’re less willing to engage in activities known as citizenship behaviors: no more staying late, showing up early, or attending non-mandatory meetings.” Simply put, having perceived their jobs to not have value and meaning, they do no more than absolutely necessary.

There is debate among scholars as to the extent of the quiet quitting phenomenon, but there is increasing evidence that white Americans are increasingly quiet quitting America’s leading institutions. And the possible implications of that for American society are profound.

This phenomenon is a consequence of the trends I write about in my forthcoming book, The Unprotected Class, about the rise of anti-white racism in American culture and how both formal and informal anti-white discrimination have become a factor in almost every area of American public life.

Little surprise then, that more and more young whites, especially young white men, are looking at the overall environment and saying, “Thanks, but no thanks,” to our leading institutions. Last week, the armed forces announced that the number of white recruits had fallen precipitously over the last five years.

According to a report at Military.com, most of the Army’s much-discussed incoming recruiting shortfall is due largely to this dramatic decline. While a bit more than 44,000 white Americans signed up to join the army in 2018, that number cratered to just over 25,000 by 2023—a stunning drop in a short period of time when black and Hispanic recruiting was largely flat. As a result, white recruits went from 56.4% of soldiers in 2018 to 44% in 2023.

Even military leaders attribute this decline in significant part to the souring of conservative whites, who have traditionally formed the backbone of the military, but are now looking at the woke anti-white military under Joe Biden and opting out. “There’s a level of prestige in parts of conservative America with service that has degraded,” a senior army official told Military.com. Or, as conservative talk show host and U.S. marine combat veteran Jesse Kelly put it on X, “My sons will not serve. I don’t have a single veteran friend who’s encouraging his sons to serve. Most are actively discouraging them from doing so.”

A collapse in any demographic’s willingness to serve in the military would be a concern, but a collapse in (disproportionately conservative) whites in the military is more likely to precipitate a readiness crisis. White soldiers are far more likely than non-whites to be the “tip of the spear,” taking on the most dangerous and important combat tasks. In Iraq and Afghanistan, approximately 80% of special forces were white. Despite heavy diversity recruitment efforts in recent years, 84% of Navy SEALs are white. These special forces teams are filled with objective qualifications, performance, and candidate interest. It may be politically incorrect to say, but as a matter of math, in the current environment, a military that is less white is also a military that’s almost certainly less capable. 

Even before the current recruiting collapse, we were already seeing the results of diversity uber alles in military performance. A recent article in Palladium Magazine described this growing competence crisis, and how it affects not just the military but all American institutions. On the military side, in a short period of just three months in 2017, there were three warship collisions resulting in 17 deaths. In 2020, there was a fire that resulted in the destruction of the USS Bonhomme Richard, a $750 million navy ship, resulting in 63 injuries. According to Palladium, a subsequent off-the-record interview with dozens of Navy officers (both current and retired) laid the blame for the incidents at the Navy prioritizing diversity training over warfighting capability. Yet, the armed forces are busy eliminating or de-emphasizing meritocratic tests for service in an attempt to “improve” diversity. 

It’s not just the military. Whites, as a percentage of medical school students, are well below their population numbers. White college enrollment for 18-24 year-olds has dropped from 43% in 2010 to 38% in 2021, the sharpest drop for any major ethnic group (it is now essentially equal with African-Americans, though African-American students are, on average, far less college-ready than whites) Enrollment is down particularly sharply among white men, the group that has historically led America’s institutions, having collapsed from just 41% to 33%—an attendance rate far below Asian-Americans and just a couple of points above African-Americans and Hispanics. 

Given that SAT Scores are on, average, much higher for whites than either blacks or Hispanics, it is clear that whites make up a hugely disproportionate number of the students qualified for college but not attending. Discriminated against by race-based preferences in both academia and the workplace, young white men in particular are increasingly dropping out. There has been an almost a continuous drop in white male labor force participation over decades now, a drop sharper than seen in any other ethnic group.

In the mid-twentieth century, American employers began focusing more intensely on objective measures to assess human capital, as standardized tests for everything from college entrance to the military reigned supreme. This differentiation allowed talented people from modest social and financial backgrounds to ascend the professional ladder. But, however well intended, the Civil Rights Act and its later interpretations, particularly disparate impactand affirmative action, have ended that brief meritocratic moment. Desperate to balance leadership demographics for political reasons and increasingly unable to game any objective system to reduce white influence further, colleges and even law schools and medical schools are dispensing with standardized tests entirely in the name of “equity.”

