Tuesday, March 26, 2024

The FBI's Otherwise Illegal Activity


How deeply is law enforcement interfering in the daily lives of American citizens?

For example, it was recently reported that the FBI labeled Americans who “support the biological basis for sex and gender distinction as potential domestic terrorists.”

Then what? What does the FBI, and those who cooperate with the FBI, do to such Americans?

Does the FBI label FBI employees who support biology as potential terrorists? Or, is the FBI saying that no FBI employees support the biological basis for sex and gender distinction?

The FBI and local police keep their specific actions, methods, and technologies mostly secret; thus, one cannot say with certainty what occurs after the FBI labels a person as a potential domestic terrorist.

Americans might study the history of the FBI and local police cooperating with the FBI for hints about what might occur after being labeled as a potential domestic terrorist. One might closely study the “Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, 1975-76.” The secret actions of the FBI and police cooperating with the FBI were summarized as follows:

...intelligence activity in the past decades has, all too often, exceeded the restraints on the exercise of governmental power which are imposed by our country's Constitution, laws, and traditions […]

Intelligence activity […] is generally covert. It is concealed from its victims and is seldom described in statutes or explicit executive orders. The victim may never suspect that his misfortunes are the intended result of activities undertaken by his government, and accordingly may have no opportunity to challenge the actions taken against him. (Pages 2-3)

Government employees have harmed Americans – caused them “misfortunes” – in the past. American citizens did not even know such harm was intentionally done to them, nor did they know it was government employees who secretly harmed them. Would current government employees do such things?

Now, if one is familiar with the above Senate Committee from the 1970s, one might respond by saying something like, “yeah, but the FBI was going after gangsters, druggies, commies, and groups who were racist against Caucasians. They were going after some murderers. I’m not in any of those groups, I just believe a man is a man and want to watch basketball!”

It is not clear how to convince such people other than by trying to argue from common sense.

There is the phenomenon of government officials, particularly those in fear of losing their ability to control others, creating a government entity or technology initially described as being good – say, to protect the citizens from terrorists, communists, gangsters, etc.

The government entity employs millions of people, again attempting to convince the citizens that the secret policing entity or technology is a great thing.

After the technology or government entity is fully operational and widespread, and after millions of people are fully dependent on government welfare disguised as government employment in the secret policing entity, then those few people (who could be in another country) in charge of the government then are able to control the masses.

Again, it is common sense: some government officials try to convince citizens something is good (surveillance technologies, secret police entity, etc.) and then use it to control and harm the citizens.

While the specific actions and technologies of the FBI and other secretly operating entities are mostly not publicized, there is one U.S. government document which suggests possible actions of the FBI.

The U.S. government document is entitled “The Attorney General’s Guidelines on Federal Bureau of Investigation Undercover Operations.”

Those guidelines importantly mention that FBI operations might involve local police or “local law enforcement agency working under the direction and control of the FBI.”

Additionally, the guidelines mention that the FBI is apparently allowed to secretly own and operate businesses and corporations, make “untrue representations” of other peoples’ actions, and engage “in activity having a significant effect on or constituting a significant intrusion into the legitimate operation of a Federal, state, or local governmental entity.”

Does the FBI “engage in activity having a significant effect on” juries, U.S. Congress, the presidency, or the Supreme Court? Does the FBI engage “in activity having a significant effect on or constituting a significant intrusion into the legitimate” national and local elections?

The FBI guidelines apparently also suggest employees and cooperators might “supply falsely sworn testimony or false documentation in any legal or administrative proceeding” and the FBI and others might commit “otherwise illegal activity,” apparently including “violence or physical injury to individuals or a significant risk of financial loss.”

Those guidelines on FBI operations seem to imply that there are many people in cities throughout America employed as secret government operatives who present themselves as everyday citizens but might actually be participating in schemes or “mitigating opportunities.”

