How do you know when you're being lied to by the political left? Well, yes, when their lips are moving, but also when they scream "Disinformation!" Such is the case with Biden-Harris's FEMA, which has announced a new website to address what they're calling "hurricane disinformation." The translation of that nonsense little phrase being that they were caught with their pants down after Hurricane Helene, whether accidentally or deliberately, and it's all the fault of disinformation.
The whole thing is straight out of the Democrat Party operating manual.
First, you start with an emergency. Riots, fires, hurricanes — any old emergency will do. In this case, we have a hurricane that devastated a significant portion of western North Carolina, home to a uniquely American population of mountain kin and artsy leftists. It's not the coastal elite and deep-pocketed Democrat donors being affected, so a tepid response is adequate.
Then, you roll out said tepid response. A pallet of water here, a few Army guys there – maybe throw in a wholly inadequate check in the amount of $750 for good measure – and now you can say you've mobilized your troops.
Next, you get your friends in the media to downplay, or downright deny, the catastrophe because it's not politically expedient during a presidential election year. This is the most important step in building your "disinformation" narrative, and you needn't worry that the media won't comply. They will.
Finally, having been called out for being a colossal failure, you deflect with the tried-and-true "disinformation" trope. Adding a website where you can search by so-called "rumor" is the cherry on top of the communist sundae.
The whole thing is playing out in real time right before our eyes, with FEMA director Deanne Criswell holding a press conference Tuesday to bemoan that the level of the perceived mis- and dis-information is something she's "never seen before." She added, "I anticipated some of this, but not to the extent that we're seeing this."
To quote the great Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, she should look in the mirror.
Criswell is deeply worried that all of the kerfuffle will adversely affect FEMA employees:
"If it creates so much fear that my staff doesn't want to go out in the field, then we're not going to be in a position where we can help people," she added. "I worry that they won't apply for assistance, which means I can't get them the necessary items they need to support them."
Imagine how the people of storm-ravaged North Carolina will feel when, in the face of the disastrous response by the federal government, they hear that FEMA is wasting time and resources on a rumor website. They know the truth about FEMA. Forget misinformation; we're dealing with criminally bad mismanagement here.
The goal of the website is abundantly clear when you open it up.
Do your part to the stop the spread of rumors by doing three easy things:
- Find trusted sources of information.
- Share information from trusted sources.
- Discourage others from sharing information from unverified sources.
Jawohl!
This sounds a heck of a lot like COVID days, when Americans were encouraged to turn in their neighbors who dared not comply with the draconian government restrictions. (Heck, even everyone's favorite knucklehead himself, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, set up a tattle-tale hotline.) FEMA knows they've lost the PR war and is trying to deflect responsibility by blaming everyone but themselves.
There's a lot of gobbledegook on the site, but one "debunked rumor" stood out:
Rumor: FEMA distributes aid based on demographic characteristics.
Fact: FEMA provides assistance to survivors regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, English proficiency or economic status.
Well, that's demonstrably false. FEMA itself held a webinar just last year "trumpeting the urgent need to move away from policies that benefit the greatest number of people and instead turn focus toward 'disaster equity' where aid is distributed based on innate characteristics like sexual orientation and gender identity."
The site also tried to debunk the "rumor" that FEMA is out of funds for disaster relief, as reported by DHS' own head honcho, Alejandro Mayorkas.
Rumor: FEMA does not have enough money to provide disaster assistance for Helene.
Fact: FEMA has enough money right now for immediate response and recovery needs. If you were affected by Helene, do not hesitate to apply for disaster assistance as there is a variety of help available for different needs.
FEMA is ratcheting up its Keystone Cops routine at exactly the wrong time, with Hurricane Milton tracking at top speeds toward Florida. The bottom line is, if you're doing your job and you're doing it well, you don't need to waste time and resources on trying to prove that you are. FEMA is flailing, and we all know it.