For decades now, the government has dispensed valuable contracts to preferred constituencies on the basis of their not being white—at the federal level, such contracts for which whites are ineligible run to tens of billions of dollars annually. As Palladium notes, racial and other quotas have even come to the supposedly sacrosanct halls of corporate finance. As of 2021, Goldman Sachs, perhaps the world’s most prestigious investment bank, will not underwrite the initial public stock offerings of companies that do not have at least two non-straight white men on their board. Interestingly, their gender board diversity rules do not apply to their clients in Asia.

There were certainly many problems, discrimination among them, in the old white-dominant regime that ran America from its founding through the mid-to-late twentieth century, but whatever its flaws, this was the America that people from all over the world—from every different color and creed—have scrambled to join.

Can America’s institutions run as well in the 21st century if white Americans are quiet quitting them in despair?

It looks like we’re about to find out.



X22, On the Fringe, and more- January 23

 



Big night tonight! 1st primary, NCIS Sydney's Season finale airs here, lotsa going on!

The truth about Christian Nationalism


Christian Nationalism has been given a bad rap by leftist intelligentsia and their media sycophants.

Leftists equate America’s nationalist proponents to the National Socialist movement of the Third Reich, and more particularly their race-cleansing efforts to establish an Aryan-only national identity. This propaganda initiative is two parts projection, and one part nonsense.

America is not a race; it is an idea based on a set of self-governing principles. America First “nationalists” want to secure our sovereignty and the principles established at our founding. We want our elected representatives to serve the interests of our people, not the elites in Brussels, Davos, or Rome. Our people, being Americans. Not “white Americans,” but Americans.   

The Left is also trying to equate Christianity with the legalism more commonly associated with Islam. Christianity imposes no demands on your values or life choices. It does offer value precepts and invites its followers to adhere to said precepts as a basis for living a righteous life and for positively interacting with our fellow man. Our Founders, while crafting our Declaration and Constitution, well understood that those documents were only as good as “the people” who they were chartered to serve.

John Adams:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

De Tocqueville;

I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there. I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her fertile fields and boundless forests, and it was not there. I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her public school system and her institutions of learning, and it was not there. I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution, and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.

Leftist global elites have a utopia in mind if we only forfeit our values and relinquish our sovereignty to our one-world globalist masters. They are actively working to erode and eventually overthrow America’s founding principles and to have us bow down to the will of Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, John Kerry, Christine Lagarde, and Jorge Bergoglio.

America is an exceptional nation, not one of many other great nations, as Barack Obama asserted when he said;

“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

America’s “exceptionalism” is not because we are great, like other historically great nations, but because our country was founded on the principles of self-determination, where its citizens are protected by unalienable rights granted by God, and protected by our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, and United States Constitution.



2024—America’s Year of Living Dangerously ~ VDH


Add it all up, and the world abroad agrees America is in rapid decline and will not or cannot defend its interests, or for that matter itself.


Lame-duck presidencies, especially in the last six months of their final term, in general can offer opportunities for America’s enemies to take advantage of a perceived vacuum as one government transitions to the next.

But these normal changeover months are especially dangerous when a perceived weak or appeasing lame-duck president is likely to be replaced by a strong deterrent successor that will likely serve as a corrective to his disastrous policies.

James Buchannan (1857-1861), a northern but pro-South president, was a particularly anemic chief executive. He had done little if anything to try to deal with the growing rift between North and South, especially the furor over the Dred Scott decision and Bloody Kansas. Even when warned, Buchannan did little to beef up the U.S. Army or increase its weapon stockpiles to deter any potential secessionist state.

After Buchannan declined to run for a second term, the South understood that the abolitionist and anti-slavery Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln might well be elected in 1860—given the North/South split within the Democratic Party. And they understood that President Lincoln might well use force to stop secession.

Therefore, in the waning days of the Buchannan administration, after Lincoln’s victory, seven southern states seceded during the presidential transition, a confused North reacted little, more would follow, and a terrible Civil War became inevitable.