Finally, another potential method publicized by the FBI and others is establishing rapport, which means friendly relationship enabling communication, with people they target. FBI wrote that “Building rapport, perhaps, is the most important technique that investigators use,” and government agencies require a “staff of professional officers skilled as conversationalists and rapport developers.”

If there is a national secret police entity in America, those employees might be informed that some of the easiest people for the FBI or local secret police to establish rapport with and thus go after, deceive, and “mitigate” are their own employees or others who cooperate in secret operations, while the employees or cooperators think they are going after someone else. If your boss and co-workers require you to lie to other people, then your boss and co-workers might also lie to you.

Either way, it seems reasonable to suggest that most Americans should be taught and thoroughly study the guidelines on FBI undercover operations.



X22, On the Fringe, and more- March 26

 




NCISVerse Episode 100: Entertainment Tonight to host a special retrospective

 


Source: https://www.paramountpressexpress.com/cbs-entertainment/releases/?view=109505-cbs-presents-ncisverse-the-first-1000-an-entertainment-tonight-special-to-air-monday-april-8

CBS announced today the new special NCISVERSE: THE FIRST 1,000, an ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT special, to air Monday, April 8 (9:00-10:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network (live and on-demand for Paramount+ with SHOWTIME subscribers, or on-demand for Paramount+ Essential subscribers the day after the special airs)*.

This one-hour ET special, celebrating 1,000 episodes of the NCIS franchise, includes exclusive interviews with the stars of NCIS, NCIS: LOS ANGELES, NCIS: NEW ORLEANS, NCIS: HAWAI’I and NCIS: SYDNEY. The cast and guest stars share favorite memories and behind-the-scenes moments from 20 years’ worth of never-before-seen interviews from the ET vault. ET’s Kevin Frazier hosts from the NCIS studio lot, where the flagship show has been filmed and produced by CBS Studios for two decades.

Also included is a rare look inside with the cast and crews to produce TV’s #1 primetime drama franchise. The special reveals new details about the origins of NCIS including how the multi-show, global phenomenon was created and changed the face of the real NCIS.

Additionally, fans will get a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the franchise’s 1,000th episode, an episode of NCIS that will air Monday, April 15 (9:00-10:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

Democrats, Plunging Toward Election Day, Find Themselves Caught in a Trap of Their Own Making

 Instead of executing important policy changes or offloading the incumbent national office holders, they place all their bets on a manipulation of the justice system to strangle President Trump.

https://www.nysun.com/article/democrats-plunging-toward-election-day-find-themselves-caught-in-a-trap-of-their-own-making

The strategists of the Democratic presidential campaign find themselves, just over seven months before the election, caught in a trap that they created for their chief opponent. 

Instead of executing important policy changes or offloading the incumbent national office holders — who are closely identified with failures in all important policy areas,  inflation, immigration, environment, crime, peace in the world — they placed all their bets on a scandalous manipulation of the justice system to strangle President Trump.

With each new wildly implausible batch of criminal and civil charges, Mr. Trump added to the lead he had already achieved in the polls because of the across-the-board policy failures of the Biden administration. A steadily greater number of Americans has been more appalled at this perversion of the justice system, invariably accompanied by a Wagnerian chorus about no one being “above the law,” (meaning beyond the ability of the Democrats to deform the law into an instrument of partisan harassment); than have been irreconcilable with another Trump presidential term.

Thus, the principal chosen method for winning the election, despite all polls showing that the administration is a policy failure, the legal assault upon Mr. Trump, has caused an improvement in his position in the polls. Historians of the future will undoubtedly wonder what possessed the Democrats to imagine that such a blatantly unjust strategy could possibly succeed.

To support the credibility of these ludicrously partisan charges, the Democrats have had to torque up their rhetorical attacks on the former president literally to the point of frequent unflattering comparisons of him with Hitler. It was only three years ago that Mr. Trump ended, in questionable electoral circumstances, a four-year term as president, and nothing that occurred in that time would justify for an instant any comparison between him and the most evil person ever to lead an advanced Western country.

