Biden’s SOTU: eye of the beholder

The New Neo Posted on by

Late last night I looked at comments to a YouTube video that featured excerpts from Biden’s SOTU speech, and the first ten or so were on the order of “Great speech!” “Unifying speech that will bring us together!” “Statesmanlike speech!”

Who are these people? Bots, paid operatives, or just party regulars? Do Democrats really see that and hear that when they watch and listen to Biden?

The right saw it as the angriest and nastiest speech ever, and incredibly divisive. For example from Ted Cruz:

Frankly tonight Joe Biden reminded me like an angry old man standing on his porch, screaming to the kids, “Get off my lawn!” That’s who he was.

I’ve never seen…. I’ve been to 12 State of the Union addresses. I’ve never seen anything remotely like this. This was entirely focused on the November election. …

… [H]alf the Republicans almost fell asleep because after welcoming the president where we stand and show respect for the office, we basically just sat there for over an hour, as he told lie after lie after lie.

And he just went hard left. I’ve never seen anything like this.

That pretty much fits my impression of Biden whenever I’ve watched him give speeches, which granted isn’t very often because it’s hard to stomach.

Apparently a lot of people also were taken with Speaker Johnson’s expressive eyerolls:

And many people have pointed out that the MSM propaganda machine quickly got the word out in unified fashion, crowing that Biden’s speech was the f-words “fiery” and “feisty.” Examples abound; see this, this, and this.

Tonight’s State of the Union address: Biden to supply Hamas

The New Neo Posted on by

I won’t be watching tonight’s speech by Biden. As usual, I’ll just check the transcript later.

And yes, I think he’ll be able to stand there and read it, although there may be a few “gaffes.” And the Democrats will applaud wildly. Or maybe not-so-wildly; they’d love for him to step down and not run in 2024. But they’ll applaud anyway, of course.

One of the things he’ll apparently be saying is this

President Biden will announce during his State of the Union address Thursday that he’s directing the U.S. military to lead the construction of a port along the coast of Gaza on the Mediterranean Sea to boost the amount of aid getting to Palestinian civilians.

“We know the aid flowing into Gaza is nowhere near enough and nowhere near fast enough. The president will make clear again this evening that we all need to do more, and the United States is doing more,” a senior administration official said on a call with reporters.

The port would be able to receive large ships that can bring in food, water, medicine and other supplies into Gaza, which has been under fire for months as Israeli forces carry out shellings and military operations in response to Hamas’s attacks last October.

How kind of him. I’m sure the Muslim voters of Michigan will be happy about it. Because that’s what this is all about, IMHO.

It is the equivalent of airdrops to Germany during World War II. As Stephen Green writes:

You can move in a lot more food by sea than you can by air. A whole lot more. A starving soldier is a soldier who cannot fight. Biden is going to make damned sure that Hamas has all the calories it needs to kill as many Israelis as possible in a war that will go on needlessly long.

More:

Initial shipments of supplies would come via Cyprus, enabled by the U.S. military and partners. Officials said the U.S. would work with the United Nations and other humanitarian partners to distribute aid across Gaza once it reaches the port.

Oh, the UN. They’ll certainly make sure Hamas doesn’t get the lion’s share (that’s sarcasm, by the way).

Plus:

A senior administration official said the U.S. worked “very closely with the Israelis in developing this initiative.”

What Israelis? The Israeli left? The only information on that I could find is this:

An Israeli official speaking on condition of anonymity said Jerusalem “fully supports” the US plan, but did not comment on what it said about Israel’s ability to prevent a humanitarian crisis on its own.

An unnamed “official” says the Israelis support the plan. Perhaps they do, but only in the sense that they think it will take some of the international heat off them. I predict that it will do no such thing. It will merely feed it, as in oh, the Israelis were so mean that the US and the UN had to step in to feed the Palestinians who are victims of Israeli aggression.

