Saturday, January 18, 2025

Teachers union webinars: land acknowledgments, white privilege, gay pride flags in classes



 College Fix Staff •January 18, 2025     *     The College fix

‘Where do you stand on settler-colonialism? And what are you gonna do about it?’

The National Education Association, apparently still reeling from Donald Trump’s victory in November, recently held a pair of virtual workshops on battling the Trump agenda and defending LGBTQ+ rights in schools.

According to Parents Defending Education, both workshops began with Native American land acknowledgments by members of the union’s Aspiring Educators Program.

Both speakers accused the United States of “colonialism,” with transgender Student Washington Education Association Board Director Caitlin Ehlers, donned in a keffiyeh, claiming Trump was “threatening to annex Kalaallit Nunaat, AKA, Greenland,” and that “his coalition is directly responsible for land grabs and eco-savage from the Great Plains to the Amazon.”

Ehlers added “Whose land are you on? Where do you stand on settler-colonialism? And what are you gonna do about it?”

The second (LGBTQ+-themed) workshop’s Matthew Yuro, vice president of New Jersey Aspiring Educators, noted colonialism is “a process that continues to contribute to injustices within American society and the broader world.”

Ehlers appeared in this webinar as well, asking teachers “What threats to LGBTQ+ students and educators are you concerned about right now?”

According to the PDE report, responses included “flags in schools,” “transgirls in sports,” “bathrooms,” “not being allowed to honor students’ chosen pronouns,” and “in Kentucky, teachers are required to have permission slips signed two weeks prior to teaching a lesson related to gender identity and/or sexual orientation.”

Others complained about the group Moms for Liberty, book “bans,” and “parents’ bill of rights.”

MORE: Free speech groups defend professor, ‘parody’ land acknowledgement

NEA Senior Program/Policy Analyst Anthony Brisson, the “main speaker” for the LGBTQ+ workshop, began his talk by emphasizing his white privilege: “I come to you presenting as a white male that has privilege and to be able to have this conversation. I have brown hair, light skin, blue eyes, facial hair for those that may be visually impaired.”

Brisson, who is gay, referred to Moms for Liberty as “the a-holes with casseroles,” and said the way to fight for LGBTQ+ issues in schools is through “legislation, litigation, and community organizing.”

He noted being able to hang gay pride flags in classrooms can be done via school boards: “The power of storytelling can really help change hearts and minds when we’re doing this work.”

Brisson added that school staff, including custodians and cafeteria workers, can “provide representation” by wearing LGBTQ+ pins, bus drivers can put up LGBTQ+ magnets on their buses, and schools can alter language such as “family dance” instead of “father-daughter dance.”

In the Trump agenda workshop, middle school teacher and ACLU equity officer Chelsie Acosta said “I’m here to tell you the pride flag’s going to be in my classroom. I don’t care what anyone says. The pride flag’s going to be there. So is the trans flag. So is the Black Lives Matter flag. They’re going to be in my room.”

Parents Defending Education’s Erika Sanzi said in a press release “The NEA talks more about the need for teachers to be LGBTQ activists than about the need for teaching children to read. It’s not just hyper-political—they are so far left, they don’t even represent their members anymore.

“Does mocking parents, obsessing over PRIDE flags and organizing to resist the incoming administration support teaching and learning? I’d prefer they just admit that they don’t care at all about educating children.”

MORE: LGBTQ+ librarians weary of ‘attacks’ on queer-themed books, claim physical assaults

IMAGE: National Education Association/X

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

https://www.thecollegefix.com/teachers-union-webinars-land-acknowledgments-white-privilege-gay-pride-flags-in-classes/



Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

What an Interesting Time to Be Alive

Western despots are afraid of you.


A lot of people are anxious these days.  They are worried about nuclear war, mass government surveillance, artificial intelligence, lab-created disease, central bank digital currencies — you name it!  I’m worried about those issues, too.  However, there is a part of me that relishes the opportunities we have to shape the future.  This is an interesting time to be alive.

This is not the age of tranquility.  There have been epochs for which that description might be apt — when people were born and died without experiencing much change during the course of their lives.  The technologies that existed never advanced.  The universe of human knowledge never expanded.  Time stood more or less still, as if humanity were stuck in amber.  