The October 8th War
An unfathomable number of keystrokes (we don’t talk about spilling ink because that’s no longer a thing) was devoted yesterday to the anniversary of the October 7 massacre. Appropriately so. That attack by the Hamas terrorist organization kicked off a seven-front war that has now dragged on for a year. However, when historians look back on this conflict, October 8 may be viewed as a more significant marker.
October 8, 2023, was the day that Hezbollah, Iran’s more powerful proxy, began firing at Israel from Lebanon. The volume of fire that Israel has sustained since then is not well understood. Hezbollah has launched an estimated 10,000 rockets, missiles and drones at Israel since the fighting began. Entire swaths of Israel’s northern territory have been evacuated. The damage has yet to be assessed.
This war is still evolving. The Israelis are hammering Hezbollah relentlessly right now, with a combination of lethal air strikes and limited ground maneuvers in southern Lebanon. But this was not the case for nearly eleven months. The way the war evolved in the north was downright bizarre.
Even as Israelis sustained blow after blow from the Iranian proxy, they limited their responses to tit-for-tat, commensurate strikes. This remarkable restraint was encouraged—perhaps ordered—by the Biden White House. Under any other circumstances, the Israelis would have flattened Dahiyeh, Hezbollah’s stronghold in Beirut, long ago. They would have carried out a massive campaign in southern Lebanon to remove the threat along their northern border.
But they didn’t. The Biden White House was petrified of a Lebanon war. The Israelis didn’t want one either. And for good reason. Hezbollah is perhaps the most deadly foe Israel has faced in its entire history. Israeli security officials believe the group’s military capabilities are on par with a mid-size European military (think Czech Republic or similar). The group has (or at least it had) an estimated 200,000 projectiles. It has precision-guided munitions. It has a fleet of underwater and aerial drones. And its fighters have trained alongside the Russia and Iranian militaries.
The Israelis have spent years trying to prevent advanced Iranian weapons from reaching Hezbollah. This was the thrust of the “Campaign Between the Wars” that Israel waged for roughly a decade before the current war erupted. The goal was to delay the inevitable. But that clock ran out on October 8.
Given the gravity of the threat and given that Hezbollah had clearly joined the war less than 24 hours after the Hamas pogrom in southern Israel, there were many in the Israeli security establishment who were inclined to head north to fight Hezbollah immediately after 10/7. Biden said don’t. He set the Israelis on the path of war with Hamas in Gaza, and that postponed the inevitable for a time.
Realistically, Hamas was only going keep the Israelis busy for so long. The Iranian proxy group in Gaza is now effectively a spent force. That doesn’t mean it won’t occasionally carry out a successful rocket attack or snipe an Israeli soldier. Those things will happen. But the Israelis are now confident that it will be a decade or more before the group can rebuild, if it ever does. And that’s why the attention has turned north.
It’s hard to say exactly when the Israeli counteroffensive began. It might have been the targeted strike on terrorist mastermind Fouad Shukr in the heart of Beirut on July 31. Perhaps it was the Mossad’s ingenious exploding pager and walkie-talkie operation that killed, maimed and injured hundreds of Hezbollah commanders on September 17. Or it could have simply been the thundering series of air strikes that felled Hezbollah’s longtime leader, Hassan Nasrallah, on September 27. It almost doesn’t matter at this point. The long-feared “war of the north” is now fully underway.
There is a temptation to say that Israel is winning this northern war. The Israelis have destroyed roughly half of Hezbollah’s significant capabilities (how that is determined is hard to grasp, but this is what Israelis who know are saying). And the group’s leadership has been utterly eviscerated. But the fight is far from over. This is evident by the sheer number of rocket, drone, and missile attacks that have been launched by Hezbollah into Israel despite the damage the group has sustained. Unfortunately, there is much more where that came from.