Historians of the future will also wonder what mad departure from the normal precincts of common sense possessed the Democrats to think that they could succeed politically with the current sleazy attempt to seize large individual real estate assets of the former president in settlement of a grotesquely enlarged bond to enable him to appeal an absurdly engrossed fine for an offense about which no one complained, and which possesses no criterion of statutory or precedented wrongdoing.

The surest possible antidote to increasing the ranks of the Trump-haters is to abuse the judicial and prosecutorial systems so egregiously that the billionaire former president becomes an underdog and haters are placated, or neutralized, or even disarmed by the spectacle of cowardice and moral bankruptcy of this tactic. 

Judge Arthur Engoron would have done much better to produce a penalty that a sane and reasonably impartial person could take seriously. This was such a hideous mockery of due process and abstract justice that it was a gilt-edged invitation to a man of Mr. Trump’s histrionic talents to convert into another drop-box of votes. Only those so febrile with Trump-hate already will not be repulsed by a fraud of such proportions. 

It has been my contention throughout that none of the criminal cases will get to trial before the election, because of their inherent vulnerability and the rich variety of dilatory exceptions available to the defendant. And almost certainly none of them will get to trial after the election.

While the customary press claque of lawyer Trump-slayers continues to gambol and wallow in their praise of the Democratic strategy of abusing the ability to prosecute as a political technique, I cannot imagine why, as they could see that they were going to be reduced to this extremity, the Democrats didn’t strike earlier when  they might have been able to produce pre-election trials that their performing marionettes in the national political media could represent as impartial exposes of Mr. Trump’s alleged turpitude.

As it is, the average of polls gives Mr. Trump a 2 percent to 3 percent lead in the overall vote. In practice, as most polls except for Rasmussen and Trafalgar are conducted by universities and media outlets with a left-wing bias, the real number is probably about 5 percent. If the Democratic margin in California and New York over the Republican margin in Texas, Florida, and Tennessee, about four million votes for almost equal numbers of electoral votes (82 and 80), Mr. Trump is leading in the other 45 states by about 11 million votes.

The Democrats are trailing all the swing states, though Pennsylvania and a couple of the others are within the margin of error. The Democrats will not be able to harvest and stuff their way to victory against such an authentic popular headwind. This unprecedentedly dishonest reelection bid by the Biden administration has assisted in generating a good deal of flippant talk at home and abroad about the decline of America.

I think that it is an unfortunate confirmation that America is, compared to most advanced western countries, an unusually corrupt jurisdiction with an extremely one-sided criminal justice system and an addiction to civil litigation that is a serious encumbrance of the country’s economy.

And the role of money in American politics is in many respects pernicious, but the American constitutional system makes reform practically impossible and past attempts at electoral finance reform have, in fact, made matters worse. In its unique and inimitable way, though, the United States is undoubtedly a democracy, and as a state whose sovereignty has not been questioned since the Civil War, it possesses as tenaciously as any nation or people in the world the perfect right to govern itself as it wishes.     

It is the vigorous national sense and independent spirit of the population, not the integrity of the political system, that is the chief criterion in whether a nation is rising, declining, or on a plateau. By this yardstick, the strength of the United States is undiminished. At the height of its power, Rome was no great pillar of political virtue. 

Greece, at the height of its civic courage and comparatively democratic originality, was incapable of rising above the level of a group of squabbling city states and islands and was constantly quarreling amongst themselves, and was a sitting duck for the Macedonians, and then the Romans, and it was only by blind luck that those powers regarded Greece benignly.

Disgraceful, though it is, this prodigy of illegality and corruption now being plumbed by the Democrats is in its way, a reassurance that America is not decadent. If it was, the long-ruling, but palsied and inept bipartisan elite that hates Mr. Trump because he is a mortal threat to their incumbency, would be much more easily disposed of. 