We’re not stuck in anything.  The technological revolutions from the late nineteenth century forward have remade the world time and again.  We’ve gone from telegraphs to telephones to cellular phones to smartphones.  Mass communication has evolved from printed newspapers to radio broadcasts to television news to internet chatrooms, email, and social media.  In the last twenty years, individuals have seized control over the instruments of mass communication — becoming self-created news reporters, entertainers, influencers, and celebrities.  In the last ten years, governments and their corporate allies have tried desperately to claw back control over the mass media monopoly they once had.

Global wars have jumbled history’s trajectory and shifted the balance of power more than once.  In some ways, World War II never truly concluded.  An Iron Curtain demarcated the world for another half-century, and even thirty years after the Cold War, its battles rage on.  Russia’s tense relationship with former Warsaw Pact members, China’s belligerent insistence on swallowing Taiwan, Israel’s generational defense of its sovereign borders, post-colonial Africa’s cauldron of bloody civil wars, and the continuing state of war between North and South Korea are but five of the most prominent examples of conflicts that have continued, in one form or another, for eighty years.

Religious belief has surged, dwindled, disappeared, been replaced, been reimagined, and perhaps even been rediscovered.  Interwar nihilism and self-indulgence that took root during the apocalyptic atmosphere of WWI fully blossomed with the generation that arrived after WWII.  Europe and America rejected their Christian foundations and invented “new age” religions for the public’s consumption — repackaging the language of Christian virtue into hippy-dippy self-help guides, mindful meditation, “social justice” movements, environmental doomsaying, and other malleable yet commercially successful hogwash designed to sate humanity’s spiritual needs.  

The “greenies” rejected Jesus Christ but told us that we’re all going to die for our “fossil fuel” sins.  The central bankers and globalist oligarchs joined this self-hating bandwagon because the “climate change” religion offered them a chance to maximize wealth and power.  For years, they have elevated a line of “global warming” popes — Al Gore, Klaus Schwab, John Kerry — all claiming to have influence with planetary gods that might be willing to save us from Armageddon if we do exactly what the rich people vacationing in Davos, Switzerland say.  

The World Economic Forum updates its globalist bible every year so that laypeople know what to believe and what to worship.  The “climate change” clergy even promote young know-nothings such as Greta Thunberg, who play-acts as a modern, “truth”-telling “green” Jesus.  Global “elites” love the “net zero” religion because they can make up new commandments as needed, condemn naysayers as selfish apostates, and rebrand totalitarianism as philanthropic virtue.  “Global warming” pseudoscience allows the U.N., the WEF, and other religious denominations to tell everyone else how much to pay in taxes, how much freedom to give up, and how to behave.

And yet there is substantial evidence that a very real Christian revival is gaining energy.  Older people who have perhaps lost their way are picking up dusty Bibles to see just what truths lie within.  Well known commentators — including Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Russell Brand — are doing something that few could have predicted even five years ago: they are publicly discussing the teachings of Jesus Christ.  

Young people, too, are finding their way to Christ.  What would have seemed quite unusual last decade is becoming almost commonplace: athletes, musicians, actors, and academics are bearing witness to Christ’s purposeful influence upon their lives.  Even politicians who forgot Jesus’s name as they became worshipful converts to the “green” religion are slowly recovering from decades of amnesia and remembering the King of kings.  

In this wildfire of technological change, global conflict, and spiritual upheaval, the challenges all around us feel daunting.  If you will allow me to offer minor encouragement, it is this: do not look away.  Do not let the noise distract your thoughts.  Do not let the madness drive you mad.  Do not let potential dangers drown you in fear.  Be resolute.  Be purposeful.  Be hopeful.  Be brave.

Consider this clearly: there has never been a moment in history when so many lies and so much propaganda have been mercilessly directed toward the human race.  Intelligence agencies and corporate news platforms bombard our brains every day with false information.  Governments have abandoned truth for the “narrative,” and the “narrative” is nothing but a psychologically valuable weapon for achieving political victory.  Meanwhile, political victory is defined not as something that is beneficial for all people, but rather as something that gives those with great wealth and power even greater reserves of both.

In 2025, so-called “democracies” pursue the same totalitarian objectives as the “authoritarian” regimes those “democracies” vilify.  They seek to control minds, monitor movements, police behavior, regulate speech, and subjugate free will.  European and American politicians may talk a big game when it comes to “democracy” and “freedom,” but they have long been the greatest threats to both.