Hamas is the perpetrator in the present conflict, and the Gazans overwhelmingly support Hamas and the atrocities it (along with many Gazan civilians) perpetrated on 10/7. The enabling of the Gazans and Hamas to live to fight another day only perpetuates the horror for Israel and for Gazans as well.

If there were a way to establish which people among the Gazans are actually innocent – whether that number is tiny or substantial – and to help them out, that would be fine. But there is no such way. Unfortunately, Gazans decided to elect a group of terrorists as their government, and to cheer and support (and even join in some cases) those terrorists as they perpetrated acts of barbaric horror on Israelis. That has resulted in a war, and in war the aggressors suffer. At least, that’s the way it used to be. But world opinion has mobilized around helping these aggressors, and that’s what Biden is doing.

Larry Summers makes sense up to a point

The New Neo Posted on by

As I read this interview with economist and former Harvard president Larry Summers, I was in basic agreement with the points he made in the first half or so. For example:

So I think what happens in universities is immensely important. And I think there is a widespread sense—and it is, I think, unfortunately, with considerable validity—that many of our leading universities have lost their way; that values that one associated as central to universities—excellence, truth, integrity, opportunity—have come to seem like secondary values relative to the pursuit of certain concepts of social justice, the veneration of certain concepts of identity, the primacy of feeling over analysis, and the elevation of subjective perspective. And that has led to clashes within universities and, more importantly, an enormous estrangement between universities and the broader society.

When the president of Harvard is a figure on a Saturday Night Live skit, when three presidents of universities combine to produce the most watched congressional hearing film clip in history, when applications to Harvard fall in a several-month period by more they’ve ever fallen before, when alumni are widely repudiating their alma mater, when they’re the subject of as many legal investigations as the Boeing company, you have a real crisis in higher education. And I think it’s been a long time coming because of those changes in values that I was describing. …

I think the values that animated me to spend my life in universities were values of excellence in thought, in pursuit of truth. We’re never going to find some ultimate perfect truth, but through argument, analysis, discussion, and study we can get closer to truth. And a world that is better understood is a world that is made better. And I think, increasingly, all you have to do is read the rhetoric of commencement speeches. It’s no longer what we talk about. We talk about how we should have analysis, we should have discussion, but the result of that is that we will each have more respect for each other’s point of view, as if all points of view are equally good and there’s a kind of arbitrariness to a conception of truth. That’s a kind of return to pre-Enlightenment values and I think very much a step backward. I thought of the goal of the way universities manage themselves as being the creation of an ever larger circle of opportunity in support of as much merit and as much excellence as possible. …

We celebrate particular ideas in ways that are very problematic, and we are reluctant to come to judgment: What started all the controversy at Harvard, and it has many different strands, was on October 7, when 34 student groups at Harvard, speaking as a coalition of Harvard students, condemned Israel as being responsible for the Hamas attacks. Those reports of the 34 student groups were reported in places where literally billions of people read them. And based on some inexplicable theory, the Harvard administration and the Harvard corporation (the Trustees of the University) could not find it within themselves to disassociate the university from those comments. I have no doubt that if similar comments had been made of a racist variety, there would have been no delay in the strongest possible disassociation of the university. But because Israel demonization is the fashion in certain parts of the social justice-proclaiming left, there was a reluctance to reach any kind of judgment, even about the most morally problematic statements.

All very correct. But then, after a mention of how Reagan’s early political career involved criticizing policies at Berkeley, Summers says:

And so it seems to me that universities that fail to govern themselves effectively are at immense peril to themselves and to the broader progressive values that they hold.

Ah, so the problem is that the universities’ behavior imperils progressivism? And it is understood that universities hold progressive values? But what if truth imperils progressivism and its values? Is that even a possibility in Summers’ mind? Is this about truth or is it about politics?

More:

I think it’s fine to stand strongly against a set of people who in many ways are riding this horse, but wish the process of thought and wish academic freedom ill. The problem is not that Harvard has worked itself into a war with Elise Stefanik. The problem is that it got itself condemned from the White House press briefing room of the Biden administration, that it finds itself subject to investigation from the Department of Education of the Biden administration, that the attacks on it are coming in a bipartisan way.

