 May 13, 2024> Bruce Thornton – Stop Negotiating With Wolves> Joseph Hanneman – Nearly 50 FBI, Homeland, Army Intelligence, JTTF Agents Worked on Jan. 6> Liz Peek – Will the Economy Slow or Fall Off a Cliff?> Nate Jackson – Trump Was Impeached for What Biden Just Did… AgainStop Negotiating With WolvesThe consequences of not learning from history and tradition. By: Bruce ThorntonFront PageMay 9, 2024 Last week an event took place that illustrates the folly of negotiating with passionate ideologues and autocrats with whom there is no common ground for a meeting of the minds necessary for a true agreement. This practical wisdom, based on human experience going back 28 centuries to Homer, has been forgotten by most modern Western leaders and foreign policy hands, who believe that negotiations, non-lethal “engagement,” and persuasion can override an autocratic adversary’s passionate interests and ambitions that by nature conflict with our own. The occasion was a three-day, humiliating meeting that our Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, attended in China. As Gatestone Institute’s Gordon Chang reported, “China, literally and figuratively, did not roll out the red carpet for [Blinken’s] arrival in Shanghai on Wednesday. Only a low-level official was on hand to greet Blinken as he stepped off the plane.” Charles Burton of the Sinopsis think-tank told Gatestone, “Aside from a calculated insult to the dignity of the United States, the move indicates Xi Jinping is making clear that the accepted norms of diplomacy will not be respected by China anymore.” So much for the “rules-based new world order” that the West thinks the Rest actually follow rather than engage tactically. But that assumption is a delusion, as Beijing has demonstrated even since George W. Bush welcomed China to the World Trade Organization in 2001, whose protocols and rules China has serially violated and gamed. And why shouldn’t it? What have been the material consequences for doing so? Or for ignoring contemptuously our diplomatic statements of “concern,” or other finger-wagging scoldings? For example, one of Blinken’s tasks, Matt Pottinger writes in the Journal, during his visit was to repeat Joe Biden’s warning to China two years ago not to provide Russia with materiel and resources to support its war in Ukraine. Biden had also claimed that if Xi continued to do so, “he made sure the Chinese president understood he would ‘be putting himself in significant jeopardy’ and risking China’s economic ties with the U.S. and Europe if he materially supported Russia’s war.” Of course, nothing significant followed Biden’s stern but empty warning. The Secretaries of Commerce and the Treasury did threaten to impose economic sanctions, which apparently concentrated Xi’s mind briefly. But according to the Journal, “In 2023, when the Biden administration applied only token sanctions on Iranian entities that provided thousands of kamikaze drones to the Russians—drones that have saturated Ukrainian air defenses and caused widespread carnage—the Chinese probably decided that Mr. Biden’s bluster was a bluff. In March 2023, Mr. Xi visited the Kremlin in a bold show of solidarity with Mr. Putin. It turned out to be a watershed in Moscow’s war, effectively turning the conflict into a Chinese proxy war with the West.” Indeed, two years later as Blinken complained to the Chinese last week, their dismissal of Biden’s warnings has led to China becoming “overwhelmingly the No. 1 supplier” of Russia, and the Wall Street Journal pointed out, “fundamentally changed the course of the war.” Then there’s North Korea, an earlier beneficiary of Western appeasement. The Norks established the modus operandi, now being used by Iran, for gulling the West by playing the “diplomatic engagement” game until they could present the world with a fait accompli of several nuclear weapons. The history compiled by the Arms Control Association documents how the canny Kims survived over three decades of sanctions and flabby threats; pocketed “incentives” and other numerous “quids” without delivering the “quos”; participated in numerous negotiations and summits, and signed a plethora of “agreements” that they have serially violated. Their aim all along had been obvious: possession of nuclear weapons that can be delivered on missiles capable of reaching the U.S. And now North Korea is working with China and Russia to weaken the Western “rules-based international order” and ultimately replace it with a coalition of illiberal autocracies. The totalitarian triumvirate recently provided an example of their collaboration. