From Cats and Geese to Kissinger’s ‘World Order’

posted by Christopher Chantrill at American Thinker 

I’m all confused. Is it true that Kamala Harris’s earrings at the debate were clip-on earbuds? Probably not, but it would be fun if they were. Imagine if they were programmed by the CCP to spy on the councils of the blob.

And whatabout the Haitians of Springfield, Ohio, eating cats and geese? Could be, but the most important thing is Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, Rule 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

Hello! Do our people love generating memes about Trump and cats and geese, or what?

But I have more serious things to discuss today, given that our wise leaders are talking about sending long-range missiles to Ukraine. I think that AT’s own Stephen Bryen nailed it by writing:

The truth is Washington wants to take up Zelensky's proposals for deep strikes on Russian territory because Ukraine is losing the war and could be defeated even before the Presidential elections in November.

(h/t Clarice Feldman)

And that would really put the cat among the geese, as far as the presidential election is concerned.

It is obvious to me that our rulers are out of ideas and losing control. That’s what Trump in 2016 means; that’s what the Bernie-to-Biden switcheroo in 2020 means; that’s what the Biden-to-Harris switcheroo meant in July. That’s what the three-against-one debate on September 10 was all about. Our rulers are desperately trying to hold their regime together as it crumbles into dust.

But I have the answer to our foreign policy problems, because I just finished Kissinger’s 2014 book World Order. Of course, Kissinger veils his ideas in Straussian “esotericism.” But we are wise, and can read between the lines.

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin.

At the end of the book Kissinger tells us that, far from One World Order, we must understand that today’s diplomats must negotiate between four foundation narratives. First there is the western Westphalian order, an assembly of independent nation states. Then there is China:

Confucianism ordered the world into tributaries in a hierarchy defined by approximations of Chinese culture… Thus China felt no need to go abroad to discover a world it considered already ordered[.]

Islam is different:

Islam divided the world order into a world of peace, that of Islam, and a world of war, inhabited by unbelievers… Islam could achieve the theoretical fulfillment of world order only by conquest or global proselytization[.]

India is also different:

Hinduism, which perceives cycles of history and metaphysical reality transcending temporal experience, treated its world of faith as a complete system not open to new entrants by either conquest or conversion.

Yes, but whatabout Russia, Hank?

Kissinger deals with Russia at the beginning of the book, quoting Catherine the Great. Given Russia’s gigantic territory, the Prussian-born princess wrote that Russia needed to be governed by “absolute Power.”

Every other Form of Government whatsoever would not only have been prejudicial to Russia but would even have proved its entire Ruin.

I’m sure that Vladimir Putin would agree with her.

And I am also sure that Biden and Harris and Wynken, Blinken, and Nod are all fully up to speed on this Kissinger wisdom, and have the sense not to get into a missile war with Russia in order to avoid the embarrassment of Ukraine collapsing right before the election.

But you and I should think about the hidden meaning of Kissinger’s book. My take is that it’s crazy to talk about “world order” when you have four different cultural realms and their four different “lived experiences.” So it’s crazy to think that a bunch of world-order conventional-wisdom diplomats are going to solve the very human and very complex question of the coexistence of four very different cultural universes.

Did I say four? Don’t forget Russia, of which Lord Montgomery said “do not march on Moscow.”

Then there is Africa, and I don’t have a clue what to say about that.

Back in the day, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams came up with the idea of the Monroe Doctrine, which told the European countries to stay off our lawn and we’d stay off their lawn.

Of course, in the 19th century the Europeans ignored the Doctrine, and in the 20th century we staged two world wars in Europe to the greater glory of college presidents and Social Register swells.

But maybe it’s time to disinter the dear old Monroe Doctrine. After all, the United States is still protected by two great oceans. Nobody in their right mind would attempt to land on the beaches of the Jersey Shore or Santa Monica today. And so long as Justin keeps his Canada geese north of the border and AMLO keeps his Mexican cat-tels south of the border everything in these United States is copacetic. Come to trade and to visit our national parks, dear foreign friends, but don’t invade.

X22, On the Fringe, and more- Sept 17

 

How to Beat ‘Unhuman’ Communists At Their Own Game

posted by Janet Levy at American Thinker 

Communism thrives on resentment, vengeance, and terror.  Its chief weapon is disorder, the dismantling of existing structures, the undoing of bonds holding together families, nations, civilizations.  Conservative pundits have been warning of this for decades. Why, then, have the U.S. – and the West as a result – moved to the Left?

