How Can This Be?

It has been well documented that Nancy Pelosi has a net worth of some $125Million, but her comrade in arms, the late Senator Dianne Feinstein must have been taking notes as she had managed to accumulate a net worth of over $69.4 million at the time of her death. And like Pelosi, the left attributes those staggering figures to the astute investing of her husband, who like Paulie P, just happened to own an investment firm. Uh-huh. Just the Feinstein real estate portfolio alone is jaw-dropping: a Washington DC home at $7.4Million, a SanFrancisco home at $21Million, a Hawaii condo at $5Million, a beach house in Marin County at $7.5Million, an Aspen estate on 36 acres at $25Million and a Lake Tahoe spread at $36Million. And she flitted between them in style aboard her $ 61 million Gulfstream. Remind me again how these two California public servants represented “we the people” while lavishly feathering their own nests. And on a salary that never exceeded $175000 a year.  Astute investors…..sure they were. It would appear to the objective observer that these democrats and their complicit spouses learned how to game the system.  That used to be called insider trading. Ask Martha Stewart how that works out for anyone outside the Beltway elite. Once again we should think twice when choosing between candidates who made their money before becoming politicians as opposed to those who became politicians to make their money.

NPR Irritant

As you have no doubt gathered, NPR drives me around the bend. A resent Marketplace segment interviewed an economic pundit, asking her to explain how, despite the Feds seeking to squelch economic growth and stem inflation with increased interest rates, the economy posted gains in excess of 3% in the last quarter. Why are consumers continuing to engage in exuberant optimism and spending away in the face of high Inflation, high-interest rates, and a dour mood on the economy? It sure isn’t being driven by the housing market, which is posting sales at historic lows with limited inventory. Adding further to this quandary, the pundit had previously, like so many of her ilk, predicted a “soft landing” rather than a precipitous fall into recession. In other words, there is no full-blown recession, instead a gentle dip in economic results. So, with no landing at all and so many indicators pointing towards a downturn, what happened?  Her conclusion?  Immigration. Yep, you heard me correctly. Immigration, according to this expert, saved our economy.  “I didn’t factor in an increase in immigration,” she declared, “and immigrants spend money.”  Really?  She also slipped in the fact that municipalities are ramping up spending; in other words, the government, flush with your tax dollars, is opening their checkbooks. And I don’t know about you, but the immigrants I see crossing the border….and let’s stop putting lipstick on that pig…..these aren’t immigrants or asylum seekers at all, these are illegal economic invaders seeking free stuff and American jobs……they don’t look to be flush with cash. What they are flush with are cellphones, clothing, and $2000 a week courtesy of the government. And where does the government get their money?  Now you’re catching on. These immigrants aren’t working and aren’t contributing to our tax base. But through the generosity of Uncle Sam, they are producing economic activity in a twisted feedback loop where their spending on food, clothing, and, disturbingly, medical care as they flood our hospitals and military base clinics is all being supported by your tax dollars. And what really gets my knickers in a twist is when that same government announces that social security faces insolvency by 2033, where beneficiaries, many of whom have worked their entire lives and paid into the system, face upwards of a 20% cut in their social security checks.  This administration’s handling of the budget is like handing the kids your checkbook. There is no accountability, and the future of American citizens is being sold out to foreign invaders and the elite class, the only two groups that benefit from their upside-down policies.

The Irony Of It All

Trump’s skills vs his demeanor. I know all the pundits are trying to spin the polls, but the one that reported 42% of actual Trump voters would deem him unfit for office if convicted on one of the 91 counts against him, I find disturbing. I’m sure the democrat apparatus is also watching these polls and would have to conclude that a conviction is their ticket to four more years of Biden in the Oval Office. Even more diabolical would be the timing of a conviction. Allow Trump to win the nomination, slow walk the trials, and convict him so far into the election cycle that it would throw the Republican party into disarray as they scramble to replace him with a less luminary candidate. With Trump demonstrating repeatedly that he is his own worst enemy, I would find it unlikely that in the event of a conviction, he would step aside and allow what is hopefully an acceptable running mate to assume the nomination. Although he remains the most popular candidate amongst the Republican base, a result of his past record on the economy, a term without war, his combativeness against entrenched government, and his uncanny ability to endure chaos and resist what is clearly a weaponized DOJ against him, he continues to be the most effective tool the left has to rally their base. 