All countries flourish under inspired leadership, like America under most of the presidents between FDR and Reagan. It is another confirmation of the enduring strength of America that it has so well survived the comprehensively inadequate and ineffectual government of the current administration.  



‘He Hates Me’: Trump, Losing a Round in Court, Claims Judge in Stormy Daniels Case Exhibits ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’

 The specifics are salacious, but the April trial, before a Manhattan jury, presents a possibility that the former president could be convicted by summer.


https://www.nysun.com/article/he-hates-me-trump-losing-a-round-in-court-claims-judge-in-stormy-daniels-case-exhibits-trump-derangement-syndrome

The ruling by Judge Juan Merchan that President Trump will stand trial at Manhattan on April 15 for hush money payments to Stephanie Clifford, the adult film star known by her nom de porn of “Stormy Daniels,” underscores the challenges the former president faces in securing an acquittal before the election.

“See you all on April 15,” Judge Merchan of the New York state supreme court told the courtroom on Monday, the Sun reported. That date all but assures that a verdict will be brought in before November, or even in advance of the summer. 

Mr. Trump on Tuesday lashed out at Judge Merchan on his social media platform, Truth Social, saying that the judge is “a true and certified Trump hater who suffers from a very serious case of ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome.’ In other words, he hates me!”

Mr. Trump went on to claim that Judge Merchan’s daughter is “a senior executive at a Super Liberal Democratic firm that works for Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff.” Mr. Trump then railed against Judge Merchan for his “vicious” treatment of the ailing, 76-year-old longtime Trump Organization chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, who was sent to New York’s notorious Rikers Island after refusing to cooperate with prosecutors and flip on his boss.

As for the Stormy Daniels case, District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleges that Mr. Trump falsified business records in 2016 to mask $130,000 in hush money payments paid to Ms. Clifford to purchase her silence with respect to one sexual encounter she claims they had in 2006, when he was newly married to Melania Trump. Those payments were executed by Mr. Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen. 

Mr. Trump has denied all the allegations, including that he had a sexual encounter with Ms. Clifford. He maintains that he had no knowledge of the $130,000 in payments and has distanced himself from Cohen. The disgraced lawyer pleaded guilty to felonies as part of the federal investigation into these same actions. The Department of Justice chose not to charge Mr. Trump.  

Of possible concern for Mr. Trump could be not only Judge Merchan’s decision, but also his tone. Rejecting Mr. Trump’s assertion that Mr. Bragg withheld documents from the former president, the judge found that the “district attorney of New York County is not at fault for the late production of documents” and that he “made diligent, good-faith efforts” to fulfill his discovery obligations, a constitutional imperative for the government.

A judge sympathetic to Mr. Bragg’s point of view could be particularly helpful for the district attorney, whose case is far from straightforward. It relies on creatively transforming a misdemeanor — falsification of business records — into a felony by showing that the fudging was in the service of a second crime. Mr. Bragg has not yet adumbrated what he will argue constitutes that second offense.

This is unusual, as New York prosecutors usually charge the second crime along with the predicate misdemeanor. By remaining coy on the second charge, Mr. Bragg will have to debut it at trial if he hopes to convict Mr. Trump of a felony. That will likely necessitate an involved set of jury instructions, all of which will have to be approved by Judge Merchan. 

While the judge is responsible for clarifying matters of law — like the nature of the charges — the jury will be tasked with handing up a conviction or an acquittal. Here Mr. Bragg could enjoy home-field advantage, as Manhattan in 2020 delivered 84.5 percent of its vote to President Biden and only 14.5 percent to Mr. Trump. Juries in the civil suits brought against Mr. Trump by the writer E. Jean Carroll have brought in large judgments against him. 

In the defamation damages trial in the Carroll case, Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled against Mr. Trump on a crucial issue. He did not allow him to rebut the writer’s allegations that the future president raped her at Bergdorf-Goodman some time in the 1990s, ruling that the sexual assault was a settled fact due to an earlier finding. Mr. Trump’s legal team argued, unsuccessfully, that Judge Kaplan was conflicted because he had mentored Ms. Carroll’s lawyer when they worked at the same firm many years ago.