According to Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec, authors of Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (And How to Crush Them),conservatives lose because they do not understand the Left.  The authors say their book is a “software upgrade” for saving America and Western civilization.  They say they are unapologetic about the epithet ‘unhumans’ because communists destroy “the human rights of life, liberty, and property – and undo their own humanity in the process by fully embracing nihilism, cynicism, and envy.”

Posobiec is a former Naval intelligence officer, a T.V. journalist, and well-known conservative voice, while Lisec is a professional ghostwriter.  As staunch believers in the “God-given will of the human spirit to build a greater, better world than the one we found ourselves in,” both are committed to fighting back. 

They advocate the principle of exact reciprocity: “that which is done by the communists and the regime must be done unto them.”  Lawfare, naming, shaming, boycotts, cancel culture – the Left, they say, must be fought with its own weapons.  Their book is no limp-wristed analysis of conservative failures; it is a clarion call for an iron-fisted counterattack – a counter-revolution, for which they lay out the strategy in the final two (12th and 13th) chapters.

However, keeping the promise of helping to understand the Left, Posobiec and Lisec devote the initial chapters to laying out the political history of communist movements in a way no history book, teacher, or documentary does. 

Beginning with the proto-communist French Revolution, they lay bare the playbook that all far-left uprisings and insurrections have followed, whether in Russia, Spain, China, Cuba, Cambodia, or South Africa.

They show that communism is not an ideology, it is a war tactic to terrorize populations and revoke human rights.  Not blood-sated with the 100 million deaths communist revolutions and regimes caused in the 20th century, communists seek to destroy what individual effort, initiative, and innovation have achieved.  The ‘unhumans,’ averse to what civilization builds by committing itself to order and social contract, are dedicated to the “desecration of the beautiful.”

The authors reach to the roots of communism, namely, a seemingly commendable obsession with “fairness” and “equality,” ideals that the communists have distorted to run contrary to the equality under law that free societies like America uphold.  To the communists, the obvious unfairness of life and the role of effort, skill, enterprise, innovation, and even chance in determining individual or communal success or failure are the wellsprings to feed resentment and set up the have-nots against the haves – not to build a better world, but “to destroy all individual achievement and cultural greatness so that the world is as miserable as they are.”

The authors also make a strong case against the Left-favored relativistic multiculturalism that ostensibly seeks to integrate the disparate value systems of religious, ethnic, and cultural groups, but insidiously works to label dominant ones as oppressors.  Victimhood – true or perceived – is celebrated, while mere accusation is proof of someone or some group being an oppressor to be punished.

From their extensive study, Posobiec and Lisec conclude that revolutions follow the arc of Incite, Seize, and Purge.  Incitement builds resentment, envy, and hatred against ‘oppressors’ through a sustained focus on the victimhood of the ‘oppressed.’  Since violence is the sine qua non of revolution, seizure follows: property, liberty, and lives are taken with impunity.  Finally, purging ensures the removal of the ‘oppressors’ and any memory/history of them.  The true objective of revolutions isn’t equality but power – the emergence of a new leadership with powers far exceeding the original accused ‘oppressors.’

In America, the bastion of capitalism, freedom, and enterprise, this process had perforce to be gradual and all its steps could not be carried out.  But beginning in the 1960s with the civil rights movement, race was made a potent means of incitement.  Communist-infiltrated academia tore down the icons of early America and repainted our Founding Fathers as racists and slaveowners.

Race hustlers inflamed black rage to make their fortunes, even as most blacks were kept down, increasing crime, drug use, and breakdown of family and community life among blacks.  In the name of resistance, communists normalized hatred for and violence against majority whites, while not sparing successful minorities.  Equal access to opportunity was reinterpreted as equality of outcome.  People were not treated as individuals with inherent dignity, unique life experiences, and inalienable rights but as members of either “oppressor” or “oppressed” groups.  This was a teardown of American society.