Child Care Subterfuge

This new childcare tax credit proposal is yet another step closer to a Democrat goal of guaranteed income. And the Republicans are onboard, feeling as though they are losing the public relations battle with Democrats by not appearing to be doing enough for the middle class. Really. By eliminating a work requirement? This is more than bribery, pandering for votes with a cash payment, a wealth transfer, redistribution, however you slice it. This is not exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. With an ever-growing segment of Americans who own nothing, pay no property taxes, pay no income tax, send their progeny to public schools where they are fed and brainwashed by the left on somebody else’s tax dime. Why is their vote equal to that of a small business owner besieged with a tax burden on their income and assets and toiling long hours to build their business?  To vote on monetary policies how your tax money is spent, shouldn’t those decisions be made by the actual taxpayers and not the beneficiaries of government-sponsored programs?  As is often attributed, perhaps incorrectly, to Ben Franklin: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. 

NPR Propagandist

How many of us are being duped by the NPR? Who of late has been running a full frontal assault on DeSantis in support of a  Black Caucus candidate running for office in Jacksonville, Fla. Flat out accused him of trying to erase Black history, banning books that benefit minorities and the LBGQ movement, and when he declared Florida is where woke comes to die, they accused him of using the term “woke” to essentially mean the black community. After complaining, “woke” is a black term that describes someone who is aware but has been co-opted and redefined by conservatives into a negative connotation. The first thing a Republican president should do is defund these NPR radicals. Talk about disseminating disinformation.

Societal Expectations

When a country’s societal concerns are those of the individual over those of the collective, the productive strength of nationalism’s cohesiveness and pride is diminished. Individualism and Globalism movements have detracted from once-dominant nationalism worldwide, not for the better. A nation's sovereignty, defined in the character, accomplishments,  and rule of law of its society, made it unique, separate, and apart in the community of nations but common in national identification. Progressive Democrat governance here in the U.S. has promoted individualism to the extreme, fracturing our collective national pride, our very sovereignty, turning our once most ethnic, racial homogenized nation into a quagmire of partisan separatism. Others have described it as tribalism. Separatism, defined as separating a group of people from a larger body of people on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, or gender for the purpose of fostering dissension, better describes the movement.  It confounds me why it is not so evident to everyone that we don't rise en mass to root out its perpetrators. But then again, our unassailable freedom of speech hoists us up on our own petard. 

Foreboding Premonition

Recently, listening to Nancy Pelosi, interviewed by George Stephanopoulos, railing about Trump and the threat to democracy. Advising the Republican party is the only actual threat to our democracy. How can she, while the Democrats demonstrate impotence and complacency in dealing with both foreign and domestic issues and obviously would not be up to the task of defending this country if our adversaries, if unabated, decided the time is right to attack us in mass, as they surely would. Ukraine and Israel are dissipating our weapons stockpiles, and we are shooting down the Houthi’s WalMart drones with million-dollar missiles. If a foreign entity ever was waiting for an opportunity to do us harm, they have two options to pursue: attack before Biden leaves office or assure that Biden and the Democrats remain in power, and we will destroy ourselves from within. One can easily postulate that another five years of Biden, followed by the potential of eight years of Kamala or Newsom, would undoubtedly result in the demise of the United States as we know it. 