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported, “The United Nations panel to monitor North Korean sanctions expired. It did so because in March Russia vetoed a Security Council resolution to extend its mandate. Russia was the only nation on the 15-member Security Council to oppose the extension—though China pointedly abstained.” The “panel” was one of many “parchment barriers” the West relies on to create the illusion of action when it is politically too costly. Having appeased North Korea by letting it acquire nuclear weapons, useless “sanctions” were imposed, and the panel was created to “monitor” the Norks and write reports to be filed and forgotten. But replacing action with rhetoric is why the UN was created, and how it has, with few exceptions, functioned for 79 years. We should have by now recognized that such machinations by member states in pursuit of national interests would prevail, if only because its precursor, the League of Nations, had failed for the same reasons. So while the West dithers and prevaricates by inadequately arming Ukraine, and blusters about Putin’s war, Iran provides home-grown drones partly financed with Biden’s billions in danegeld for the mullahs. North Korea is also helping out: the UN sanctions monitor said “a missile recovered from the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv was a North Korean Hwasong-11 ballistic missile. This is on top of 10,000 containers of military munitions the Kim Jong Un regime has delivered in support of Russia’s war effort.” No word on why the “sanctions” haven’t deterred North Korea or Iran, which has brazenly flouted sanctions for years, and now stands on the brink of possessing nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Such are the consequences of not learning from history and tradition, the wisdom of those who have come before us. Instead, we cling to feckless idealism about human nature, and ignore the real, multifaceted diversity of peoples and cultures that belie our arrogant fantasies about the “global community” of nations that want to be just like us––secular, prosperous, tolerant, and peaceful. No doubt many millions around the world do, but many other millions see our fashionable self-loathing, feckless spending on entitlements, neglect of our military, metastazing government debt, and failure of nerve in the face of our enemies’ challenges, and say “No thanks”–– or strive, like the “axis of evil” 2.0, to replace the West, especially the U.S., as the global hegemon and enforcer of global order. So here we are, preaching that war is an anomaly, rather than, as Plato said, by nature the default condition of interstate relations, and peace “is only a name.”So we extoll “diplomatic engagement” and negotiated agreements over force, also forgetting the wisdom of Thomas Hobbes: virtues like: “justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like. And covenants, without the sword are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.” Finally, we must acknowledge and confront the reality of our enemies’ radically different foundational beliefs and purposes that preclude reasonable and honest negotiation absent a credible threat of force. As Achilles says to the doomed Hector, “argue me no agreements . . . as there are no trustworthy oaths between men and lions, nor wolves and lambs have a spirit that can be brought to agreement.” Until we restore realism to our foreign policy and stop being lambs negotiating with wolves, we will continue to weaken ourselves and strengthen our enemies. Bruce S. Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, an emeritus professor of classics and humanities at California State University, Fresno, and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Nearly 50 FBI, Homeland, Army Intelligence,JTTF Agents Worked on Jan. 6The heavy presence of undercover federal agentsconstituted an ‘induced entrapment of all whowere at the Capitol,’ defendant William Pope wrote. By: Joseph M. HannemanMay 6, 2024(Notation added by Rip McIntosh) Nearly 50 FBI special agents and members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)—including U.S. Army counterintelligence, Homeland Security, and Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) personnel—were on duty Jan. 6, 2021, and later provided affidavits in federal Jan. 6 criminal cases, a new court filing says. A motion by defendant William Pope of Topeka, Kansas, suggested that many of those agents were on U.S. Capitol grounds during the protests and breach that took place on that day. Mr. Pope wrote that the presence of so many federal agents should have resulted in a more aggressive security posture by police that would have prevented violence and the need for criminal cases later filed against nearly 1,400 people. “…The magnitude of the government’s actions on and before January 6 were so outrageous and shocking that they constitute an induced entrapment of all who were at the Capitol regardless of predisposition,”Mr. Pope wrote. Former U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Chief Steven Sund said the FBI did not share any intelligence that would have indicated the violence that played out that day. The USCP intelligence division did not share all of the information it had gathered with Mr. Sund, who later told a U.S. House panel, “Jan. 6 was an intelligence failure.” Chief Sund writes extensively about this failure in his book Courage Under Fire which details the events leading up to and during January 6. Mr. Pope produced a spreadsheet of nearly 50 FBI special agents and other officers from the Bureau’s Joint Terrorism Task Force who indicated in criminal