Furthermore, Justice Arthur Engoron ruled against Mr. Trump in the recent civil fraud suit brought against him and his organization by the New York attorney general, Letitia James. The judge found that Mr. Trump’s companies were guilty of “persistent fraud” without a trial, then levied a judgment that ultimately reached half a billion dollars. 

Judge Engoron, who ruled that Mr. Trump was liable in the absence of a jury, demanded the immediate posting of an enormous bond. Mr. Trump had to appeal to a higher court to get the amount of bond he was required to post reduced to $175 million.

Judge Merchan’s firmness with respect to the trial date — he allowed but a small postponement from March 25 — stands in marked contrast to the significant obstacles that prosecutors have encountered in Mr. Trump’s other criminal cases. The January 6 one is in deep freeze, awaiting word from the Supreme Court on whether the 45th president is entitled to immunity. 

The racketeering case out of Georgia is not officially suspended, and the presiding judge, Scott McAfee, has scheduled a hearing on Thursday to dispense with pretrial motions. The Georgia Court of Appeals, though, is weighing whether to disqualify the district attorney of Fulton County, Fani Willis. Judge McAfee ruled she could stay on after the resignation of her lover and handpicked prosecutor, Nathan Wade.

Timing is unsettled with respect to the Mar-a-Lago documents case. Judge Aileen Cannon has not yet set a trial date, though Special Counsel Jack Smith is pushing for an August start. Judge Cannon’s pace, though, has been deliberate, and she has so far been resistant to the special counsel’s rush. He has also accused her of “manifest injustice” and “clear error,” setting the stage for a possible appeal to remove her from the case.

Will DEI End America—or America end DEI? ~ VDH


Our future hinges on how quickly we discard DEI orthodoxy.


At the nexus of most of America’s current crises, the diversity/equity/inclusion dogma can be found. The southern border has been destroyed because the Democratic Party wanted the poor of the southern hemisphere to be counted in the census, to vote if possible in poorly audited mail-in elections, and to build upon constituencies that demand government help. Opposition to such cynicism and the de facto destruction of enforcement of U.S. immigration law is written off as “racism,” “nativism,” and “xenophobia.”

The military is short more than 40,000 soldiers. The Pentagon may fault youth gangs, drug use, or a tight labor market. But the real shortfall is mostly due inordinately to reluctant white males who have been smeared by some of the military elite as suspected “white supremacists,” despite dying at twice their demographics in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they are now passing on joining up despite their families’ often multigenerational combat service.

The nexus between critical race theory and critical legal theory has been, inter alia, defunding the police, Soros-funded district attorneys exempting criminals from punishment, the legitimization of mass looting, squatters’ rights, and general lawlessness across big-city America.

The recent epidemic of anti-Semitism was in part birthed by woke/DEI faculty and students on elite campuses, who declared Hamas a victim of “white settler” victimizing Israel and thus contextualized their Jewish hatred by claiming that as “victims,” they cannot be bigots.

There is a historic, malevolent role of states adjudicating political purity, substituting racial, sex, class, and tribal criteria for meritocracy. They define success or failure not based on actual outcomes but on the degree of orthodox zealotry. Once governments enter that realm of the surreal, the result is always an utter disaster.

After a series of disastrous military catastrophes in 1941 and 1942, Soviet strongman and arch-communist Joseph Stalin ended the Soviet commissar system in October 1942. He reversed course to give absolute tactical authority to his ground commanders rather than to the communist overseers, as was customary.

Stalin really had no choice since Marxist-Leninist ideology overriding military logic and efficacy had ensured that the Soviet Union was surprised by a massive Nazi invasion in June 1941. The Russians in the first 12 months of war subsequently lost nearly 5 million in vast encirclements—largely because foolhardy, ideologically driven directives curtailed the generals’ operational control of the army. After the commissars were disbanded and commanders given greater autonomy, the landmark victory at Stalingrad followed, and with it, the rebound of the Red Army.