Oh, so it’s okay to do something that alienates the right, but doing something that also alienates at least a portion of Democrats is a no-no. And it seems that Summers thinks the likes of Stefanik “wish the process of thought and wish academic freedom ill.” Really? And just what evidence does Summers have for that, other than his own Democrat politics? After all, he’s just spent quite a lot of verbiage to say that on campuses it’s the left that’s been wishing the process of thought and wishing academic freedom ill – and not just wishing these things ill, but actively stomping on them. But he continues to cling to the idea that it’s somehow the right wishing it and doing it.

When I read the interview, the sudden change startled me although it absolutely shouldn’t have. It is completely standard. And it doesn’t matter how smart the person is otherwise – like Summers – or how persecuted that person has been by the left. One of the reasons Summers was hounded out of Harvard was that he told some inconvenient truths that angered the left; the right had nothing to do with it. And yet he thinks the right is the bigger problem. Go figure; it’s another case of a mind being a difficult thing to change, especially regarding politics.

Governor Hochul calls out the National Guard to police the NYC subways

The New Neo Posted on by

Remember when the NY Times staff was outraged because the paper published a Tom Cotton editorial supporting the idea of using the National Guard to quell some of the post-Floyd riots in American cities in 2020? Well, now that a Democrat, Governor Hochul of New York, has done the same for the New York subway system, it seems to be perfectly okay with the Times.

And remember how awful and how racist New York’s stop-and-frisk policy was deemed to be? Opposition to that policy helped lead to the election of leftist Bill de Blasio. But the summer of 2020, with its violence as well as its anti-police atmosphere, has contributed to many resignations within the NYC police force, a situation the current Mayor Adams has described as “a law enforcement crisis.”

Enter Hochul with the equivalent of stop-and-frisk for all who enter the subways in certain high-traffic stations. Well, at least it’s not just suspicious people they will search, right? Here’s some information (and by the way, the right-leaning NY Post’s article was number 31 in the Google list when I checked, instead of much higher up where it should be as one of New York City’s largest periodicals):

“Governor Hochul has made historic commitments to make our subways safer, from security cameras to mental health personnel,” a rep for the governor said in a statement. “Tomorrow, she will unveil new legislation to protect riders, new state personnel to assist NYPD with bag checks, and other new measures to keep New Yorkers safe.”

The heightened focus on subway violence comes as The Post exclusively revealed last week that underground crime skyrocketed months after the number of transit cops on patrol had plummeted to levels not seen since Mayor Bill de Blasio was in power.

Meanwhile, subway crime rates surged in the first two months of this year alone, spiking by nearly 20% compared to this time last year, the latest NYPD stats show – largely driven by increases in grand larcenies, felony assaults and robberies.

The mayor — who just last week said the NYPD would be moving to 12-hour tours in the system — has previously blamed the crime spike on the city’s rollback of its 2022 subway safety plan, which saw the number of cops underground dwindle when state funding dried up.

And here are some details of the methods proposed:

Here’s what Hochul’s five-point plan entails:

Influx of 1,000 National Guardsmen, state and MTA cops.
Law to allow judges to ban transit assault perps from trains, buses.
Install CCTV cameras in all train cars, conductor cabins.
Better coordination between NYPD and district attorneys to thwart recidivists.
$20 million to expand Subway Co-Response Outreach mental health teams.

As for the bag checks:

In an interview on WPIX-11 Wednesday along with Chief Michael Kemper, head of the NYPD Transit Bureau, Adams insisted the new bag checks would not lead to racial or ethnic profiling.

“We’re not profiling, we’re random based on the count, a number,” the mayor said. “And people who don’t want their bag checks can turn around and not enter the system. You don’t have to come through and do the bag checks, but they are random.”