The scenarios the Israelis have sketched out in years past when describing the looming war now upon us have been fodder for nightmares. They include large numbers of casualties and unfathomable damage to iconic buildings, not to mention Israel’s infrastructure. Thankfully, none of that has occurred… yet. But it’s still possible. And the odds of a fiercer battle will only go up after Israel initiates military strikes inside Iran in response to last week’s barrage of ballistic missiles into Israel. Indeed, the regime will almost certainly instruct its Lebanese proxy to escalate by introducing some of its more advanced capabilities. This will only provoke Israel to strike harder. Up the escalation ladder we go.
The Biden Administration continues to try and head off a wider war. But this is a fool’s errand at this point. The war that began on October 8, one year ago, has clearly entered a new phase. The sheer intensity of it is now impossible to ignore. The Israelis are looking to deliver a knockout blow. Is that even possible?
At the Economic Club of Pittsburgh, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris recently said she would “engage in what Franklin Roosevelt called ‘bold, persistent experimentation,’” as he had told the 1932 graduating class at Oglethorpe University. But she did not mention FDR’s vision of “remaking the world,” which included fundamentally changing “our popular economic thought” to see to “a wiser, more equitable distribution of the national income.”
Instead, she said she would seek “practical solutions” and even declared, “I am a capitalist.” She said she’s “been working with entrepreneurs and business owners” for her “whole career.” (No one has yet even been able to verify Harris’ job at McDonald’s.)
She also professed her belief in “an active partnership between government and the private sector,” sounding much like FDR at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in September 1932. There he called for a new “economic constitutional order” built together by an “enlightened administration” and “enlightened businessmen” who together would “[adjust] production to consumption.”
Indeed, the desire to control production and fix prices was the aim of the largest contributor to the Roosevelt campaign, Wall Street speculator Bernard Baruch. He got the wish he paid for, the NRA (National Recovery Administration). Similarly, Harris supporter and billionaire Mark Cuban is vying for the position as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission and calling those who call Harris a Marxist “idiots.”
It was natural that Harris would quote Roosevelt. Biden referenced FDR in his speeches, especially in his last State of the Union address, when he invoked the “Four Freedoms,” which became the basis of his campaign (before it was usurped by Harris). The media hailed Barack Obama as the second coming of FDR, with the Nov. 24, 2008, Time magazine cover showing Obama posed as FDR in a convertible, clenching the characteristic cigarette-holder.
But as Ben Shapiro pointed out, Roosevelt’s “bold, persistent experimentation” actually prolonged the Depression. So also warned James Freeman. Relying on Amity Shlaes, Freeman noted that FDR’s impulsiveness made it impossible for businesses to plan ahead.
Indeed, as I point out in my book, FDR was barely capable of keeping a sustained thought, flitting from one subject to another, like Harris does in “word salads.” He would tell two advisors with diametrically opposed solutions to compromise. He would incorporate contradictory statements into the same speech. He was ignorant about economics and made no effort to learn. Prejudices learned in childhood guided his foreign policy.
Yet, he felt himself qualified to plan the economy and the lives of all Americans.
FDR experimented, indeed. He followed the economic theories of his Brain Trust (“cornfield philosophers” with Ph.D.s, as John T. Flynn called them). Instead of letting prices bottom out and the economy recover as it had after World War I, the Brain Trust ordered farmers late in the spring of 1933 to plow under crops and then taxed processors. The NRA set prices, driving out small businesses.
The result? Food shortages and increased prices for people already hungry.
Harris’ “first-ever federal ban on corporate price gouging” by food companies promises the same results.
Another experimental idea was to confiscate the gold that American citizens had been “hoarding.” Average Americans who had tried to protect their investments were ordered, by threat of a 10-year prison term and a $10,000 fine, to hand in gold bars and even Christmas gold coins. FDR then determined the price of gold, sometimes by multiples of “lucky numbers.”
But Baruch kept his gold. Today, politically connected stock market speculators, e.g., those married to the former Democratic Speaker of the House, use advance knowledge about legislation to sell stocks at a profit.