charging documents that they were on duty on Jan. 6. This group included a U.S. Army counterintelligence agent from Colorado, an NCIS special agent, FBI special agents from New York, Nashville, Memphis, Newark, Philadelphia, and Albany, New York, and an agent from the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Protective Service, the motion stated. “There is now ample evidence that the FBI had a heavy presence at the Capitol on January 6, which is even more alarming considering the fact that we now know they had intelligence that was not shared with other agencies,” Mr. Pope wrote, asking Judge Rudolph Contreras to reconsider his request for discovery on undercover FBI agents and other law enforcement agency activities on Jan. 6. “This constitutes outrageous government conduct.” The U.S. Department of Justice has not yet responded to Mr. Pope’s motions. The DOJ has a longstanding policy of not commenting on cases except in court filings. The Epoch Times asked the FBI via email for an estimate of how many personnel were on the ground at the Capitol on Jan. 6. The FBI National Press Office replied: “We’re not able to provide you with that information.” Mr. Pope said that “it is likely that hundreds of other FBI agents were also on duty on January 6, but have not overtly disclosed their on-duty presence.” ‘Raindrop Theory’Mr. Pope indicated part of the defense in his criminal case will use a variation of the controversial “Raindrop Theory” employed widely by the U.S. Department of Justice to argue that each protester at the Capitol helped create conditions that led to violence and a delay in counting of Electoral College votes by a joint session of Congress. He argued that each undercover federal agent at the Capitol was a “raindrop”that was responsible for the chaos at the Capitol because the FBI and other agencies did not act on intelligence that would have resulted in more extensive security and prevented the breach and violence. By “flooding the field” with agents and not altering the security posture at the Capitol, the FBI and other agencies created an extensive entrapment by “outrageous government conduct,” Mr. Pope said in a 32-page motion. “I am seeking all discovery related to failure to act on intelligence to enhance the Capitol’s security posture, and all discovery related to undercover government operations at the Capitol, since such discovery is needed to demonstrate outrageous government conduct and will be exculpatory to my defense within the framework of the Raindrop legal theory,” Mr. Pope wrote. On April 23, Judge Contreras denied seven motions by Mr. Pope seeking information about undercover FBI agents and members of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU). The judge sided with federal prosecutors “that defendant has failed to show that the government has an obligation to produce the requested material.” [?????] Mr. Pope’s new motions ask Judge Contreras to reconsider his decision based on new information. Mr. Pope wrote that he is “adopting the ‘Raindrop Theory’ as a legal defense to show that agencies had intelligence but did not alter their security posture, thus allowing conditions to exist that induced the field flooding; and that persons in the crowd were working undercover for the same government agencies, and that their mere presence as raindrops, even if ‘modestly behaved,’ increased the chaos and flooding of the field.” The government “allowed conditions to exist that made flooding possible by withholding intelligence and intentionally maintaining a reduced security posture,” Mr. Pope wrote, and “saturated the crowd with their own agents and informants (raindrops), including at the initial breach points, which caused the field to be flooded.” Failures by the FBI, Capitol Police, Metropolitan Police, Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense led to the conditions that developed on Jan. 6, he said.“If it were not for these failures, I would have never perceived Capitol grounds to be open to the public, and there would be no entry into the Capitol, or charges filed,” Mr. Pope wrote. “These failures were the result of outrageous government conduct, and they resulted in a trap for the hundreds of Americans who have now been charged for January 6.” In citing his intent to use an entrapment by outrageous government conduct defense, Mr. Pope cited the 1973 Supreme Court case United States v. Russell. The High Court wrote in that case that “we may someday be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.” “I am arguing that the scope and nature of government presence and involvement at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, is ’shocking to the universal sense of justice‘ and violates the ’fundamental fairness’ mandated by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,” Mr. Pope said. Navy WarningThe U.S. Navy told its regular members not to attend the Jan. 6 speech by former President Donald J. Trump, Mr. Pope said, citing a Navy email entered into evidence in the case of United States v. David Elizalde. Mr. Elizalde, 47, a Navy petty officer, was found guilty in a December 