One reason why the dictator Napoleon ran wild in Europe for nearly 18 years was that his marshals of France were neither selected only by the old Bourbon standards of aristocratic birth and wealth nor by new ideological revolutionary criteria, but by more meritocratic means than those of his rival nations.

Mao’s decade-long cultural revolution (1966–76) ruined China. It was predicated on Maoist revolutionary dogma overruling economic, social, cultural, and military realities. An entire meritocracy was deemed corrupted by the West and reactionary—and thus either liquidated or rendered inert.

In their place, incompetent zealots competed to destroy all prior standards as “bourgeois” and “counter-revolutionary.” It is no surprise that the current “people’s liberation army,” for all its talk of communist dogma, does not function entirely on Mao’s principles.

Muammar Gaddafi wrecked Libya by reordering an once oil-rich nation on Gaddafi’s crackpot rules of his “Green Book.” At times, the unhinged ideologue, in lunatic fashion, required all Libyans to raise chickens or to destroy all the violins in the nation. I once asked a Libyan why the oil-rich country appeared to me utterly wrecked, and he answered, “We first hire our first cousins—and usually the worst.”

There were many reasons why the King-Cotton, slave-owning Old South lagged far behind the North in population, productivity, and infrastructure. But the chief factor was the capital and effort invested in the amoral as well as uneconomic institution of slavery.

After the Civil War, persistent segregationist ideology demanded vast amounts of time, labor, and money in defining race down to the “one drop” rule—while establishing a labyrinth of segregation laws and refusing to draw on the talents of millions of black citizens.

Yet here we are in 2024, ignoring the baleful past as the woke diversity/equity/inclusion commissars war on merit. Institutions from United Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration to the Pentagon and elite universities have been reformulated in the post-George Floyd woke hysteria. And to the delight of competitors and enemies abroad, they are now using criteria other than merit to hire, promote, evaluate, and retain.

The greatest problem historically with hiring and promoting based on DEI-like dogma is that anti-meritocratic criteria mark the beginning, not the end, of eroding vital standards. If one does not qualify for a position or slot by accepted standards, then a series of further remedial interventions are needed to sustain the woke project, from providing exceptions and exemptions, changing rules and requirements, and misleading the nation that a more “diverse” math, or more “inclusive” engineering, or more “equity” in chemistry can supplant mastery of critical knowledge that transcends gender, race, or ideology.

But planes either fly or crash due to proper operation, not the appearance or politics of the operator. All soldiers either hit or miss targets, and engineers either make bridges that stand or collapse on the basis of mastering ancient scientific canons and acquired skills, training, and aptitude that have nothing to do with superficial appearance, or tribal affinities, or religion, or doctrine.

The common denominator of critical theories, from critical legal theory to critical social theory, is toxic nihilism, which claims there are no absolute standards, only arbitrary rules and regulations set up by a privileged, powerful class to exploit “the other.” Yet, not punishing looting has nothing to do with race or class, but everything with corroding timeless deterrence that always has and always will prevent the bullying strong from preying on the weak and vulnerable.

Defunding the police sent a message to any criminally minded that in a cost-to-benefit risk assessment, the odds were now on the side of the criminal not being caught for his crimes—and so crime soared and the vulnerable of the inner city became easy prey.

Another danger of DEI is the subordination of the individual to the collective. We are currently witnessing an epidemic of DEI racism in which commissars talk nonstop of white supremacy/rage/privilege without any notion of enormous differences among 230 million individual Polish-, Greek-, Dutch-, Basque-, or Armenian-Americans, or the class, political, and cultural abyss that separates those in Martha’s Vineyard from their antitheses in East Palestine, Ohio.