Yet they are afraid.  They are losing.  We are winning.  How do I know?  Their absolute abandonment of even the pretense of supporting free speech is a dead giveaway.  Western leaders are so fearful of losing power that they have become overtly pro-censorship.  

Former European commissioner Thierry Breton openly brags that Europe and U.S.-NATO scuttled the recent Romanian election because voters chose the “wrong” leader.  He promises that Eurocrats will do the same in Germany if German citizens vote “incorrectly” this year.  How can a prominent European statesman defend such brazenly anti-democratic tyranny?  He blames free speech.  Voters, he alleges, are reading and listening to the wrong voices.  

Breton’s authoritarianism echoes placeholder-president Joe Biden’s denunciation of Mark Zuckerberg’s “shameful” decision to purge left-wing “fact-checkers” from their years-long role as professional censors who monitor and delete public debate on Facebook and other Meta platforms.  Biden called the move away from government-directed censorship “completely contrary to everything America is about.”  The so-called “leader of the free world” and a man constitutionally duty-bound to defend the Bill of Rights thinks it’s “un-American” to protect the First Amendment.

Failed governor “Nero” Newsom insists that Biden censor online criticism of his administration’s disastrous response to California’s deadly wildfires.  Fellow tyrant Hillary Clinton wants Americans who “engage in misinformation” to be “criminally charged.”  Of course, Hillary also expects that she, Newsom, Biden, and Breton will continue to exercise a monopoly over official “truth.”  These shocking abuses of power reveal just how deeply afraid Western despots have become.

Of what are they afraid?  They are afraid of you.  They fear your voice, your private thoughts, and your desire to be free.  You have untapped power that they see.  What an interesting time to be alive.






at

X22, Red Pill News, and more- Jan 18

 



at

Deportation: Past, Present, and Future


Twenty years a variety of top Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, strongly advocated for border control. Compared to Democrat views today, Democrats of 2004 to 2006 appear to be from a parallel universe. Why were high ranking Democrats vigilant about U.S. borders and why have they changed 180 degrees, even denying their former positions?

Down the Drain

As is now evident, Democrat brass realized early on that they were losing political control in America as more voters felt that Democrats were no longer the party of the working class and had become a party of elites. Such elites didn't have to worry about a border invasion, the resulting inflation, high crime, a reduction in public health, and a strain on municipal public services.

As astonishing as it seems now, Barack Obama was responsible for deporting3.5 million illegal aliens, a staggering number for the times. Yet, not a word of protest was spoken by Democrats. Why? Because it was necessary and appropriate then – as it is now.

Today, we know what high ranking Democrats have to say about the border. Governors Newsom, Pritzker, and Hochul lead the pack in offering sanctuary to illegals. Accordingly long time citizens are fleeing California, Illinois, and New York in droves.

The Wrong Motivation

What motivates prominent governors and dozens of U.S. mayors to loudly proclaim that they will not cooperate with the Trump administration in helping to round up and deport people who should not be here? Two factors come to mind.

First is that they are playing to their far-left constituents who would prefer not to have a country at all. These people are nihilists; they believe in nothing. They think some grand one-world government is going to be the salvation of humankind.

Second is the speed at which such governors and mayors can convert gate crashers into registered voters will assist the Democrat party which otherwise has been hemorrhaging voters for the last decade. In the short term, they thus wish to seize control, presumably so they can hasten the nation's destruction.  

It's difficult to understand such madness and fortunately, with the November election, we have put a temporary halt to it. Still, far into the future, the insane half of the U.S. political class will push their nation-ending views with unabashed vehemence.

Glaringly Innumerate

Equally troubling is that many rank and file Democrats, who otherwise eschew seeing the destruction of the U.S., have erroneous notions about border control, immigration, and assimilation. Many on the left believe that the U.S. can comfortably absorb untold numbers of legal or illegal immigrants.

These lefties, presumably terrible at math, don't envision any problem with 20 to 40 million “newcomers” crashing our gates. We can accommodate them all, they believe. They don't understand even basic economic ramifications of such a human tidal wave invading our shores.

Most of these Democrat voters have not had to compete with the migrant hoards as they show up at hospital emergency centers. These sanctuary apologists don't understand the ramification of having our schools swamped by the children of illegals, and what it means to educate them from a time, labor, and cost standpoint.