During the waning days of the crippled second term of Richard Nixon in summer 1974, communist North Vietnam saw a once deterrent president fatally weakened by Watergate. It was encouraged by a renewed antiwar movement, a likely soon anti-war Congress, and the next president, Gerald Ford—a probable caretaker soon to be replaced by an anti-war Democrat. And so in late 1974 and 1975, the communists renounced ignored peace accords, judged correctly that the directionless US would not help South Vietnam stop a massive invasion from the North, and thereby won the 12-year-long war.

As the Jimmy Carter administration began to wind down and as it was increasingly judged as weak abroad, the new theocratic revolutionary government in Iran stormed the U.S. embassy and took hostages in November 1979. Throughout the next year, Tehran systematically humiliated the U.S., mocked an impotent Carter administration, and rebuffed all U.S. efforts to secure the return of the hostages.

The Soviet Union as well saw the dying and still inert Carter term as ripe for exploitation and so invaded Afghanistan a month later, in December 1979. It too concluded that there would be a year of continued timidity in Washington before a likely remedy from a Republican president—in this case, Ronald Reagan, who had declared his candidacy a little over a week after Iran took hostages with clear promises to restore U.S. deterrence abroad.

We are now once again entering one of these dangerous moments, compounded by a weakening of the armed forces. During Biden’s tenure, the U.S. military has suffered historic shortfalls in recruitment, the disastrous humiliation in Afghanistan, a new DEI commissariat that wars on meritocratic promotions and assignments, the politicization of generals and admirals, the hyped but otherwise inane effort to root out mythical white supremacists and “domestic terrorist” bogeymen from the ranks, and the expulsion of some of our best soldiers for their reluctance to be vaccinated, many of them having developed natural immunity from prior infection.

The Pentagon is short on ships and planes. U.S. weapons stocks are dangerously low, drained by the abandonment of billions of dollars of equipment to the Taliban, the resupply efforts to Ukraine and Israel, the failure of the Biden administration to fund the restocking of our munitions and to ramp up resupply production—and a $35 billion national debt fed by $2 trillion annual deficits.

Add eight million illegal aliens who pranced over a nonexistent southern border, nearly uninhabitable big-city downtowns, an epidemic of violent crime, and a president who resuscitates mostly to blast half the country as “semi-fascists” and “ultra-MAGA” extremists.

Add it all up, and the world abroad agrees America is in a strange, self-inflicted decline and will not or cannot defend its interests, or for that matter itself.

In particular, both enemies and neutrals have accordingly drawn a number of self-interested conclusions about the waning Biden administration and what may follow:

  1. That Joe Biden, to their apparent delight, has in the last three years reversed the Trump deterrence policies and thus has green-lit their aggressions.
  1. That given the ensuing chaos, they have further agreed that Biden’s growing unpopularity with the American people makes it likely that both he and his appeasement policies will be gone by January 2024.
  1. That Donald Trump may well return to office. That would mean a much worse deal for Russia, China, Iran, and its terrorist satellites, and thus recognition that 2024 is a brief window of opportunity for aggression.

Putin remembers that Trump blasted 200 Russian mercenaries in Syria, got out of a bad missile deal with Moscow, upped sanctions on Russian oligarchs, flooded the world with cheap oil, destroying Russian oil export profits, sold once-canceled offensive weapons to Ukraine, and warned what would happen if Putin invaded Ukraine. Of the last four administrations, Trump’s was the only one that saw no Russian cross-border invasions.

China remembers that Trump slapped tariffs on its mercantilist market economy, accused China of birthing the COVID virus at its Wuhan virology lab, increased military spending, forced NATO to spend another $100 billion on munitions, and jawboned more alliance members into upping their military contributions. Beijing knew that to send a spy balloon across the continental United States between 2017-21 would have meant its destruction the minute it entered U.S. airspace. China did not serially threaten Taiwan during the Trump era—and may believe that this year could be the last chance in a decade to confront Taiwan.

Iran has concluded two things about 2024: 1) they do not wish to see another Trump presidency on the horizon that took out its top-ranking terrorist-general Qasem Soleimani, slapped sanctions on its oil, yanked the U.S. out of the flawed Iran Deal, declared the Iranian Houthi satellites a foreign terrorist organization, cut off all aid to the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, moved the U.S. closer to Israel, and warned Hezbollah of consequences should it start a war with Israel; and 2) that the present Biden abdication will likely be short-lived and thus now may be the time to take advantage of a currently directionless global superpower that either will not or cannot deter Iranian aggression.