Moreover, what is “whiteness” in an increasingly intermarried and multiracial society? Oddly, something akin to the old one-drop rules of the South is now updated to determine victims and victimizers—to the point of absurdity. Who is white—someone one half-Irish, one half Mexican—who is black—someone one quarter Jamaican, three-quarters German? To find answers, DEI czars must look to paradigms of the racist past for answers.

Moreover, once any group is exempted and not held to collective standards by virtue of its superficial appearance, then the nation naturally witnesses an increase in racism and bigotry—on the theory that it is not racist to racially stigmatize a supposedly “racist” collective. And we are already seeing an uptake in racially motivated interracial violence as criminals interpret the trickle-down theory of reparatory justice as providing exemption for opportunistic violence.

Throughout history, it has always been the most mediocre and opportunistic would-be commissars that appear to come forth when meritocracy vanishes. If there was not a Harvard President and plagiarist like Claudine Gay to trumpet and leverage her DEI credentials, she would have to be invented. If there was not a brilliant, non-DEI economist like Roland Fryer to be hounded and punished by her, he would have to be invented.

The DEI conglomerate has little idea of the landmines it is planting daily by reducing differences in talent, character, and morality into a boring blueprint of racial stereotypes. Punctuality is now “white time” and supposedly pernicious. The SAT, designed to give the less privileged a meritocratic pathway to college admissions, is deemed racist and either discarded or warped.

In its absence, universities are quietly now “reimaging” their curriculum to make it more “relevant to today’s students” and, of course, “more inclusive and more diverse.” Translated from the language of Oceania, that means after admitting tens of thousands to the nation’s elite schools who did not meet the universities’ own prior standards that they themselves once established and apprehensive about terminating such students, higher education is now euphemistically lowering the work load in classes, introducing new less rigorous classes, and inflating grades. In their virtue-signaling, they have little clue that inevitably their once prized and supposedly prestigious degrees will be rendered less valued as employers discover a Harvard, Stanford, or Princeton BA or BS is not a guarantee of academic excellence or mastery of vital skill sets.

Toxic tribalism is also, unfortunately, like nuclear proliferation. Once one group goes full tribal, others may as well, if for no reason than their own self-survival in a balkanized, Hobbesian world of bellum omnium contra omnes. If our popular culture is to be defined by the racist hosts of The View, or the racist anchorwoman Joy Reid, or members of the Congressman “Squad,” or entire studies departments in our universities that constantly bleat out the racialist mantra, then logically one of two developments will follow.

One, so-called whites in minority-majority states like California will copy the tribal affinities of others that transcend their class and cultural differences, again in response to other blocs that do the same for careerist advantage and perceived survival. Or two, racism will be redefined empirically so that any careerist elites who espouse ad nauseam racial chauvinism—on the assurance they cannot be deemed racists—will be discredited and exposed for what they’ve become, and thus the content of our character will triumph over the color of our skin.

Finally, do we ever ask how a country of immigrants like the United States—vastly smaller than India and China, less materially rich than the vast expanse of Russia, without the strategic geography of the Middle East, or without the long investment and infrastructure of Europe—emerged out of nowhere to dominate the world economically, financially, militarily, and educationally for nearly two centuries?

The answer is easy: it was the most meritocratic land of opportunity in the world, where millions emigrated (legally) on the assurance that their class, politics, religion, ethnicity, and yes, race, would be far less a drawback than anywhere else in the world.

The degree to which the U.S. survives DEI depends on either how quickly it is discarded or whether America’s existential enemies in the Middle East, China, Russia, and Iran have even worse DEI-anti-meritocratic criteria of their own in hiring, promotion, and admissions—whether defined by institutionalized hatred of the West, or loyalty oaths to the communist party, or demonstrable obsequiousness to the Putin regime, or lethal religious intolerance.

Unfortunately, our illiberal enemies, China especially, at least in matters of money and arms, are now emulating the meritocracy of the old America. Meanwhile, we are hellbent on following their former destructive habits of using politics instead of merit to staff our universities, government, corporations, and military.