Nor do they comprehend the impact of tens of millions of illegals on our economy: pushing up the cost of housing and all other economic goods. They don’t understand the strain on the government, at all levels, to house, feed, and maintain untold numbers of low skill, low education people who have little or nothing to contribute to our nation, but are more than willing to take from it.

Stemming the Tide

Is it a surprise that Donald Trump was reelected to be president of the United States, campaigning on a few vital issues, among them, border control and deportation? During the next four years, if we deport 10 million or 15 million a majority of Americans have repeatedly shown that they are all for it.

Removing those who do not belong here will help to usher in a golden era. Inflation will drop. Crime will drop. Competition for at least entry-level jobs will drop. Schools will be less crowded. Hospital emergency rooms will be less crowded. Municipal and state budgets will have a chance to recover.

Mass deportation is not a panacea for all of the nation’s ills, but it is a huge step in the right direction, the benefits of which will reverberate for decades. 



at

🎭 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. 


at

Marco Rubio Is Right, The Postwar Liberal Order Was A ‘Dangerous Delusion’

It’s long past time to reconsider our suicidal obsession with an open society and recognize that America is more than just an idea.



During his confirmation hearing for secretary of state on Wednesday, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., leveled a searing critique of the postwar international order and the globalist ideology that sustains it. For generations, that ideology has dominated the corridors of power in Washington and guided American foreign policy almost without question. It has not served us well, and it’s long past time to discard it.

Rubio took direct aim at the postwar liberal order in his opening statement, signaling a major shift in American foreign policy under a second Trump administration. In Rubio’s telling, repudiating postwar globalism means a return of American foreign policy based on the American national interest, a recovery of our American identity, and a recognition that our national interests are not always going to be aligned with the interests of the so-called “international community” or global corporations.

It was a “dangerous delusion,” said Rubio, to think that the end of the Cold War meant the end of history and “that all the nations of the world would now become members of the democratic western-led community, that a foreign policy that served the national interest could now be replaced by one that served the liberal world order, and that all mankind was now destined to abandon national sovereignty and national identity and would instead become one human family, and citizens of the world.”

The hallmarks of this delusional ideology, Rubio went on, included “an almost religious commitment to free and unfettered trade,” which was pursued at the expense of our national economy. It also included “an irrational zeal for maximum freedom of movement of people,” which has caused a “mass migration crisis.” (Note that Rubio doesn’t qualify or limit this merely to “illegal immigration.”)

These twin pillars of the postwar liberal order, free trade and open borders, are the logical policy endpoints of the globalist ideology that first gained traction in the aftermath of World War Two and were adopted without question at the end of the Cold War. Where did this ideology come from though, and why has it been so thoroughly embraced for so long?

One of the major architects of it was Karl Popper, an Austrian philosopher who during World War Two wrote The Open Society And Its Enemies, a major philosophical work which would prove massively influential in the decades after its publication in 1945. Popper believed the fascist regimes responsible for the Second World War arose from what he called the authoritarian personality, which produced a tribal or “closed society,” marked above all by deference to authority and subordination of the individual to the collective. Such societies tend to be nationalistic, authoritarian or totalitarian, and committed to concrete ideas about transcendent or metaphysical truth.

The task facing the world in the aftermath of World War Two and the horrors of Auschwitz, wrote Popper, was to ensure that nothing like that could ever happen again. The only way to do that, he argued, was to banish the closed society altogether, reject transcendence, embrace disenchantment, and pursue a radically open society. Popper was a philosopher of science, and wrote in a formal, academic style, but his anti-metaphysical ideas translated to a politics of openness and a society in which everything was open to critical questioning and empirical falsification. Nothing was really true, in other words, except the need for openness and a rejection of what R.R. Reno has called “the strong gods” of national identity, religion, and transcendence. Popper thought we must define for ourselves the truths we need, even truth about reality itself: “Facts as such have no meaning; they gain it only through our decisions.”

In his 2019 book, Return of the Strong Gods, Reno argues that Popper’s influence on the postwar liberal order cannot be overstated — and that’s a big problem for us today. The danger of an open society is that at some point it begins to come apart. If nothing binds a nation together, it cannot cohere, and will eventually collapse.