In the 21st century, communists have adapted the revolutionary playbook to fifth-generation warfare (5GW) – the achievement of political goals through “perception management, narratives, asymmetry, or irregular conflict.” The book describes how communists conduct Operation Preparation of the Environment (OPE) to create conditions for victory.  There are three stages: Separation, Messaging, and Infiltration.  First, choosing grievances to build categories around, assigning blame and guilt to one side and envy and hatred to the other.  Second, using the media – especially social media – to reinforce anger in the have-nots and target the haves for their complicity.   And third, transformation of the media, societal institutions, government, and even the military through gradual infiltration by communists.

This is happening all around us now.  Separation: People have been indoctrinated to see racism where there is none.  Messaging: The media brands those opposing males competing in female sports as ‘transphobic.’  Infiltration: Academia, the media, the corporate world, advertising, the courts, key government agencies – already they are dominated by communists or eager neo-converts. 

At another level, the authors say, communists have unleashed anarcho-terrorism – the selective enforcement of laws against a target population.  Examples given include the prosecution of Jan. 6 demonstrators protesting a fraudulent election while Antifa and BLM rioters were exonerated for the “summer of love,” in which property was destroyed, businesses were looted, and people were assaulted.  Another is the villainization of police officers in the George Floyd case despite his record as a violent criminal, fentanyl addict, and heart patient.  Yet another is the criminalization of self-defense, while courts take a lenient view of muggers and robbers.

Committed as they are to taking the fight back to the communists, Posobiec and Lisec say that, if necessary, conservatives must infiltrate the organizations of the unhumans.  Posobiec hasn’t shied from such work himself: he has infiltrated Antifa meetings that planned attacks on Trump’s inauguration and the Seattle Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) and written a book about the conspiracies hatched there (The Antifa: Stories from Inside the Black Bloc). 

They also suggest acquiring dominance over social media – creating networks of counter-influencers, for example – so that organizations such as Antifa, BLM, and NGOs profiting from illegal immigration can be exposed and shamed effectively, while lawfare against them gains wide publicity.  In fact, Posobiec has written another book – 4D Warfare: A Doctrine for a New Generation of Politics – dedicated to fighting communists on social media.

“Great men of means” – such as free speech protector Elon Musk and investigative journalist James O’Keefe, of Project Veritas – uphold conservative values and fight communists by exposing them.  Posobiec and Lisec say that freedom lovers must champion these warriors.

Containment is another strategy the authors suggest – doing business only with those who share your values.  This may require geographical or economic retreats, but the authors predict that once a critical mass of boycotters is reached, the unhumans will turn on themselves, as predators invariably do.

“The unhumans will not stop until they are stopped,” Posobiec and Lisec write, and show us how to stop them.  Now, it is up to us to join battle.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Tim Walz Brags About Passing Laws That Restrict Speech

Tim Walz knows better, and if he doesn’t, one might suggest a quiet evening re-reading the American Constitution

Jason Miyares reporting for The Federalist

This week, a federal court will take up a case challenging a 2023 Minnesota law that prohibits employers from discussing religious or political matters at required meetings, including meetings on elections, regulations, and whether employees should join a union.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., bragged about the impact of the new law, saying that employers will either have to toe the line or be sent to jail.

Making matters worse, Walz also personally appointed all the members of Minnesota’s teacher licensing board, which recently instituted new rules restricting and coercing teachers’ speech. These new regulations “require educators to ‘affirm’ their students’ gender identities, have ‘racial consciousness,’ and learn to ‘disrupt oppressive systems,’” according to Fox News. Count me in as one of those who are shocked yet perhaps not terribly surprised that Walz believes that there should be no guarantees to free speech in America.

Couple Walz’s attacks on free speech with attempts from the political left (and Walz’s attorney general in particular) to put public pressure on social media platforms, such as Elon Musk’s X, and the message is clear. Our First Amendment is under attack.

Thomas Jefferson’s response to accusations that we are entertaining too much liberty was to compare our freedom of speech and the press directly with our freedom of religion. Namely, that a violation of any one freedom would be a violation of all the others, and “that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals.”

Our First Amendment rights are no less sacred to Virginians than our Statute for Religious Freedom. Yet more than platitudes, policies limiting speech speak more to the values of East Germany than American freedom.

When we see social media spaces pressured into censorship, or when we see political opinions forced upon the vast majority by government fiat, one wonders aloud whether we really believe in what the words democracy and freedom entail.