So what should we expect in 2024? Lacking a strong U.S. patron and sponsor, Israel will be subject to more international calls to leave Gaza, to negotiate with Hamas, and to give up the idea it can “destroy” Hamas.

Hezbollah will likely up its daily barrage of missiles into Israel.

Iran will become more overt in supplying Russia, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis with weapons.

China will increase its threats to Taiwan and weigh carefully the costs-to-benefits of attacking the island.

The common denominator? All our enemies are right now calculating how best to use their gift of the next 12 months from a non-compos-mentis president and his neo-socialist team that either believes the U.S. is at fault for much of the world’s pathologies or is too terrified to do anything about them.

In sum, adversaries believe there is a rare window of opportunity in which the U.S. uncharacteristically does nothing to deter its enemies, back its allies, or win over neutrals. And over the next year, we can only pray they are mistaken.



NYT's Paul Krugman Tried to Compare Joe Biden to Ronald Reagan. Any Guesses How THAT Turned Out?


Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

After I decided to write this article, I tried to come up with a word that best describes New York Times economics writer Paul Krugman. Turns out, it wasn't easy. Sure, Krugman beclowns himself regularly as he lies about the imaginary successes of Joe Biden, but there's more (less?) to the guy. 

Pathetically, it's almost like the ever-dour Krugman enjoys the humiliation to which he willingly subjects himself. If not, why does he do it so frequently? Dude reminds me of a line in the movie, "As Good As It Gets," when Greg Kinnear's character tells Jack Nicholson's character: "The best thing you have going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." Anyway, enough of that.

Our story begins last Saturday when Krugman fired up X in an attempt to defend Bidenflation — not an easy task. Not only did Krugman give it a shot — he also attempted to compare Biden's "success" with that of Ronald Reagan. No, really.

For people who say that Americans care about the level of prices, not the inflation rate, note that cumulative inflation under Biden so far is close to the number under Reagan. Which is why Reagan lost the 84 election in a landslide. Oh, wait

"Oh, wait" indeed, Mr. Krugman — despite your sill attempt at a joke about Reagan's 1984 landslide win.

Just one problem. Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Brian Riedl pointed out that problem to Krugman.  

The obvious difference is that Reagan inherited a 13.5% inflation rate, so voters gave him more slack to gradually bring it down to 3.2%.  Biden inherited a 1.2% inflation rate and low inflation expectations, so the subsequent inflation spike to 8.0% was seen as his creation.

Oopsie, Paul.

So let's sum this up, shall we?

Krugman either delusional believes that Biden's handling of runaway inflation — which his policies led to — has been Reaganesque, or he was lying. Either way, Brian Riedl easily made the "economist" look like a fool, likely with half his brain tied behind his back. And Krugman? I'm confident that he didn't learn a thing from his latest thrashing.

So What's the Truth About Bidenflation?

As my colleague Nick Arama reported in December, "Core CPI inflation — which doesn't include volatile food and energy indexes — rose 0.3 percent in November for a 4.0 percent annual increase. Shelter costs have gone up 6.5 percent over the last 12 months and the food index is up 2.9 percent over the past year."

As Arama noted, even CNBC's Rick Santelli explained that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) "remains near its all-time high going back 100 years."

"We annualize and we look at numbers at this point forward — but if you go back in the rear view [sic] mirror, inflation compounds," says CNBC. Raw Consumer Price Index data remains near its "all-time high going back 100 years."

Not exactly Ronald Reagan-like, Mr. Krugman.

The Bottom Line

From Joe Biden himself to members of his administration to Congressional Democrats to the liberal lapdog media, the left has desperately tried to portray Biden's disastrous "sow's ear" presidency as a silk purse from day one — mostly by lying, and desperately depending on low-information rank-and-file Democrat voters once again lining up in November like lemmings and voting "D," with no questions asked.

Will it work, this time? God help us if it does.



By ‘Protecting Election Workers,’ Democrats Mean Protecting Control Over Election Administration

Republicans should know better than to fall for performative proposals designed to scare away conservatives engaged in the elections process.



When regime-approved “journalists” aren’t pretending election illegalities don’t exist, they’re fomenting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Republican voters.