Similarly, Harris’ economic policies will not provide the “opportunity” she promises to all equally. Just as FDR doled out federal funds to court votes, federal funds will be doled out selectively. She promises to increase the startup deduction from $5,000 to $50,000 and “provide low- and no-interest loans” to small businesses. On what basis? Will the loans be forgiven, just like student loans? As business owner Chad O. Jackson asks, is even a $5,000 loan needed to start a business?
On MSNBC, after her speech, Harris said that she would cut the “red tape” involved in housing and low-income housing construction. She explained, “some of the work is going to be through what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance to state and local governments around transit dollars, and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing, and looking holistically at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people.”
Out of this holistic mess we can gather that federal assistance will be contingent on where the housing is built (near public transit). Such stipulations indicate more “red tape” and an exacerbation of a housing crisis largely created by the government.
Her “$25,000 down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers,” she explains, would mean “creating the ability of that working person to build intergenerational wealth.”
Like FDR, she wants a redistribution of wealth. Her ideas about “intergenerational wealth,” referred to twice in her speech and then on MSNBC, echo Nikole Hannah-Jones’ argument for reparations because of advantages in white “generational wealth.” Harris is a big fan of Hannah-Jones. She called Hannah-Jones’ 1619 Project a “masterpiece” that told the “truth” of how “the very foundation of our country was built on the backs of enslaved people.” Which first-time homebuyers will get $25,000 from the government? Look at the model Evanston, Illinois, reparations program. Number one priority is “restorative housing.”
Democrats seem to think that quoting FDR will magically reassure voters. Vice presidential candidate Tim Walz tried to salvage a disastrous debate by paraphrasing FDR’s nonsensical statement about having nothing to fear but “fear itself.”
History books, overwhelmingly written by FDR fans, quote his line about fear as if it were a gem of profundity and cast the blame for the extended Depression on other factors, such as obstructionist Republicans and judges. Some argue that FDR did not spend enough money. The fact that he was president during the crisis of depression and war, plus his long-established celebrity status as a Roosevelt, etched him into the national memory as a hero.
Historian David M. Kennedy admits that the Great Depression was “a catastrophic economic crisis that Roosevelt failed to resolve, at least not until World War II came along.” But FDR had “larger purposes.” In 1937, as a second depression hit, FDR worried that economic recovery might be “politically premature.” It might “dismantle the fragile edifice of reforms” he had instituted, and it might weaken the executive branch.
So, Roosevelt’s “reforms” and his power in the executive branch were more important than the well-being of Americans, whose life expectancy was declining. According to Kennedy, the president knew the Depression offered “a rare political opportunity, and Roosevelt made the most of it, to the nation’s lasting benefit.”
What is assumed to be the “lasting benefit” includes such things as unemployment insurance, Social Security, and banking deposit insurance. But these programs’ costs are borne by consumers. Americans’ taxes pay for deposit insurance. While “too big to fail” financial institutions were bailed out during the 2008-2009 recession, average Americans lost their homes. Under Democrat “Green New Deals,” politically connected companies, from Solyndra to Blue Whale Materials, get the loans and contracts. Obama’s make-work plan, with huge signs announcing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 at sidewalks that went nowhere, mimicked the make-work boondoggling of the FDR administration. In both administrations, Washington, D.C., grew and prospered. FDR never really pulled the United States out of the Depression. Obama’s first-term recovery was the slowest one ever.
Like FDR, Kamala Harris is interested in growing the government for political power and transforming the country. If more Americans understood the real FDR, they would be able to see that they do have something to fear: another FDR-like administration.
This Is a Slow-Motion Nationalization of the Economy
Global liquidity is expanding. In the past three months, the global money supply has soared by $4.7 trillion. This rapid increase started when the Federal Reserve panicked the first time and delayed the normalization of the balance sheet in June.
Since then, we have seen a chain of fresh stimulus policies implemented by developed economies, adding to the large fiscal packages already in place. Multi-trillion-dollar investment packages like the EU Next Generation Fund now include massive deficit spending plans. However, money velocity is not rising. All these programs only lead to secular stagnation. Government projects and current expenditures are consuming money at an unprecedented rate.