For Jefferson, truth had nothing to fear so long as reason was left free to combat it. Virginians and Americans understand that our First Amendment rights are not polite codes of behavior, but rather a sacred duty and a charge.

Yet in today’s world, we see more of the impulse to control narratives rather than allow ideas to be freely challenged and explored. Walz is only saying the quiet part out loud. In today’s relentless media culture, counterpoints are not merely inconvenient to the narrative; they are dangerous to those seeking to impose their values on an unsuspecting public.

Critics and little Robespierres will always be quick to charge that such freedom is dangerous to their interests. Such critics are probably worth the criticism. Yet there are two areas in particular that Walz mentions, namely whether there is the freedom to be odious and hateful in the public square, and likewise whether one has the right to spread misinformation under the First Amendment.

Let me be explicitly clear on this point. Acts of hate are neither ignored nor tolerated in Virginia. As Virginia attorney general, I have exhausted this office in identifying and prosecuting violence, whether it is the targeting of Jewish students on college campuses or our African American citizens.

Yet as the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear time and time again, no one in a free society has the right not to be offended. No one in America has the right never to be challenged on his opinions or views. Everyone has the right to be wrong.

Obviously there are laws against defamation and libel in the United States, though nowhere near as draconian as the laws in other nations. In such instances, we are not talking about the free exercise of speech or press but rather their abuse. Yet our latitude in such instances tests the very meaning of the word inexhaustible, precisely because our faith in our fellow human beings ought to be likewise.

This Jeffersonian optimism was once the hallmark of Americans in both political parties. Consisting of a singular belief in the promise of the American spirit, our shared belief in the common goodness of our friends and neighbors is the spirit that made America great. Self-governance and self-government should triumph above every busybody and scold.

We lost this spirit, or at the very least we allowed ourselves to be distracted from this optimism by the times. Yet every Sept. 11, we seem to remember who we are. Every July 4, we seem to remember that no matter what we might believe or what opinions we might hold, together we are all Americans. Our differences remain our strength.

For myself, the idea that such differences should be stomped out by a heavy-handed thought police isn’t just the difference between Minnesota and Virginia; it’s the difference between a former Soviet republic and the American experiment.

What Ronald Reagan understood and what Jefferson believed about our basic constitutional freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment stand entirely at odds with how the Biden administration has operated and what Tim Walz believes is necessary for an open public square.

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are values as old as Jefferson, and rights that no government can suppress for long. Our First Amendment is first for a reason. Tim Walz knows better, and if he doesn’t, one might suggest a quiet evening re-reading the American Constitution. 

NAACP Poll Is Brutal for Kamala

Matt Vespa reporting for Townhall 

The tweet from The Hill sounded ominous: an NAACP poll showed that black voters are more enthused to vote in 2024 than in 2008. However, it only takes about three seconds to know that’s facially untrue. Kamala Harris isn’t Barack Obama. Harris isn’t leading in the battleground polls since we know the Trump vote is underestimated—she’s nowhere near where she needs to be to offset that polling conundrum. Obama had political skills and could efficiently deliver a message; it resonated. Harris is a cackling idiot who never answers the question. Obama was excellent in interviews, while Harris is a trainwreck from East Palestine, Ohio.

One could argue that the framing done by liberal outlets on this poll is insulting to voters, especially nonwhite voters, as it’s an unnecessary ‘what they meant to say’ sort of spin to counter the heinous polling Harris is generating right now. Here's how the Hill framed this poll: 

A majority of Black voters are just as excited or more this year as in 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) became the first Black president, according to new polling. 

A survey from the NAACP, in partnership with HIT Strategies and Hart Research, found that 78 percent of Black voters feel the same sense of excitement as when Obama first ran, with 56 percent being more excited now than in 2008. 

[…]

Fifty-one percent of Black voters said they would cast their ballots for Harris if the election were held today. Only 27 percent said the same of former President Trump.   

But gender and generational disparities persist among Black voters. 

While 79 percent of women over the age of 50 said they would vote for Harris, 66 percent of men over 50 said the same. Only 56 percent of voters aged 18-49 said the same. 

And then, Ryan Girdusky decided to go to the source, and it’s a disaster for Harris:

Newsweek did mention how the NAACP doesn’t bode well, though it wasn’t as specific as Girdusky. It only noted many lines down that Harris is polling behind past Democratic candidates.