2023 bench trial of parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building on Jan. 6, a petty misdemeanor. He was sentenced on April 19 to 30 days of home detention and fined $2,500. “The fact that the Navy took the unusual step of ordering their regular crews to not engage in First Amendment activity or attend a speech by their Commander and Chief [sic] on January 6, indicates that the Navy possessed intelligence that the events of January 6, 2021, would not be ordinary,” he wrote. “The Navy’s decision to share this warning with their own members, but not the general public, is evidence of outrageous government conduct,” he said. Citing a 2022 report in Newsweek, Mr. Pope said elite commandos were sent to the Capitol on Jan. 6 under the auspices of the FBI. This development was a stark contrast to the critical delays in getting National Guard troops to the Capitol to assist police, he said. “This extraordinary deployment of elite military forces appears even stranger when viewed in context of the Pentagon withholding National Guard forces for hours on January 6, and then attempting to cover it up,” Mr. Pope wrote. “In a recent congressional hearing, senior leaders of the D.C. National Guard testified that they were ready to deploy to the Capitol on January 6, but that Gen. Charles Flynn and Gen. Walter Piatt obstructed deployment and lied about events. “The Pentagon seemingly had enough intelligence to deploy commandos and warn Navy members to stay away from January 6 events, but their operational posture on intelligence indicates that rather than entirely prevent what happened, they were willing to allow a trap to be set for ordinary Americans like myself,” Mr. Pope said. Among the federal personnel working on Jan. 6, Mr. Pope cited the case of Charles Robertson, a U.S. Army Counterintelligence special agent from Colorado and a member of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. Mr. Robertson wrote the FBI statement of facts in the case of Rebecca K. Lavrenz, 71, of Peyton, Colorado. Ms. Lavrenz was found guilty by a jury on April 4 of four trespassing-related misdemeanors for going into the Capitol in Jan. 6. Mr. Pope’s filing also noted recent disclosures by Judicial Watch that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) deployed two bomb technicians to assist with the pipe bomb found at the Democratic National Committee on Jan. 6. Text messages obtained from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) revealed there were “several CIA dog teams on standby” on Jan. 6. Mr. Pope cited what he called “outrageous conduct” by Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) undercover officers, including “repeatedly urging people to advance up the steps to the Capitol, thanking people who removed fences, and congratulating people who broke windows.” The DOJ has not produced full discovery from the more than two dozen undercover officers working for the MPD’s Electronic Surveillance Unit, he said. Video, photographs, and investigative reports are still missing despite requests that they be produced by the DOJ, Mr. Pope said. “The fact that it has taken the government more than three years to produce these files, and that they are still withholding many others, is extremely alarming,” he wrote. “This slow roll of discovery obstructs defense preparations, especially in the context of my Raindrop Theory defense. The court should not allow the government to continue delaying remaining productions.” Will the Economy Slow or Fall Off a Cliff? By: Liz PeekThe HillMay 10, 2024 Unemployment claims surged this week, suggesting the economy, and the jobs market, is weakening. The question is: Will growth slow, or is the economy about to fall off a cliff? Will there be a soft landing or a recession? Americans continue to give President Biden low marks on the economy, despite incessant assurances from the White House that things are going great. Ongoing inflation, high interest rates, unaffordable housing and a softening jobs market seem more persuasive than a stock market fueled by AI enthusiasm and the president’s misleading claims that he has “created” millions of jobs. The reality is, the U.S. economy is being supported by three shaky pillars: over-the-top government spending, an overly concentrated stock market and unprecedented illegal immigration. The result is flagging growth, volatile stocks, declining consumer confidence and pressure on unskilled wages. There’s a reason famed investor Stanley Druckenmiller recently gave Bidenomics an “F” grade. He blasted Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen for too much government spending and Fed Chair Jay Powell for “fumbling on the five-yard line” in his fight against inflation. The billionaire is, of course, totally right. Yellen “just keeps spending and spending,” Druckenmiller says, “[and] it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the average American is getting hurt by the inflation.” At the same time, Druckenmiller says Powell undermined his battle to bring down inflation by pumping up the prospects of rate cuts late last year. Right again. Soaring