Concluding My ‘23 Diatribe

Wallowing in my aforementioned morass. The most glaring illustration of how racially hypocritical the Progressives have become appeared when the Presidents of Harvard, MIT, and UPenn appeared before Congress to justify their mishandling of anti-Semitism on campus.  The left is now trying to regroup after UPenn President Liz Magill stepped down, as did Harvard’s Claudine Gay, although they remain faculty members.  But not before they were thoroughly exposed as incompetent in trying to instill a culture of DEI at their institutions.  The left claims that Elise Stefanik “laid a trap” when Gay responded to her question on “whether calls for the genocide of Jews constituted harassment under university policy.”  Her answer, no doubt after having been prepped by her attorneys, was “depends on the context.”  And there you have it; everything depends on the context, and that context is whether a politically favored minority group is involved.  But with that preposterous answer came scrutiny of her academic record.  And why not?  Wouldn’t you expect the President of one of the world’s most prestigious institutions to have a resume replete with publications and original research?  Certainly to a standard demonstrating an intellect sufficient to hold off questioning from a member of Congress, even though Ms. Stefanik is a Harvard graduate herself.  But no.  Gay’s curriculum vitae was glaringly thin, and most notably, her work, including her doctoral thesis, was found to have over 40 examples of plagiarism.  A couple of missed references are forgiven.  But 40 examples are indicative of a pattern of intellectual deceit.  And let’s definitely not resort to the Biden standard, where serial plagiarist Joe claimed that his plagiarism was so “blatant” that it “had to be accidental.”  Sure. But the Harvard Corporation leaped to her defense, reviewing the accusations and dismissing the plagiarism as being merely ”improper citations.” Most leftist academics from whom she pilfered material fell in line and decided that the offenses were insignificant. Even attorney Randall Kennedy, Professor of Law at Harvard University, waved off the improper citations as simply “sloppiness.” Seriously? The president of Harvard is academically sloppy, and that’s something we choose to dismiss.  And the WSJ pointed out that Gay chose to go back and correct her citations, somehow suggesting that she was righting the wrong and having the chutzpah to call it “proactive.”  Sorry sweetie, but you are even having difficulty with basic definitions.  Proactive means you were out in front of the issue rather than waiting until after it happened.  The word you were looking for is retroactive.  You got caught, then you went back and made the corrections and tried to convince all of us that you did it of your own volition, despite having already reaped the rewards of the subterfuge and becoming ensconced in the president’s office with an $870000 salary.  And in truly disappointing fashion, in her own defense, she resorted to the tried and true tactic of calling the scandal an example of “racial animus.” Yet the Harvard Black Student Association and black members of the faculty predictably rallied to her defense as well claiming that “Gay’s ouster reflects a system that wasn’t built for them”.  Oh please, cry me a river.  This is wrong on so many levels; I don’t know where to start.  First off, why is there a Black Student Association anyway?  Is there a White Student Association? The entire concept of an association based on race seems just a tad racially divisive at an institution that had, past tense, a president whose scholarly pursuits were in the field of African-American Studies and who was herself a Black female.  The whole Martin Luther King concept of colorblindness appears to have been thoroughly abandoned to the extent that seeing color distinctions is now necessary, lest you be called a racist.  Recall the “judged not by the color of your skin but by the content of your character” argument.  That is apparently passé in this age of racial preference over meritocracy.  And the left is remarkably selective with their definitions.  I can choose to be one of the aforementioned 100 genders, in complete violation of my biological blueprint, but it appears to be impossible for me to identify as another race.  Why is that?  It would seem that morphing into another race would be significantly easier and, indeed, far less painful than gender reassignment surgery.  I would reference John Howard Griffin, but those blackface shenanigans would not be acceptable in today’s racially charged environment, and more recently, the case of racial appropriation didn’t end well for Rachel Dolezal. But the hypocritical power of the left says no, you can’t do that, which is indeed unfortunate as I would really like to get a piece of this reparations action making its way through legislation in California and New York. Again, I digress.  Regarding the statement that the system wasn’t built for them:  Bingo.  It wasn’t.  Nor should it be. It’s not built for the benefit of any racial group unless you ascribe to that nonsense that mathematics, the English language, and virtually any other measure of academic achievement is somehow an example of White Supremacy. The system was built for academic excellence, to nurture intellectual curiosity, and to mold students into the people who will inherit the world from their teachers for the betterment of humankind.  At least that’s what it used to say in those pamphlets when you took the college campus tour. And to do that, we reward merit, hard work, and academic achievement.  We don’t do what has become vogue in academic circles as of late, most horrifyingly in medical schools and pilot training courses.  We don’t banish standardized testing as a yardstick, we don’t dumb down entrance exams, we don’t grade on racial standards, and we most definitely don’t choose our students, our administrators, our faculty, or even the cafeteria lady in our academic institutions based on some arbitrary racial quota.  That is the walking definition of racism. Yet Harvard has made a statement.  Diversity, equity, and inclusion, the dreaded DEI, are more important to them than merit.  And here we are.  An unqualified University President resigns in disgrace with lines drawn not on the facts but on race alone.  Facts speak for themselves, and to disregard the evidence while viewing the proceedings through “pick-your-race” colored glasses is by definition, racism.  An astute WSJ respondent recently referenced conservative columnist George Will, who said, “On Oct. 3, 1974, Frank Robinson was hired by the Cleveland Indians as the major leagues’ first Black manager.  But an even more important milestone of progress occurred on June 19, 1977, when the Indians fired him.  That was true equality.”  In yet another post from 2012, the prescient Mr. Will also wrote: “Perhaps a pleasant paradox defines this political season.”  He was talking about Obama’s race as a factor in his re-election bid, but just substituting race in general for “Obama” illustrates a point, as race “may be important, but in a way quite unlike that darkly suggested by, for example, MSNBC’s excitable boys and girls with their (at most) one track minds and exquisitely sensitive olfactory receptors, sniff racism in any criticism of their pin-up.  Instead, the nation, which is generally reluctant to declare a president a failure—thereby admitting that it made a mistake in choosing him [or her in this case] –seems especially reluctant not to give up on the first African-American president.  [It] speaks well of the nation’s heart, if not its head.” We would do well to heed his words.