Developed economies cannot live without new and larger spending plans. The result is more debt, weaker productivity growth, and declining real wages.
In a recent report, Bank of America showed that the rise of unproductive debt has created a significant problem for the United States economy. For every dollar of new government debt, the gross domestic product impact has slumped to less than fifty cents. The United States is drowning in unproductive debt. However, at least the United States has some productivity growth. If we look at the euro area, the negative multiplier effect of new government debt is extremely evident. Despite enormous stimulus plans and negative nominal rates, the euro area has been stagnating for years.
Many of you may believe that bad policies and careless government spending are to blame, but I think this is intentional. It is a slow process of nationalizing the economy. Slowly depleting the middle class’s savings due to consistently declining real wages, the government expands its influence in the economy, garnering support from a substantial portion of the populace.
Market participants love this. A new stimulus plan means more money printing, which will bring more liquidity to markets and fuel multiple expansions regardless of weak economic figures. However, my esteemed colleagues should be wiser when hailing the next stage of financial repression. Discontent is rising among citizens, and one way or another, this will end badly.
Debt crises may not appear the same way as they used to. It is not a cataclysmic event but a slow boiling that leads to the same impoverishment.
Neo-Keynesians look at the past four years of the United States economy and claim victory. However, for many in the United States middle class, their impoverishment over the past four years has been like that of Greek citizens in 2009.
When central banks think of a soft landing, they are looking at a gradual erosion of the purchasing power of salaries and deposits. This is precisely what we are experiencing, compounded by the additional burden of higher taxes. There is no such thing as a soft landing. Only government bureaucrats and those who can conceal their wealth from money destruction can benefit from a soft landing.
This new increase in money supply may not bring a fresh burst of inflation because money velocity is not rising as well. However, that means lower investment, lower growth, and lower productivity. Market prices, multiple expansions, and bubbles may appear again, while families and small businesses find themselves in a tougher spot.
The back-to-back chain of stimulus plans shows the failure of Keynesian policies. We used to witness the introduction of a new spending and rate-cutting program a few years after the previous one. Now, governments simply add new programs on top of each other and claim that the economy is about to turn the corner.
Government spending consumes the majority of newly created money, leaving the productive economy with decreasing access to credit, declining currency purchasing power, and wealth confiscation through taxes and currency printing.
According to the most recent OECD report, inflation will be 3.5% with a global growth rate of 3.3% in 2025. The introduction of massive new spending and financial repression programs has resulted in 80% of OECD countries experiencing annual inflation that exceeds their central banks’ target. There is a global policy of absorbing productive and private sector wealth. A few years ago, someone dared to say, “You will not have anything, but you will be happy,” and most people understood the dangers of that promise. Nowadays, no one says it anymore. They’re just implementing it slowly. You will be poorer. Protect yourself from inflation and financial repression, or you will be a dependent subclass.
Fox News is launching a Spanish-language show just in time for election day. The show will be called "Fox Noticias" and will be anchored by Rachel Campos-Duffy, currently co-host of the "Fox & Friends" Weekend morning show.
Airing on Fox Deportes, Fox's Spanish-language sports network, the show is scheduled to start on October 15, and will take the 4 pm ET slot. The show will also be available as a podcast, and viewers will be able to stream it on the Fox Sports app, FoxDeportes.com, Fox Nation, their new Spanish-language website, and YouTube, with clips being pushed out to Instagram, Facebook, X, TikTok, and Snapchat.
Fox News Media will launch a daily Spanish-language news show called "Fox Noticias" that will air on Fox Corp.'s Spanish-language sports cable network Fox Deportes, executives told Axios. Ahead of the debut next week, Fox News will also unveil a Spanish-language version of its website.
According to Campos-Duffy, the show will focus on "the kitchen table issues that matter most to our community," including politics, news, culture, and entertainment. One of her first interviews will be with Panama's president, JosΓ© RaΓΊl Mulino.