In the months leading up to and following the 2022 midterms, legacy media have run story after story decrying the avalanche of alleged “threats” levied against election workers by GOP voters, whom they cast as extremists seeking to disrupt “democracy.” Predictions of such widespread interference in the 2022 contests have (unsurprisingly) never materialized and numbers from President Biden’s own Justice Department have undermined such a narrative. But nevertheless, the scaremongering from the “Democracy Dies in Darkness” crowd persists.

This seemingly coordinated effort has prompted Democrats in state legislatures throughout the country to base legislation on such election falsehoods. In Virginia, for example, a Democrat state senator filed a bill this month that would classify threatening an individual because of his roles as a current or former election official as a “hate crime.” The bill could also “result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment” for Virginians charged with crimes related to threatening election officials.

Threatening election workers is already explicitly prohibited under both Virginia and federal law. SB 364 is currently awaiting action from the Senate Courts of Justice Committee.

Despite Democrats’ insistence, evidence does not support the notion that election workers everywhere are facing constant threats from conservatives.

During his August 2022 testimony before the U.S. Senate, Kenneth A. Polite Jr., the assistant attorney general for the criminal division of the DOJ, claimed the agency’s Election Threats Task Force — which was launched in July 2021 to address this alleged “rise in threats” against election workers — had reviewed and assessed roughly 1,000 allegedly “threatening and harassing” communications directed toward election officials. But two days before Polite’s testimony, the DOJ issued a press release disclosing that only about 11 percent of those 1,000 communications “met the threshold for a federal criminal investigation” and that the “remaining reported contacts did not provide a predication” for further investigation. According to an agency press release a year later, the Justice Department’s Election Threats Task Force had “charged 14 cases involving threats against the election community and secured nine convictions” as of Aug. 31, 2023.

Got that? In a country with a population of more than 335 million people, only about 100 individuals were investigated by the DOJ for supposedly threatening election workers, and only 14 of them were officially charged.

The Conspiracy Spreads

Virginia isn’t the only state where Democrats are pushing legislation based upon the media’s phony “election workers are under siege!” narrative. Leftist legislators in FloridaMissouri, and Washington introduced bills in recent weeks seeking to increase penalties for those convicted of threatening election officials.

Even worse, some elected Republicans have lent credence to this baseless talking point by prioritizing Democrat proposals. GOP legislators in New Jersey and Nebraska joined their respective Democrat colleagues in cosponsoring legislation cracking down on threats towards election workers this year. In South Dakota, Secretary of State Monae Johnson, a Republican, is spearheading a bill that would deem “Any person who, directly or indirectly, utters or addresses any threat or intimidation to an election official or election worker with the intent to improperly influence an election … guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”

The measure unanimously passed the Senate State Affairs Committee (8-0) on Wednesday, even after Deputy Secretary of State Tom Deadrick told senators that South Dakota “hasn’t yet experienced threats against poll workers.”

Meanwhile, GOP governors such as Joe Lombardo of Nevada and Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma signed respective bills last year into law that similarly increased penalties for threatening election officials. The Oklahoma bill was sponsored by three Republicans.

Other states that have passed laws inspired by Democrats’ election lies include CaliforniaColoradoMaineNew MexicoOregon, and Vermont.

Republicans Must Fight Democrat Lies

Much like Democrats’ war against basic election security measures like voter ID, their lying about widespread threats against election officials is a strategy aimed at bringing less — not more — integrity to U.S. elections.

Their strategy of using anecdotal incidents to cast a broader narrative about Republicans isn’t just crafted to scare away independents and moderate voters from the GOP. It’s also designed to dissuade conservatives from partaking in legitimate forms of election oversight, such as poll watching.

Ahead of the 2022 midterms, for example, the Republican National Committee recruited more than 70,000 new poll watchers and workers ahead of Election Day to “help deliver the election transparency that voters deserve.” And of course, Democrats went berserk, parroting the same “threat to democracy” talking point.

Federal law already prohibits individuals from threatening and harassing election workers. Performative proposals to enhance state charges against such crimes are less about protecting people and more about furthering Democrats’ unsubstantiated talking points and scaring away conservatives engaged in the elections process.