markets, juiced by optimism about lower interest rates, feed rising consumer optimism and spending, effectively counteracting the Fed’s effort to slow growth. The result has been inflation numbers that are unexpectedly high and a Fed chair who has had to ice expectations of multiple rate cuts. Meanwhile, the economy is definitely slowing. April hiring, at 175,000 minus downward revisions of 22,000, came in below expectations, a report that was met with a Pavlovian response from traders. Stocks soared, and even amid renewed chatter about “stagflation,” predictions of rate cuts blossomed. A year and a half ago, most investors were expecting a recession; today that concern has nearly vanished. And yet, there are some worrisome signs that could mean a downturn is coming. As Ed Hyman at Evercore ISI has frequently noted, in 2000, on the cusp of recession, everything was fine until it wasn’t. Specifically, the job market was strong during the first five months of 2000, with additions averaging 265,000; in May, the government reported adding 223,000 jobs. The very next month, the “dot com” merry-go-round stopped, and for 26 of the next 42 months, jobs growth went negative. ISI is monitoring signs of a downturn, including most recently the firm’s trucking survey, which tracks GDP and is in contraction territory. In addition, state and local tax receipts, another barometer of economic strength, are also declining. The Institute for Supply Management reported that the PMI for the services sector fell into contraction territory in April, which was a surprise since that segment of the economy has enjoyed solid growth. Prices accelerated as new orders slowed; companies reported laying off workers at a faster pace. At the same time, manufacturing has been in a slump for 17 of the last 18 months. Jobs remain key to consumer spending. Top-line figures on employment are misleading. Government, health care and social assistance contributed 60 percent of new jobs. That does not bode well for increased productivity or growth. The National Federation of Independent Businesses reported recently: “Owners’ plans to fill open positions continue to slow,” with the number expecting to hire at “the lowest level since May 2020.” The weakening employment picture and still-high inflation are causing consumers to pull back. CEOs of numerous companies like McDonald’s, 3M and Starbucks have commented that (especially) low-income Americans are feeling pinched and are cutting back. After the burger chain reported disappointing sales, McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski noted consumers “are more discriminating with every dollar that they spend as they faced elevated prices in their day-to-day spending.” The management of 3M said consumer spending on discretionary items was soft and that overall outlays were likely to remain “muted.” Inflation pressure shows up in declining consumer confidence in the future, which last month dropped to its lowest level since July 2022. The Conference Board reported that survey participants were anxious about prices, the jobs outlook, incomes and stock prices. Assessing present conditions, more respondents reported that jobs are hard to get. Robust consumer spending has been driving the economy, fueled by excess savings piled up during the pandemic and the “wealth effect” of rising stock prices. But rising credit card debt is a warning sign that Americans are still shopping even though their savings have dwindled. With rates well above 20 percent on credit card borrowings, delinquencies are rising and spending is slowing. Fed data shows that Americans pulled in their credit card borrowing in March. Total revolving debt, which mainly reflects credit card debt, grew by $152 million in March, a sharp drop from the $10.7 billion added in February, and the smallest increase since April 2021. Overall consumer debt, which includes auto and student loans, rose by $6.3 billion, considerably less than the $14.8 billion economists had expected. One factor fueling spending has been hefty stock market gains — the “wealth effect” — which bolster confidence and expenditures. But the stock market rally is concentrated in 10 stocks, which together constitute 34 percent of the total market capitalization, the highest level of concentration since the 1970s. As one market observer notes: “Even at the peak of the 2000 Dot-com bubble, the weight of the top 10 stocks not break above 30% of the index.” If the economy suddenly falters, the Fed will surely cut interest rates. Whether they will be nimble enough to stave off a possible recession remains to be seen. The record is not encouraging. Liz Peek is a former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company. Trump Was Impeached for What Biden Just Did… AgainThe president is withholding military aid fromIsrael in exchange for personal political benefit. By: Nate JacksonThe Patriot PostMay 10, 2024(Emphasis added) “President Trump withheld Congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine unless they granted him a political favor. It’s the definition of quid pro quo. This is no joke — Trump