This isn't Fox News' first foray into Hispanic-focused programming, having previously operated Fox News Latino for six years before closing it down in 2016. The move comes as Fox News has seen its Hispanic viewership rise dramatically in recent years. According to Fox News senior vice president John Sylvester:
"Fox News Channel has seen dramatic growth in Hispanic viewers over the last year increasing in double and triple digits in viewers and the younger A25–54 demographic. Coupled with recent data that shows the Hispanic population is the fastest growing electorate, it was a natural decision to create 'Fox Noticias.'"
The rise in the number of Hispanics seeking out conservative news sources like Fox News dovetails with the number of Hispanic voters seeking a home in the Republican Party. For instance:
As RedState's Sister Toldjah noted in September, "That Democrats are having to compete more for these voters than they have in decades confirms two important things: That an increasing number of folks in their normally reliable voting blocs are fed up with woke, and that Republican persistence is paying off."
It's obvious that Fox News has also noted that trend and knows that conservative viewers are their bread and butter (and, of course, the liberal hate watchers). Therefore, it's incredibly smart for them to launch this new product in the weeks before the election. It's also smart to air the show on the sports network, as it will catch Hispanic viewers who might not tune into traditional news shows.
It goes without saying that Rachel Campos-Duffy is a great pick to host the show, as she has been a great voice for conservatives for many years now, even going back to her days as the sole Republican on the MTV show "Real World."
Letting Convicted Criminals Cross The Border Is Part Of Democrats’ Plan For Power
BY: ADAM JOHNSTON
A bombshell letter written by the deputy director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recently revealed that there are a staggering 425,431 noncitizen convicted criminals as well as 222,141 noncitizens with pending criminal charges on the agency’s non-detained docket.
These numbers pertain to any illegal immigrant released from detention into the interior of the United States with either final deportation orders or those awaiting an immigration court hearing.
If that wasn’t bad enough, it gets much worse once you drill down into the numbers, as approximately 13,000 illegal immigrants on the non-detained docket have been convicted of homicide, 1,845 are currently facing homicide charges, and 16,000 have been convicted of sexual assault.
These alarming statistics challenge the narrative promoted by immigration advocates that immigrants are “less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born citizens.”
That said, every crime committed by an illegal immigrant, beginning with the initial act of unlawfully entering the country, is an event that should never have occurred. Consequently, any criminal activity that follows is entirely preventable had proper immigration enforcement been in place from the start.
This includes heinous crimes like the killing of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray allegedly by two Venezuelan nationals who had recently entered the United States illegally but were released into the interior of the country. Or the rape and murder of Rachel Morin, a mother of five, allegedly by an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, who is also accused of murder in his home country in addition to raping a mother and her 9-year-old daughter in Los Angeles. There are also the tens of thousands of Americans killed every year by the fentanyl flowing across our border.
These crimes, as well as the added stress that mass immigration puts on local infrastructure and our national culture, are entirely preventable if our ruling elites valued U.S. sovereignty and the safety of its citizens. Instead, the basic tenets of nationhood have been cast aside and the damage has been exasperated under the Biden-Harris Administration.
Today, the total foreign-born or immigrant population (legal and illegal) is estimated to be approximately 51.6 million, an increase of around 6.6 million since Biden and Harris took office. Of that, 51.6 million, approximately 16.8 million are illegal aliens. All told, immigrants now represent 15.6 percent of the U.S. population — the highest in history.
As Kamala Harris tries to distance herself from her failures as “border czar,” these damning immigration statistics are impossible to ignore. Despite continued support from a sympathetic media, Harris is trying to shift her stance to sound tough on border security, though this is clearly more symbolic than substantive.
Speaking in the Arizona border town of Douglas, Harris declared that the US is both a “sovereign nation” and a “country of immigrants” and said as president, she would strengthen controls at the southern border while working “to fix our broken system of immigration.”