Forget Michelle Obama or Gavin Newsom -- Dems' Choice to Replace Biden is Nikki Haley


President Joe Biden is clearly declining cognitively and physically, based on his garbled speech, frequent falls, disorientation on stage, and inappropriate behavior, especially toward young girls. 

Voters agree.

In the Democrat stronghold of New York City, 62 percent of New Yorkers believe Biden is unfit to serve another term. 

So, who takes his place?

Not Vice President Kamala Harris, whose approval rating, “Is a 2024 problem,” according to Newsweek. She is “notably less popular than Mike Pence, Biden, Dick Cheney, and Al Gore were after the same number of days as vice president.”

Who else is on the Democrat bench to replace Biden? Filmmaker Joel Gilbert makes a compelling case for Michelle Obama swooping into the race at the last minute, avoiding a messy primary season. Her popularity and thin political resume, not to mention her skin color and gender, make her untouchable, buffered by cries of racism or sexism whenever she is questioned or challenged.

Podcaster Dan Bongino says otherwise and makes a good case based on his experience with Mrs. Obama from his time as a Secret Service agent on the presidential detail in the Obama White House. He believes she is far too private, and comfortable in her wealth and idolatry, to go head-to-head with Donald Trump, or whoever the GOP nominee is.

Bongino also correctly adds the caveat that, “Predictions are like a**holes, everyone has one.”

There are also some current Democrat governors like Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer who are suggested as Biden replacements. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a legacy Democrat, is running as an independent candidate because he, like Trump, is reviled by his party’s ruling class and establishment, but he could always revert back to his family roots and run on the Democrat ticket.

It's far simpler for Democrats to replace Joe Biden by letting him lose in November. Forget impeachment or the 25th Amendment. There is already a candidate, already running, who could replace Biden and continue many of his policies, perhaps not as vigorously, but certainly appealing enough to the left and the donor class that they are all in for her candidacy.

I speak of Nikki Haley, ostensibly running as a Republican. 

After the Iowa caucuses, she channeled her inner Joe Biden by calling it a two-person race, despite her finishing third in Iowa.

That sounds like Joe Biden “literally” convincing Democrat segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond to vote for the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Biden was 22 at the time, not a U.S. Senator, instead supposedly a football star, triple-major, college kid, appointed to the U.S. Naval Academy.

Humorous tall tales and misstatements aside, why would Haley be Democrats’ Biden replacement?

Are Democrats supporting her candidacy? Hell, yeah! 

LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and “one of the Democratic Party’s biggest financiers,” also an Epstein Island visitor, gave $250,000 to a Nikki Haley Super PAC.  

Why would a liberal Democrat mega-donor support a Republican candidate? Hoffman must approve of Haley’s platform and plans for America.

Reid Hoffman is not only funding Haley’s campaign, but also E. Jean Carroll’s farcical lawsuit against Donald Trump. Will Haley be beholden to Hoffman’s leftist politics and agenda?

The open borders, Trump-hating Koch Brothers, endorsed and are financially supporting Haley’s campaign, too. Perhaps they like Nikki’s position on the border rather than Trump’s “build the wall” approach.

Former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who couldn’t lobby his caucus to fund a southern border, is lobbying Congressional Republicans to support Haley.

Pro-war, former conservative Republican, now liberal Democrat, Bill Kristol also endorsed Haley. Perhaps he shares Nikki’s “I love war” platform for America.

What are Haley’s views on illegal migration? She wants to roll out the welcome mat: “We don’t need to talk about them as criminals. They’re not. They’re families that want a better life.” 

Do voters, especially Republicans, agree?

Rasmussen Reports asked U.S. likely voters if the current surge of migration was “an invasion.” Some 77 percent of Republicans said it was, perhaps reflecting the hordes of military-aged men streaming across the border, as opposed to “families wanting a better life.”

They are not all criminals, but many are, including this four-time deported migrant from El Salvador who killed a Colorado mother and son in a drunk driving crash.

Who supported the George Floyd BLM riots in the summer of 2020? Democrats certainly did. Some Republicans, like Mitt Romney, marched in the BLM protests. Nikki Haley tweeted, “In order to heal, it needs to be personal and painful for everyone.” Does that mean painful for those who had nothing to do with George Floyd but had their businesses destroyed in the riots? Her position is more aligned with Democrats than Republicans.