So let’s inconvenience everyone so there’s no accusation of racism, and let’s just check for weapons so that law-abiding citizens can’t have them either for defense. I can’t even imagine how this bag check thing would work at rush hour. And of course bag checks for weapons will do nothing to stop weaponless crimes involving, for example, pushing people into the paths of trains, or beatings.

And how will the banning of transit assault perpetrators from public transportation be accomplished? And what will courts have to say about that?

The Biden administration seems to be flying in people from Latin America: there’s an app for that

The New Neo Posted on by

What do we make of this?:

Efforts by open-border Democrats to blame the growing big-city migrant crisis on Texas and its program of busing illegal immigrants north are being upstaged by a new investigation showing that President Joe Biden has secretly flown hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from Latin American airports to 43 U.S. cities.

The unusual program, kept from the public, involved at least 320,000 illegal immigrants the administration admits are “inadmissible” immigrants, far more than previously reported.

Despite facing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit from the Center for Immigration Studies, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection has refused to identify the 43 airports it is dumping immigrants at after direct flights from Latin America. …

New in its investigation is the administration’s claims it is keeping the cities secret because it is concerned “bad actors” might “undermine law enforcement efforts to ‘secure the United States border’ if they knew the volume of CBP One traffic processed at each port of entry,” the center said, citing an email it received.

The program at issue is Biden’s scheme of letting illegal immigrants use an app to gain access to the U.S. without having to travel through Mexico.

“The program at the center of the FOIA litigation is perhaps the most enigmatic and least-known of the Biden administration’s uses of the CBP One cellphone scheduling app, even though it is responsible for almost invisibly importing by air 320,000 aliens with no legal right to enter the United States since it got underway in late 2022,” said Todd Bensman, the report’s author.

This isn’t even new information, although I only recently heard of it. But here’s an article from last September about what appears to be the same thing:

Illegal migrants aren’t just overwhelming the border — President Biden is flying them secretly to airports around the country.

More than 200,000 people from four countries have landed over the past year, according to data obtained by the Center for Immigration Studies through a Freedom of Information Act request.

In January, Biden’s Department of Homeland Security began implementing the cornerstone of its current strategy: a series of new “lawful pathways” measures designed to decrease the historically high crowds at the southern border before they become a political problem.

DHS cajoles tens of thousands of intending illegal border-crossers per month to instead go on the CBP One smartphone application, and make an appointment with US officials at land ports of entry instead of crossing illegally. …

But one of the least noticed, mysterious and potentially most controversial of the new rechanneling programs that use the CBP One app allows migrants to take commercial passenger flights from foreign countries straight to their American cities of choice, flying right over the border — and even over Mexico.

For this measure, Cubans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Haitians and Colombians request “advance travel authorizations” through the same CBP One mobile app and take commercial flights (“at their own expense”) directly into US airports, where US Customs officers parole them into the nation, sight unseen, and in numbers publicly unknown.

It appears to me that the motive is to make it seem as though fewer people are coming here, because all eyes are on the border and this bypasses the border (or rather, overflies it). None of the articles I’ve read indicates whether the legal basis for all of this is asylum claims, but I’m assuming it is. I hope Trump hammers away at this during the campaign, especially the secrecy angle.

Michelle Obama says no to running in 2024

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s the announcement:

“As former First Lady Michelle Obama has expressed several times over the years, she will not be running for president,” Crystal Carson, the director of communications for Obama’s office, said in a statement provided to ITK on Tuesday.

Obama supports President Biden and Vice President Harris, her office said.

Note the “several times” bit. Michelle has been consistent in that regard; see this, for example, from a year ago:

“I’ve never expressed any interest in politics. Ever,” admits Michelle. “I mean, I agreed to support my husband. He wanted to do it, and he was great at it. But at no point have I ever said, ‘I think I want to run.’ Ever. So, I’m just wondering: Does what I want have anything to do with anything? Does who I choose to be have anything to do with it?”