I'm sorry to have subjected you to this purging of my spleen if, indeed, you had waded through this rant in its entirety. 2023’s affront to my sensibilities had to be vented, or it surely would have been injurious to my health. Mea Culpa.

My 2023 Years-End Rant (Cont)

This is a continuation of part of my Lanquage comments yesterday as it relates to the concepts of sex and gender. What a morass we find ourselves in when Biden’s newest appointment to the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, cannot define the term “woman.” Her answer, “I am not a biologist,” should have disqualified her from appointment immediately. She was obviously pandering to the left, offering up a politically correct answer, something that a Supreme Court justice should never do.  The left has separated gender from sex and is unable to define either one.  Unfortunately, they expect the rest of us to go along with their delusions.  SanFrancisco, for example, offers up more than 100 different options for gender on their guaranteed income program application, and Facebook recently added more than 50 gender options, bringing the total choices to 58 for those who don’t identify as male or female. Twenty-five of those descriptors are related to “trans”-something or other.  Other terms like Gender Outlaw, Kathoey, and Waria just defy rational explanation. They’ve even gone in search of other culture’s gender-bending references to add to the list.  How ridiculous. This madness has to stop.  Be yourself, by all means, even if that means calling yourself some preposterous made-up gender that makes you happy in your neurosis, but leave the rest of us out of it.  Gender is now being defined as a social construct; thus, you can be whatever you want to be, according to the new age pundits, and sometimes that can change from day to day.  But alas, there’s that pesky thing called biology that assigns you a sex at birth.  You may not choose to identify as your biological sex, but like it or not, you are what you are.  DNA determines that.  And regardless of what you choose to cut off or stitch on, your cells know better.  Of course, leftist scientists leaped to Jackson’s defense and are now claiming biological sex is difficult to assign based on variables like expression of chromosomes, gonads, genitals, internal reproductive structures, hormone ratios, and secondary sex characteristics. Come on, man.  DNA is rarely ambiguous, and although it can occur in mutation, rarely, gonads, genitals, internal reproductive structures, and secondary sexual characteristics differ markedly from the assignment of sex based on chromosomes.  Hormones do indeed show variability but fall within a range, and like it or not, anything that deviates from these parameters is abnormal and does not occur with significant frequency.  This sudden appearance of 100 genders is nothing more than a psychological construct and perhaps even a fad, as evidenced by all the females in a California grade school suddenly announcing that they identify as male.  Statistically impossible. So, let’s put a stop to the practice of confusing our youth with a multiple-choice question on what gender they want to be that day.  It’s not an option and certainly not one that should be discussed without parental consent by some community college-educated elementary school teachers.  Or Harvard, for that matter.  Instructing children that they can miraculously change their sex through pharmacology and irreversible surgical procedures is nothing short of madness, especially when we are allowing children who are too young to drive, purchase alcohol, purchase a firearm, or even sign their own medical consent forms to make these life-altering decisions. And Ohio governor Mike DeWine vetoing measures to prevent “gender-affirming care” in children and banning biological males from competing in women’s sports is an absolute travesty.  He claims that after speaking with parents of trans-children, many claimed that if not for the ability to transition, their children would likely be dead.  How dramatic. However, European studies are clear that this is simply not the case, and there is no statistical difference in suicide between those who chose to transition and those who did not.  Mental illness is hereditary as well, and just like the rest of their chromosomes, these kids likely inherited the same trait for crazy that afflicts their parents. Further, the term “gender-affirming care” is yet another exercise in co-opting language.  If we were truly affirming their gender, efforts would be made to ensure that their gender coincided with their biological sex, not some made-up social construct that is suddenly fashionable.  So let’s get all the sane adults in the room to agree:  Little Johnny can wear a dress and call himself Suzy all he wants.  But you have been assigned both testicles and a male gender at birth, and you’re stuck with it until your frontal lobe gets a clue.  Boy’s bathrooms and boy’s sports, pal.  After the age of 18, although all you educators keep telling us that Johnny’s brain is still mush until his early twenties, you can have at it, cut it off, add them on, and take hormones of your choice.  By then, you won’t be a confusing distraction for all the rest of the fourth grade. 