Today we aren’t facing the war-ravaged world that Popper was, but one that has been dangerously weakened by the open society ideology that he espoused. “Our problems are the opposite of those faced by the men who went to war to defeat Hitler,” writes Reno. “We are imperiled by a spiritual vacuum and the apathy it brings. The political culture of the West has become politically inert, winnowed down to technocratic management of private utilities and personal freedoms. Our danger is a dissolving society, not a closed one; the therapeutic personality, not the authoritarian one.”

This is what Rubio was getting at in his opening statement, and it’s a theme that’s been running right through the heart of our political discourse since Donald Trump came down the escalator in 2015. Are we going to be an endlessly open society, committed only to open borders and free trade, with no sense of national solidarity or loyalty to the American nation and people? Or are we going to rediscover what the West cast aside after World War Two, and embrace again the loyalties and truth-claims that enable a nation and a people to cohere and pursue their collective interests over and against those of other nations?

To be sure, Rubio and Trump and the entire populist MAGA movement stand in contrast to a bipartisan consensus that has ruled in Washington for many decades now. In his televised address on Wednesday, President Joe Biden repeatedly referred to America as an idea. It’s a familiar claim, that America is based on the universal proposition that all men are created equal, therefore anyone who accepts the proposition can become an American.

But the limits of this claim should by now be obvious. America is more than an idea, it is a people bound together by a shared past and a common future. We have a distinct language, culture, and way of life. We are also not, as Elon Musk thinks, simply an indifferent meritocracy derived from a proposition of human equality. Much of Asia is also a meritocracy, and no one mistakes it for America.

Indeed, the proposition of human equality at the heart of our nation is above all a religious claim, specifically a Christian one. We have to understand “America as an idea” in that context. If America is an idea, the idea is not some version of the radical individualism and anti-metaphysics of Karl Popper, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the inheritance of Christian Europe. Put another way, the idea is western civilization itself, formed and sustained by Christian claims about God and man.

In concrete policy terms, a rejection of the postwar liberal order and a return to a politics of national solidarity will mean turning away from unfettered global free trade that benefits multinational corporations at the expense of America’s working families. It will mean rejecting mass immigration — legal and illegal — and recognizing that open borders are a force for destabilization and social chaos. And on the world stage it will mean recognizing that America’s national interests are not always served by deference to international bodies, corporate profits, and a rising GDP.  



at

The Assessments From Biden Insiders on Karine Jean-Pierre's Tenure Have Started - and They Are Brutal


Sister Toldjah reporting for RedState 

In the final weeks of any presidential administration, the assessments of their time in office - and their political legacy - pick up apace, with everyone wanting to give their opinions on where they went wrong and where they went right, how they stack up against past presidents, etc.

That has certainly been true not just for Joe Biden, but for members of his administrative team as well including Cabinet members like impeached Dept. of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who conservatives believe should not be remembered fondly due to his repeated failures to secure the southern border, as well as his obscene gaslighting when called to testify on the issue by Congress.

Another who is having their tenure analyzed and dissected is press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre who, as we previously reported, went out on a bad note Wednesday and aggravated people on both sides of the aisle by blocking White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby from being able to attend the briefing. 

His role would have been to provide the important details behind the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, news of which broke that same day. But Jean-Pierre - who is not a fan of Kirby's - apparently wanted to keep the focus on her "goodbye party," leaving reporters to wait another hour or so before being briefed on the developing situation.

As it turns out, Jean-Pierre's last actions as press secretary were the final straw for some Biden insiders as well as some members of the White House press corps, who gave brutal assessments of how she did her job:

“Not allowing actual news to be delivered from the podium on such an important day for the president and the world for your own ego is disgraceful,” a longtime Biden aide told The Post of Jean-Pierre’s antics.

“I am not sure there is someone that did more damage to the president’s reputation than her — it is really sad.”

A second outraged reporter who attended Wednesday’s briefing said it was “totally unsurprising behavior from someone who was either incapable of recognizing her own shortcomings or unwilling or unable to put in the work required to overcome them.”

I remember just a few weeks after Jen Psaki's exit watching the press briefings and wishing - almost - that Psaki was back. Because even though Psaki was dishonest just like so many in Biden's administration, at least she came to the briefings prepared and sounding like she knew what she was talking about.

Jean-Pierre never gave off that vibe, and it led to some pretty embarrassing moments for her, with her making excuses for Joe Biden that were so ridiculous that it was absolutely not worth the $180,000 salary she reportedly made.