Senator Josh Hawley Releases Whistleblower Complaint Outlining DHS and Secret Service Issues

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

I’m not exactly sure why the second assassination attempt leads Senator Josh Hawley to release a complaint about the systemic issues with the Dept of Homeland Security and U.S. Secret Service, but that appears to be the reasoning he provides.

Why does it take a second attempt to release information to the public that stems from the first attempt?  Seems a little odd to me.

[Source Link]

The Full 22-Page Report is HERE

WASHINGTON DC – After two near-assassinations in two months, the Secret Service is facing scorching criticism for its work to protect former President Donald Trump.

In July, the agency’s director resigned amid bipartisan outrage over the failure to prevent a gunman from climbing onto a roof and firing multiple shots at Trump during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. And now, security experts are questioning how another would-be gunman was apparently able to camp undetected near Trump’s golf course for nearly 12 hours before being confronted by a Secret Service agent who opened fire.

“I think it’s a failure, 100%,” said security expert Carrie Bachner, referring to the latest incident. Bachner is the CEO of the Bachner Group and a former adviser to the Department of Homeland Security’s undersecretary for intelligence and analysis.

“Obviously, it was successful in the fact that the former president wasn’t shot, which is great, and no shots were fired from that particular individual,” she added. “However, that’s sort of looking at the glass half full, if you want to be positive about it.”

On Capitol Hill, the Secret Service is at the center of the House’s investigation into the first assassination attempt. That probe is now poised to expand to include a second.

The suspect allegedly involved in Sunday’s incident was within several hundred yards of Trump as he played golf, authorities said. Someone with a loaded gun should never have been allowed to get that close to the presidential candidate, Bachner said. (read more)

I never thought I’d be appointed to an assassination attempt task force while in Congress, let alone have a 2nd attempt only a month into the task force. We should all be deeply concerned about how yet another disturbed person got this close to President Trump with a weapon. pic.twitter.com/kNmXcga0aM

— Congressman Jared Moskowitz (@RepMoskowitz) September 16, 2024

Democrats Aren’t Going to Stop If They Kill Trump

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

You always hear it after a bear or lion eats a person – they say they have to kill the animal because it now has a taste for humans and won’t stop. This always struck me as odd, even funny, as though we humans are so delicious that one taste of us is so euphoric that they couldn’t possibly go back to salmon, elk or whatever.

That is, of course, not really the reason the animals have changed, the story goes. It’s that the fear of humans – their desire to avoid us because we’re strange to them – is gone, and now they will associate us with food. Whether that’s true or not, I have no idea, though I find it difficult to think one taste would alter everything they’ve instinctively done their whole lives. The concept, however, is something that does ring true, and it is going to happen to Democrats if they manage to finally assassinate Donald Trump.

Political violence is common around the world and throughout history. It has taken a concerted effort in the modern age to tamp it down to where it is now: rare, relatively speaking. 

It is still common in the Third World, as we see all the time in the Middle East, South and Central America, and parts of Asia and Africa. But in the First World, we don’t suffer from it like the rest of the world does…mostly.

In recent years, the progressive left – after having purged itself of any sense of moderates (Remember “Blue Dog Democrats” who were concerned about government spending? When was the last time you heard a Democrat speak about massive spending in anything other than a cynical way?) – has embraced political violence as a means of motivation for their militant enforcement wing. Rather than distance themselves from the destructive, violent left, the Democratic Party became their masters. 

Starting with violence against police and private property in the Occupy Wall Street movement and their excusing sexual violence against their own people at those same encampments across the country, the Democratic Party has run toward violent thugs willing to throw Molotov Cocktails at civilized society.

At first, their violence was ignored. Then it was excused and watered down – had you ever heard of a “mostly peaceful” riot before Democrats needed to mislead the public on how entire segments of cities were being destroyed?

Now, the violence of Democratic Party Brownshirts is simply a matter of fact and barely reported. If you don’t watch Fox News or go to conservative news websites, you’d likely be unaware of what was happening on liberal college campuses across the country since Hamas attacked Israel, and you’d never know it’s still happening. It’s just a fact of life now, an entrenched reality unworthy of attention. 

It took only a very short time to normalize the violence of the left, and there is no reason to think they are done with it.