Know,  I’m not yet through with this ‘23 diatribe, I plan to rant on tomorrow morning, stay tuned

My 2023 Years-End Rant

Bear with me. We stand at the precipice of another year of global and political chaos, so I pause to reflect. First up: regarding Climate Change. Stop it. Just shut up. I’m mostly talking to you, NPR. You can’t go five minutes without one of your supercilious, self-absorbed, talking heads droning on about “insert-your-adjective-here” climate change. At the rate they’re going, it will require an entire segment just to say it. Existential climate change. Man-made climate change.  Climate change caused by human activity. Climate change linked to the burning of fossil fuels. Severe weather events caused by climate change.  Enough already. Apparently, everything is a result of climate change including my expletive-ridden tirades directed at my radio. As in Alexa, for [expletive deleted] sake tune the station to anything but NPR. Or MSNBC.  Or CNN. Or anybody playing Taylor Swift. But I digress, only after clarifying that Alexa does not, nor ever will, live in my house. If severe weather events are all caused by man-made climate change then someone has to explain to me how the dustbowl occurred in 1930-1936 when the population of the entire country was 130 million, roughly one-third of what it is today with only a fraction of it industrialized or driving automobiles. Or perhaps clue me in on the ice age when man barely existed at all. And I’m talking about both ends of the ice age. It had to get really cold, then it had to get really warm again.  How exactly did that happen without human intervention? And don’t tell me it was Mammoth flatulence. Seeing as man has been around for some 6 million years of the 4.5 billion years that the earth has been in existence, perhaps we are on a cycle with a timetable that we can’t comprehend. Especially considering we have only been recording weather-related data since 1880, a mere 143 years. Does anyone take college courses in statistics anymore? Further, it may be an existential crisis for us, but the earth will be just fine. As comedian George Carlin once remarked when plastic was considered to be the planet’s most existential threat: we will be long gone and it will just be “the earth plus plastic.” Like the dinosaurs before us, perhaps we are just being spit out or shaken off like fleas. And the solutions to all this climate hysteria are equally preposterous. Banning the burning of fossil fuels for example.  Now don’t get me wrong, if humankind were all on the same page and we were all willing to revert back to a stone age lifestyle, then perhaps we could mitigate or slow down whatever it is that is causing the extreme weather events that we are witnessing. Perhaps.  But while the Western world considers banning gas stoves, fossil fuel burning furnaces and internal combustion engines, not to mention demonizing the consumption of meat and dairy products in the name of eliminating cow farts, a large segment of the population of the third world continues to cook over open air wood fires, Brazil torches hectares of rain forest to make way for agriculture and China opens a new coal-fired power plant every week which makes the whole exercise nothing short of ridiculous. The concept of keeping our own backyard squeaky clean at great monetary expense, stifling our industrial and agricultural productivity while allowing the rest of the world to expel greenhouse gases unfettered implies that somehow we aren’t sharing the same planet. Isn’t it a rather hypocritical worldview after years of enduring the “party of science” explaining to us that if a butterfly flaps its wings in the South Pacific it will somehow affect our weather patterns on the East Coast of the United States? What changed? It’s all climate theater. Arctic wobble, atmospheric rivers, bomb cyclones, heat domes, tornadic waterspouts, thundersnow, and El Nino. Hmmm. So mining rare earth minerals in China with little environmental regulation, only to ship them to a manufacturing facility most likely also located somewhere in China also with no environmental regulation, who in turn ships the batteries to Germany to build electric vehicles that no one wants, that are then shipped to America where the batteries will most likely end up in a landfill is supposed to be an example of responsible climate policy? This is why automobile writer Jeremy Clarkson “reserves a special hatred for the Toyota Prius” calling it a “cynical marketing exercise for the gullible and stupid.” Furthermore, if we are in a climate crisis and the Amazon rain forest is indeed the planet’s “lungs” and we are so concerned about its destruction, then why don’t we just buy it? Surely if we can print enough money to send $113 billion to Ukraine to perpetuate a war that is hardly climate-friendly, we can certainly fire up the presses, print some more cash, and buy the whole damn thing. Maybe some other climate gas-bags like King Charles, Bill Gates, Justin Trudeau, and Emmanuel Macron can chip in a few shekels. I would imagine that the Western world can offer more per acre than some poverty-stricken Brazilian farmer burning down trees to clear the land for farming. And most often it will become grazing land for cattle. And that means more flatulence. Sounds like a win-win. But no, that’s not going to happen.  The climate change czars would rather fly around the globe on their Gulfstream G800s, descending on trendy vacation spots like Davos or Dubai to dine on caviar and Wagyu beef so they can lecture the rest of the world on austerity measures to prevent sea level rise before jetting back home to their oceanfront estates. Pffft. John Kerry could probably buy the entire rainforest with the spare change found in his sofa cushions. So perhaps we should just ban the term “climate change” altogether until the entire world is on the same page, suffers austerity in equal measure, and our elected officials and their media lapdogs appear to be taking the issue seriously instead of manipulating a manufactured crisis to make a buck, or spoon feed the donor class with subsidies. Solar panels, wind farms, and EVs. Uh-huh.  Besides, aren’t you dopes all about equity? You are? Then you go first.  