Our future hinges on how quickly we discard DEI orthodoxy and simply make empirical decisions to stop printing money, deter enemies abroad, enforce our laws, punish criminals, secure the border, reboot the military, regain energy independence, and judge citizens on their character and talent and not their appearance and politics—at least if it is not already too late.



Democrats’ Campaign Strategy Of Anti-Trump Lawfare Makes A Mockery Of The Justice System



Democrats are threatening to undermine the legitimacy of the judicial branch with an unprecedented campaign of politically motivated litigation against their top political opponent in the run-up to this year’s election. The lawfare strategy comes after years of Democrats’ persistent attacks on the Supreme Court.

Last year, Donald Trump, the now presumptive Republican presidential nominee, became the first former president to be indicted on criminal charges and currently faces 88 state and federal charges across four cases. The Trump campaign, meanwhile, has been forced to spend more than $76 million in legal bills while the former president himself owes more than half a billion in fines from civil cases brought before activist judges. As New York Attorney General Letitia James prepared to seize Trump’s assets to pay down fines of more than $450 million, Trump won an appeal on Monday to have the bond reduced and is now required to set aside $175 million within 10 days to pause the $464 million judgment.

“These are Rigged cases,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday morning, “all coordinated by the White House and [Department of Justice] for purposes of Election Interference.”

House Republicans are now investigating the use of federal funds by Manhattan District Attorney Alvinn Bragg to prosecute the president over a case previously determined too weak to pursue by the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York. Lawmakers are also investigating coordination between Trump’s antagonists on the since-disbanded House Select Committee on Jan. 6 and Fani Willis, the Georgia prosecutor caught in an inappropriate relationship with a member of her staff. Nevertheless, a judge ruled that Willis is allowed to remain the principal prosecutor of the former president and his Republican co-defendants, who are likely to appeal and delay prosecutors’ progress.

The White House, meanwhile, remains eager to land a conviction of the regime’s chief rival by November. Several polls found voters are less likely to vote for the former president if he is criminally convicted, even as a majority of voters see the Democrats’ aggressive lawfare strategy as a campaign to take out a prominent political opponent. The case most likely to give Democrats their election-year conviction comes straight out of Washington, D.C., and pertains to Trump’s speech about the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021. The federal judge presiding over this case, Tanya Chutkan, has already affirmed her belief that Trump is guilty.

Last fall, Chutkan refused to recuse herself from this case despite her prior prejudicial statements raising doubt over Trump’s ability to receive a fair trial.

Chutkan, who, according to the Associated Press, has built a reputation as “a tough punisher of Capitol rioters,” previously appeared to bemoan the fact that Trump had not yet been prosecuted over the 2021 Capitol riot.

“Such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying,” a petition from Trump’s attorneys read. “Although Judge Chutkan may genuinely intend to give President Trump a fair trial — and may believe that she can do so — her public statements unavoidably taint these proceedings, regardless of outcome.”

“Other judges typically have handed down sentences that are more lenient than those requested by prosecutors,” the AP reported last year. “Chutkan, however, has matched or exceeded prosecutors’ recommendations in 19 of her 38 sentences. In four of those cases, prosecutors weren’t seeking any jail time at all.”

Trump demanded that Chutkan remove herself from the case and called for a change in the trial’s venue. Chutkan denied the petition and pledged to move forward. Progress will resume after the Supreme Court rules this summer on whether Trump and other Jan. 6 defendants can be charged with two out of the four indictments brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Residents in the far-left capital, meanwhile, remain eager to convict the former president. A 2023 Emerson College survey found that 64 percent of D.C. residents said they would vote in favor of conviction compared to 28 percent who were undecided. Just 8 percent said they would support Trump’s innocence.

The 2024 election will not only be unique in that it offers the nation a choice between two presidents, but it also highlights the Democrat’s weaponization of the judiciary to undermine their opposition.