When a progressive Democratic Party activist and devout Rachel Maddow fan tried to assassinate as many Republicans as possible on a baseball field in Virginia because the cancer that is MSNBC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Comcast Xfinity, by the way, so if you’re using any of their services you are paying for your own demise) told him the GOP’s health care plan would kill 10,000 every year, the story became a yawner within days. In fact, the leftist corporate media stopped covering it as the stop story before Majority Whip Steve Scalise was off life support. 

One of their own trying to murder people isn’t the image the party of “tolerance” wants voters to have.

The first assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump’s life was as large of a news story as it was only because there was video – if it bleeds, it leads. Joe Biden suspended his campaign as a result of the shooting…for a couple of days. But the “Trump is Hitler and a threat to democracy” implying he must be stopped by any means necessary from MSNBC and other Democrats only paused long enough to angrily swallow the fact that their teammate had missed.

After they tried again, there was no such pause by the Kamala Harris and Tim Walz campaign. In fact, Democrats sent me at least 19 fundraising emails the afternoon of the attempted assassination, and “Trump is a threat to your life and everything you hold dear” rhetoric never even slowed. 

From one assassination attempt to another, Democrats have shifted from “Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims” to “Why the hell can’t anyone aim or stay hidden long enough to get the job done?”

If you think they’re done, you haven’t been paying attention. There is no bottom for them to hit, they simply want Donald Trump dead because it’s much easier than beating him, especially when their candidates are so horrible. 

But if you think they’ll stop with Trump, you’re crazy. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has already been called Hitler by these same people, has is JD Vance. Once they get a taste for blood and become comfortable not only with the violence, but with people knowing they’ve inspired and benefitted from it, it will only become more common. They may not get around to you quickly – prioritizing higher profile targets first – but they will get around to you for the “sin” of thinking wrong. 

Sound crazy? Didn’t everything I’ve outlined above and all we’ve lived through the past few years, sound just as crazy, if not crazier just decade ago?

Once people become numb to the concept of violence and blood you get a hell of a lot more of both. Normalizing it, then embracing violence, is yet another reason why the Democratic Party needs to not only lose in November, they need to be destroyed. They need to be shut out and shunned, unless and until some sense of decency and normality returns to them, which seems impossible at this point. 

Press Narrative Melts After Truth About 'Bomb Threats' in Springfield Comes Out

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Following the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a common refrain from the left was that political violence is a "both sides" issue. MSNBC tried that line multiple times, as did some of the major newspapers, with the idea being that you can't call out Democrat rhetoric because Republican rhetoric has caused issues as well.

So what was the evidence for that equivocation being used as a way to deflect from someone trying to murder Trump again? CNN's Dana Bash provided a perfect example of it when she accused JD Vance of inciting "bomb threats" in Springfield, OH.

To be sure, the claim was dubious from the moment it left her mouth. Bomb threats are a dime a dozen. They happen every day and are historically harmless fear-mongering. After all, why would an attacker call in a bomb threat if they intended to use a bomb to cause harm? That would defeat the purpose. Regardless, pretending that's equatable to an attempted assassination in which an actual shooter was fired upon and arrested is laughable. 

There's another problem with the press line about those "bomb threats," though. They were not only all hoaxes, but they were not connected to anyone supporting JD Vance. There's not even any evidence they were made in relation to the Haitian migrant situation.

This was completely predictable. As I noted above, bomb threats are essentially all hoaxes. I can't remember a single time that a bomb threat was made prior to an actual bombing. I'm not saying that's never happened in human history. I'm sure it has, but it's certainly rare to the point of being almost non-existent. 

Typically, a bomb threat is called in as a prank or as a way to cause chaos. To take a series of them without knowing their origin or purpose and then to use them to suggest JD Vance and Donald Trump were inciting violence was baseless nonsense. It was also completely transparent. Democrats never apply that standard to anyone on their own side, even when the violence being perpetrated is unquestionably real. 

So will the mainstream press share this new information about these "bomb threats?"

I'll go ahead and spoil it for everyone. Bash is never going to mention that story again. She won't go on air to correct the record. She won't apologize for blaming Vance and Trump for something they didn't do. Instead, she'll just move on to the next narrative without having to answer for the collapse of the last one. That's how the press always operates, and it's why no one should trust them to be a purveyor of truth.