She continues: “Politics is hard. And the people who get into it — it’s just like marriage, it’s just like kids — you’ve got to want it. It’s got to be in your soul, because it is so important. It is not in my soul. Service is in my soul. Helping people is in my soul. Working with kids? I will spend my lifetime trying to make kids feel seen and find their light. That I will do. I don’t have to hold office to do that. In fact, I think I’m actually more effective outside of politics, because sadly, politics has become so divided.”

However, statements like that over the years have never stopped the speculation – and the hope among Democrats, and the anxiety among Republicans. Those feelings of hope and fear come from a perception that Michelle Obama would win in 2024. I have no idea whether that perception is correct, but I realize that it may be. However, I’ve been consistent in saying I believe her when she says she will not run.

Ah, but she might be drafted, say a lot of people. I just don’t see it. I don’t for a moment believe that she’s not interested in politics itself in the sense of her being very much in favor of leftist outcomes and willing to help leftist campaigners. But for whatever motives, she doesn’t want to be the one in charge. What’s more, the Obamas have reason to support Biden: they have a lot of influence in his administration, and a 2024 win will only increase that influence as his cognitive abilities sink further.

Nikki Haley quits

The New Neo Posted on by

Haley has suspended her campaign.

It was merely a question of “when” rather than “if.” Also, I’m sure she would unsuspend it if somehow the anti-Trump lawfare – or anything else – were to put Trump out of commission. But for now, it’s just Trump, the last Republican standing.

Some reflections here from Byron York:

[Haley’s loss] tells us, as if we needed another reminder, that the GOP cannot return to the days of leaders like George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan. …

Each Republican candidate running in 2024 had to reckon with Trump’s complicated legacy — and then with Trump himself. Some tried to be super Trumpy. Some tried to be anti-Trumps. Some tried to be old school. None succeeded.

All had to recognize one fact: For the GOP, there was no going back. …

But there are still those Republicans who are nostalgic for a more orderly GOP. And many of them looked to Haley as their final hope, at least for now, of making that happen. Haley spoke passionately about the “chaos” that surrounds Trump — and indeed, he is a man facing 91 felony counts and all the trouble that entails. She promised a return to a calmer and more disciplined Republican Party. Her problem was that there were not nearly enough Republicans who want that, too. Some love Trump, others don’t love him but like his results, and others think that for all his flaws he is what the GOP needs to fight a Democratic Party dominated by progressive activists. Some would even like to move on from Trump but don’t believe there is another Republican on the scene with the strength and talent to lead the party in a new direction. In any event, Haley has lost, and those supporters who want to change today’s Republican Party will have to wait for new circumstances to bring new leaders.

I agree with York that there’s no going back. But I think most of Haley’s support was not from never-Trumper Republicans at all, it was from right-leaning Independents and moderate Democrats. Also, in the list of things that draw Republicans to Trump, he left out a very important point, which is that a great many Republicans recognize that although the attacks on Trump are tailored to him, the left will attack any Republican who runs. Not necessarily during the primaries; then the left will shore up their preferred candidate. But once a nomination is secure, the left and the MSM invariably takes the proverbial gloves off and the GOP nominee is fair game, no matter how moderate. Look what they did to Romney.

The question is whether such attacks will stick, and to how many voters. Trump made that task easy with many voters, because he really is a difficult personality who rubs a lot of people the wrong way. But Trump is also a charismatic personality to a lot of people, and he has a track record as president that compares very favorably indeed with Biden’s. That’s what accounts for his popularity – that and the correct perception that the left has persecuted him in ways that really do threaten our republic.

[ADDENDUM: Senator Sinema of Arizona isn’t running for re-election. Does this help or hurt Lake, the Republican in the race? Perhaps it helps her, because her Democrat opponent is further to the left than Sinema was. But I don’t know; Lake’s track record isn’t good, and she is “Trumpy” enough (without his history of accomplishment) that she puts off a lot of people.]