It’s important to note that when Democrats talk about “fixing our broken system of immigration,” what they really mean is the expansion of pathways to citizenship for legal and illegal immigrants alike, as evidenced by Harris pledging to revive the failed bipartisan border security bill if she becomes president.
The truth is the Democrats and Republicans who negotiated this bill do not want to stop mass immigration. They simply want to solve the “crisis” at the border so mass immigration can become more efficient, systematized, and ultimately legal because both sides benefit from it. The left gets to change America’s demographics, creating and solidifying a reliable Democratic voting bloc for generations. On the right, the “Chamber of Commerce” members of the GOP secure their steady influx of cheap labor.
This quid pro quo within the bill was made clear by essentially guaranteeing an annual influx of at least 1,825,000 legal immigrants into the country while allowing anyone who is granted asylum to receive near-instant work permits.
The authors of the bill claimed there would be a “raised” standard for achieving asylum status, but the prospect of immediate work authorizations would be a magnet for immigrants and a boon to U.S. businesses who want nothing more than to keep American wages suppressed. Once these policies are in place, mass amnesty will soon follow, as Harris has explicitly stated she desires an “earned pathway to citizenship” for migrants who illegally cross the border.
In stark contrast, Donald Trump rightfully points out that by allowing millions of illegal immigrants into the country under her watch, Harris sold out America, stating that “there’s no greater act of disloyalty than to extinguish the sovereignty of your own nation.”
To truly solve this crisis, “comprehensive immigration reform” would actually mean severely restricting immigration for decades, as it was under the Immigration Act of 1924, along with the mass deportation of illegal aliens residing within our borders. Trump has pledged to do just that, promising to conduct “the largest deportation in the history of our country” if he is reelected.
British professor Stafford Beer famously stated, “The purpose of a system is what it does,” emphasizing that a system’s true purpose is revealed through its outcomes, not its intentions. As he pointed out, “There is no sense in claiming that the purpose of a system is what it consistently fails to achieve.”
Applying this logic to the current U.S. immigration system, it becomes clear that, in many instances, the system fails to enrich American communities as claimed.
By allowing millions of illegal immigrants and convicted criminals to remain in the country, our immigration system not only fails to bolster community safety and social cohesion but deliberately undermines it.
What was meant to be a friendly sit-down to showcase her policies turned into an all-out disaster, as Harris was called out for essentially being “handed” the Democrat nomination without ever going through a primary process.
CBS hit her with hard-hitting facts: no votes, no debates, no campaign battle — just an elitist handoff of power.
After a shaky start discussing her foreign policy approach to Middle East tensions, Harris stumbled through an attempted defense of her economic policies, which Whitaker repeatedly challenged.
Her “word salad” responses about middle-class investment left the host unimpressed, who pressed her again and again on how she would actually pass her proposals through Congress.
The tense exchange grew even more heated as Harris tried to deflect by casting blame on “the rich,” prompting Whitaker to urge her to be “realistic.”
The most damaging part of the interview, however, was when Whitaker zeroed in on the issue of her nomination.
Joe Biden abruptly announced he was dropping out of the 2024 race after Obama and Nancy Pelosi forced him out following the disastrous debate with Trump.
Harris stole all of Biden’s delegates. Although she has never won a primary, she is now the Democrat nominee after a group of elitists ushered her to the top of the ticket.
In a democratic system, the people expect to vote for their leaders, not have them handed to them by a small group of political elites. Harris’s nomination reeks of backroom deals and insider politics, and Whitaker wasn’t afraid to call her out on it.
Bill Whitaker: “Was democracy best served by President Biden stepping down and basically handing you a nomination? You didn’t have to go through a primary process. You didn’t have to fight off other contenders. That’s not really the way our system was intended to work.”
Kamala Harris: “President Biden made a decision that I think history is going to show is rare among leaders, which was to put country before self. And I am proud to have earned the support of the vast majority of delegates.”
But Whitaker wasn’t buying it. He added, “But I think this truncated process is why people think or say they don’t really know who you are.”