What about the Ukraine war? Pew Research found, “About half of Republicans now say the U.S. is providing too much aid to Ukraine.” This compares to only 16 percent of Democrats.

Haley’s position is closer to the Democrats, saying “This is a war about freedom, and it’s one we have to win.” Joe Biden and his secretary of state, Antony Blinken, agree. 

Two years into it, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men are dead and the U.S. has spent hundreds of billions of dollars, with nothing to show for it other than a Russian economy “going strong” as NPR observed.

She wants the war to continue, keeping her military industrial complex donors happy and wealthy. She served on the board of Boeing, a company with numerous military contracts, profitable during wartime.

Haley, according to ABC News: “has said that climate change is real and supports carbon capture.” 

John Kerry and AOC agree.

She also plays into the current censorship state with her, “Proposed requirement that social media companies ban people from posting anonymously online for national security reasons.” Merrick Garland and Christopher Wray would approve as “Federal investigators asked banks to search and filter customer transactions by using terms like "MAGA" and "Trump" as part of an investigation into January 6.”

If one can’t post anonymously on social media, posting anything pro-Trump will invite scrutiny or worse from Big Brother. Haley supporting this, despite a partial walk back, sounds like a Democrat.

America has had Republicans in the mold of Nikki Haley and the results speak for themselves. President George H.W. Bush raised taxes after proclaiming: “Read my lips, no new taxes” and the electorate responding by choosing a glib, charismatic alternative from Arkansas as president.

Bush’s son drove America into a 20-plus years' war in the Middle East, destroying countries and wasting trillions in American wealth. He also ushered in the surveillance police state, now further weaponized by Obama and Biden against political opponents. He gave us John Roberts leading the high court and wanted Harriet Myers as Roberts’s sidekick.

He also pushed for amnesty for illegal aliens. Haley would likely follow a similar path accepting Gaza refugees into the U.S. under the logic, “America has always been sympathetic to the fact that you can separate civilians from terrorists.” Then why let any in without proper vetting, rather than all of them? That’s Democrat logic.

Speaking of migration, under the natural-born provision of the U.S. Constitution, Haley may not even be eligible to serve as U.S. president as neither of her parents were U.S. citizens at the time of her birth, as Laura Loomer explains in detail. In other words, she has birthright citizenship, quite possibly not natural-born citizenship.

How will Democrats handle this? Those questioning Barack Obama’s eligibility were decried as "birthers.” Will Democrats question Haley’s eligibility? If they don’t, that’s a strong signal that they would welcome her presidency, hardly a ringing endorsement for GOP voters.

Wannabes along the way included John McCain, another warmonger and deciding vote to keep Obamacare in place. Mitt Romney voted to remove Donald Trump from office for asking Ukraine about the Biden family’s involvement in Ukraine corruption and money-laundering.

Nikki Haley is the latest version of the neo-con globalist Republicans who have come before her, bullish on open borders, endless wars, and big government. The donor class is smiling and writing her checks.

Expect under a Haley presidency, war with Russia, China, North Korea, and/or Iran. “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” Bush-style, will be resurrected with a “path to citizenship” (amnesty) for the tens of millions of migrants who came to America under Biden, forever changing the electoral, demographic, and cultural aspects of America.

Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito will retire from the high court, replaced by “moderates” in the mold of John Roberts or David Souter. The climate agenda will move forward, but in a less radical form than John Kerry would like. Gun rights will shrink.

Expect another 9/11-type event, perhaps blamed on Trump supporters, ushering in version two of Bush’s Patriot Act, with a further erosion of liberty and freedom.

The deep state will remain untouched, with no reckoning for the crimes of Russia-gate, COVID, and a weaponized intelligence and justice system. In fact, Haley would allow her administration to target and harass Trump and his supporters, following the recommendation of David Plouffe and the permanent administrative state, “It is not enough to simply beat Trump. He must be destroyed thoroughly. His kind must not rise again.”

No wonder Democrats are embracing her candidacy. Better her than a Trump-Biden matchup which Trump would likely win. Haley’s GOP primary efforts may be moot after Iowa and with Trump’s 39 point lead in South Carolina, Haley’s home state.

While she won’t be an Obama puppet like Biden, she will govern similarly enough that the ruling class will be happy for her to continue much of the Biden agenda, even if she carries an ‘R’ after her name.