By default, White House press secretaries are the faces of the people who occupy the Oval Office, and considering Joe Biden's state of mind, which undoubtedly was known by the higher-ups in his administration, it was important for them to have someone at the podium who could provide the clear and concise updates he wasn't giving.

Instead, it ended up being a glorified romper room under Jean-Pierre's leadership, which was a disservice to the American people, who deserved to know what was going on but who instead continually had their intelligence insulted.

In any event, I'm looking forward to seeing what Karoline Leavitt brings to the table as President-Elect Donald Trump's press secretary. I suspect she will be making White House press briefings great again, which will be a refreshing change from the past four years.



at

Epic failure: How Merrick Garland may have just destroyed American democracy | Opinion

 


It’s hard to say who is the worst attorney general in American history. The candidates are many and comprise a veritable rogue’s gallery of sadists, reactionaries and incompetents. They range from A. Mitchell Palmer, mastermind of the original Red Scare that decimated the left in the wake of the First World War, to Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III and William Pelham Barr, who sacrificed the rule of law in service to Donald Trump.

Merrick Garland may not share the malignancies of his fellow train wrecks, but he deserves to be in the discussion. Decades from now, historians will memorialize Garland not as a dedicated public servant and fair-minded federal judge whose nomination to the Supreme Court was torpedoed by Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans, but as the head of the Justice Department who brought a butter knife to an existential gunfight with Trump, quickening our collective descent into neo-fascism.

After his appointment to helm the DOJ, Garland had one overarching mission: to swiftly convene a grand jury to investigate Trump for his role in inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. 

This was a task a third-year law student could easily have accomplished. 

Garland failed, abjectly.

Probable cause for an early indictment was abundant and obvious. On Jan. 6, millions of Americans watched Trump stand on the Ellipse at the south end of the White House and urge his supporters to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell.” Millions watched the actual assault that followed, blow by medieval blow. Even the corrupt McConnell, who voted to acquit Trump in his second impeachment trial in February 2021, declared on the Senate floor, “There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day [Jan. 6].”

Instead of targeting Trump and his chief lieutenants immediately, Garland set out to arrest and try the foot soldiers of the uprising. And while he did a commendable job in that respect (eventually charging more than 1,500 with federal crimes), he dithered on Trump until November 2022, when he appointed Jack Smith as a special counsel to probe Trump for the insurrection and absconding from the White House with a trove of highly classified documents.

By then, it was too late.

Although Smith secured an indictment) of Trump in Washington, D.C., for conspiracy, obstruction and election subversion on Aug. 1, 2023, the indictment was gutted by the Supreme Court (Trump v. United States) the following July in a decision that granted Trump sweeping and unprecedented immunity from criminal prosecution.

Written by Chief Justice John Roberts, a lifelong conservative activist with an undeserved reputation as a judicial institutionalist, the ruling is arguably the worst edict handed down by the high court since the Dred Scott case of 1857. “Trump v. United States is distinct as a deliberate attack on the core institutions and principles of the republic, preparing the way for a MAGA authoritarian regime much as Dred Scott tried to do for the slavocracy,” wrote Sean Wilenz in a scathing article for the New York Review of Books.

Smith also indicted Trump in Florida in the documents case), but that prosecution was subsequently scuttled by District Court Judge Aileen Mercedes Cannon, an inexperienced MAGA sycophant whom Trump installed on the federal bench in the runup to the 2020 election.

In addition to Garland, the Supreme Court and Cannon, Joe Biden also shares responsibility for letting Trump off the hook. From Day 1, Biden should have used the bully pulpit to attack, isolate and destroy Trump and his MAGA base. 

Instead, he pursued a politics of accommodation, preaching a return to the false neoliberal normalcy of bipartisanship. Most critically of all, Biden decided to seek a second term, when it was apparent to everyone with two eyes and ears that he was no longer fit, either physically or mentally, for another stint behind the Resolute Desk. With Biden’s approval rating plunging to 40%, Kamala Harris had little to no chance of defeating Trump at the polls.

But standing atop the heap, Garland will forever bear the principal stain of wimping out when courage and — to put it in the vernacular — balls were needed to stop Trump before the forces of reaction had time to regroup and reorganize. They are now in control.

Epic failure: How Merrick Garland may have just destroyed American democracy | Opinion

at