continues to put his own personal, political interests ahead of the national interest. He must be impeached. ” That was Candidate Joe Biden on October 19, 2019. Replace “Trump” with “Biden” and “Ukraine” with “Israel,” and Joe Biden just incriminated himself, at least according to new Democrat standards for impeachment. Two weeks after Congress approved and Biden signed a bill allocating $26 billion in aid for Israel, Biden announced that the U.S. would withhold weapons to protest Israel’s military action in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. “I made it clear that if they go into Rafah,” Biden said, “I’m not supplying the weapons.” In other words, Biden wants to micromanage how Israel conducts its totally legitimate war against Hamas, and he wants to do so with a quid pro quo because he needs a political favor. Pro-Hamas hooligans in America are upset with Biden, and he needs to show them he’s reining in Israel so they’ll still vote for him in November. Unlike notoriously corrupt Ukraine, however, Israel effectively told Biden where he could stick those weapons. “If we need to stand alone, we will stand alone,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I have said that, if necessary, we will fight with our fingernails.” In any case, the impeachment comparison is clear. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy sarcastically writes, “I’m old enough to remember when House Democrats impeached and Senate Democrats voted unanimously (though unsuccessfully) to convict and remove a president for withholding congressionally approved, taxpayer-funded aid from an allied country — one that desperately needed the aid while fighting a defensive war against a barbaric enemy — in order to pressure that desperate ally to help the president get reelected.” Republicans see the comparison, too. “The House has no choice but to impeach Biden,” said Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, “based on the Trump-Ukraine precedent of withholding foreign aid to help with reelection. Only with Biden, it’s true.” Florida Republican Representative Cory Mills is drawing up articles of impeachment against “President ‘Quid pro Joe’ Biden,” brilliantly using language straight from New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler’s articles against Trump in 2019. Not only is Biden a hypocrite now, but he’s done this before — in Ukraine. It was way back when he was just Barack Obama’s sidekick in 2015 and his drug-addicted son Hunter was peddling influence for Burisma in Ukraine. A Ukrainian state prosecutor was investigating Burisma, which might have proved awfully inconvenient for the Bidens. So, three years later, the elder Biden boasted that he had told Ukrainian officials: “If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.” The money was a billion-dollar loan guarantee. “Well,” he said, “Son of a b***h. He got fired.” Another quid pro quo for political as well as personal reasons. Biden isn’t the only one working quid pro quos. The United Nations, which has become notoriously anti-Israel in recent decades, is at it again. In April, the U.S. vetoed a Security Council resolution paving the way for full UN membership for “Palestine.” Today, the General Assembly passed a resolution elevating the Palestinian Authority from observer status to functional membership as if it’s a separate state. The “State of Palestine” shall have the “right to be seated among Member States,” the draft said, urging the Security Council to accept it. So, what’s the quid pro quo? Hamas massacred 1,200 Israelis, as well as kidnapped, raped, and mutilated hundreds of others, so, says the UN, here’s official recognition of a virtual two-state “solution.” Hamas doesn’t even have to release any hostages — including five Americans — if there are any still alive. That’s rewarding terrorism with legitimacy. To say it’s reprehensible is woefully inadequate. Yet that is also effectively what Joe Biden and his hordes of protesting Marxists have done. Team Biden could invoke legal provisions that require the U.S. to cease UN funding (over $700 million this year) if the Palestinian Authority is recognized in this way. But we all know Biden’s not going to do that. Back to the quid pro quo and impeachment. It was preposterous to impeach Trump for his call to his Ukrainian counterpart, and impeachment shouldn’t be on the table for Biden now. Presidents deserve the latitude to conduct foreign policy as they see fit, even if it’s outrageously wrong, as it is in this case. Yes, he’s betraying a key ally while sucking up to Islamofascist terrorists and grown-toddler protesters on American college campuses. Yet it should be up to voters to take his totally disgraceful behavior into account come November. If Biden is to be impeached, it should be for gross dereliction at the southern border, but that’s another story. In any case, the lesson here is clear. As is always the case with Democrats, if it weren’t for double standards, they wouldn’t have any. If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools.Plato |
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 