Urban Living Would Be Better if Big City Governments Were Less Incompetent

Urban Living Would Be Better if Big City Governments Were Less Incompetent

Unions and other special interests seem to get what they want before many urban residents get basic services.

Steven Greenhut for reason.com

One of the silliest things about the urbanism movement is its insistence that suburbanites abandon single-family homes, spacious yards, and placid neighborhoods for the excitement of big-city living. In those cities, we can supposedly experience more "community," reduce our carbon footprint, and take a bike to buy overpriced groceries at a bodega rather than drive our SUV to Costco.

By all means, developers should be free to build whatever the market demands—including characterless multi-family box housing. I dislike zoning and couldn't care less that my single-family suburban house is near duplexes and stores. But I often wonder why advocates for urban living rarely grapple with a main reason many people won't live in cities: the incompetence of urban governments.

In a recent column, the Los Angeles Times' Steve Lopez looked at a most basic area of municipal governance: sidewalk maintenance. Los Angeles, he reported, has created an online process for residents to request help to fix mangled sidewalks, but found it can take City Hall a decade to get to it "if you're lucky." He's conclusion is spot on: "Your first and best option is to pack up, sell the house, and move out of town."

That's years after, he noted, the city agreed to spend $1.4 billion on the problem after a lawsuit. City governments vary, but the bigger the city, the less likely its officials will respond to citizens' run-of-the-mill concerns about quality-of-life concerns such as dangerous intersections, impassable sidewalks, gang activity, etc. Suburban cities can be incompetent too, but the last time I emailed an official in mine I received a polite response within the hour.

By contrast, I own a rental property in a larger Northern California city and spent months simply trying to get anyone to even answer my simple question about pruning a city-owned tree. I finally gave up trying. Here in supposedly wretched suburbia, my neighbor called the police department to complain about speeders and a motorcycle cop set up a patrol the next day. Go figure, but people rather live in places where the government is at least responsive.

Local governance varies greatly, but bigger cities are dominated by public-sector unions that are more interested in spending money than providing quality services. They exert their power whenever a politician gets out of line and starts worrying about constituent concerns rather than just boosting the budget for those services and the pay for those who provide them.

Is it any wonder it took many months and more than $1 million for San Francisco to build one toilet (Google "toilet-gate") in a park—and that was after private companies donated the structure and the labor?

By the way, I added up the annual total compensation for Los Angeles' superintendent of buildings, five deputy superintendents, and six assistant deputy superintendents and it totaled more than $3.3 million. The city's top public works official earns more than $430,000 in total annual compensation. The head of the LA's Department of Disability earns more than $230,000 in total pay. I'm guessing perhaps the sidewalk issue isn't primarily about money.

In big cities, the resident is not the actual constituent. Instead, the unions or special interests are the voices elected officials are most concerned about placating. Even smaller, suburban, and conservative cities suffer from that problem, but it's more pronounced in bigger cities. Smaller cities are rarely dominated by a local Service Employees International Union (SEIU) branch, but few small-city council members can stand up to the police or fire unions and survive. Even smaller school districts in California are dominated by teachers' and staff unions.

So good luck promoting education reform under those circumstances. Poor-performing urban schools are yet another disincentive to embrace urban life. Not that all suburban schools are good (most are mediocre, actually), but who is going to trade a decent school in Orange County for one run by Los Angeles Unified? Not surprisingly, "world-class" cities such as San Francisco and Seattle have largely become childless thanks to poor schools, a high cost of living, and crime concerns.

In a 2016 paper for Chapman University, Rice University professor William Fulton noted that most cities "reflect the prevailing wisdom at the beginning of the last century, which held that municipal systems (sewers, parks, police) could be more efficiently delivered at a large scale" but that they are now "viewed as hidebound and bureaucratic—responsive, perhaps, to public employee unions but not to the residents or the businesses that inhabit those cities."

That's spot on. Some urban thinkers argue for "smaller" and "more nimble" cities, Fulton added, but I think it's time that our nation, which still views itself as an innovator, considers private solutions that give residents a choice. Competition is the only way to lower costs and improve service. Even urbanists should recognize that waiting 10 years for a sidewalk repair only makes their cause more daunting.



This column was first published in The Orange County Register.