Hold, I'm not finished venting my spleen. Next up: Language. I’m not talking about foreign language or foul language.  I’m talking about the left co-opting language for their convenience, warping definitions, confusing the voting public, or generally putting forth a word salad designed to provide a smoke and mirror-show to hide their true intent, to engage in obfuscation. Saul Alinsky, he of the famous Rules for Radicals playbook, said it best: “He who controls the language, controls the masses. “ Joe Biden may occasionally engage in word salad accidentally because the synapses are just not there anymore, but Kamala Harris does it regularly and she is supposed to be in possession of all her marbles. Either her speechwriters are idiots, or maybe she is, for actually reading that nonsense in public. But perhaps clarity is not the goal.  Confusion, blurring the lines, remaining noncommittal, or presenting a narrative that can be neither agreed upon nor refuted may be the point of the exercise. Whatever happened to “say what you mean and mean what you say?” And there are subdivisions under this language heading related to race, gender, crime, and border security. Let’s start with the border.  Mayorkas: The border is closed.  Harris: The border is closed.  Biden: The border is closed.  Yet it is well documented that in excess of 1.4 million immigrants have entered this country under the Biden Administration.  And they keep coming in waves. Like a tree falling in the forest, just because the mainstream media doesn’t show it, that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. FOX shows it every day and Border Patrol statistics verify what we’re seeing.  The border is wide open and we are being invaded.  And I have to blame this partly on Bill Clinton.  He started all this “depends on what the definition of is is” gobbledygook and we’ve been stumbling over language ever since.  So must we define what open and closed means? This sort of thing used to be called lying. And any sentence that starts with “look”, “let me be clear” or incorporates the term “root cause” is a dead giveaway that they’re engaging in the dissemination of untruths. Ironic in that Trump is generally lambasted in the press, not to mention by Robert DeNiro, for being a serial liar when in fact the Biden Administration has made it an Olympic-level sport.  And while on the subject, the left has co-opted the term “immigrant” to supplant what used to be called an “illegal alien.” Hold on. My grandparents were immigrants.  They filled out the paperwork, they stood in line, they waited their turn and they were processed through Ellis Island. Legally. These foreign invaders are not immigrants. They have broken the law by setting foot on American soil, they have cut the line, shoving their way in front of those who seek to immigrate into the country legally, especially white Europeans. And like everything else in this country, meritocracy has been cast aside in favor of race. We no longer accept immigrants based on skills that they can provide to better the country. They have used the loophole of asylum to gain entry when in fact they are seeking nothing more than monetary gain. Be it government handouts or actually seeking employment, they are in it for socioeconomic reasons only. And I don’t blame them for that, but let’s not sugarcoat the fact that they’re here illegally. They are not vetted, their caravans harbor criminals and possibly terrorists in their midst that seek to do us harm. It is a coordinated attack on our sovereignty, a violation of our borders and it has been perpetrated by this Administration. Just ask the invaders why they’ve come. The universal answer: Joe Biden invited us. Why? remains the biggest question.  Is it to supply workers to take menial jobs, labor that Americans will no longer do? Or more cynically is it an effort to turn traditionally red border states blue and win those close races to keep Democrats in power? As 2024 progresses, it will be interesting to see if the Democrats seek to get a return on their investment and attempt to allow these immigrants to vote.

Let me pause here and allow you to digest this years-end rant of mine and I’ll have at it again tomorrow morning………