The number of people illegally crossing the United States-Mexico border has soared in President Biden’s first two months in office and is now expected to blow past all annual totals for the past two decades.
“We are on pace to encounter more individuals on the southwest border than we have in the last 20 years,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement Tuesday morning.
Is it fair to say that the Biden Administration is doing absolutely nothing? No, not really, since FEMA is involved. However since they only get involved in emergency situations, its officially a crisis situation.
Biden has swept away former President Trump’s tight controls in less than two months. The jarring policy shift has led to the biggest surge of migrants since 2006, prompting the administration to use tactics Biden and most Democrats decried when Trump used them early in his term to slow the flow…
…Rasmussen’s poll found that a majority — 51% — reject amnesty and believe that immigrants should only be granted permanent work permits and a path to citizenship after living in the United States for at least five years. Some 16%, however said they should never be given citizenship. The poll also showed strong support for the federal E-Verify program that helps companies check to make sure immigrants are in the U.S. legally before getting a job.
Some people are claiming that the border crisis was no accident. And when I say “some people,” I am referring to former acting ICE director Tom Homan. To quote Newsmax:
The crisis unfolding at the nation’s border with Mexico was “planned” during President Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, former acting ICE director Tom Homan said Monday.
“They can’t admit to the American people that they planned this crisis,” Homan said on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends.” “When Joe Biden made those promises during the campaign, of ending ICE detention, ending the ‘Remain in Mexico’ program, giving amnesty and DACA and healthcare, when you make those types of promises, you know they’re going to come.”
Is the border crisis (and that is what it is) a humanitarian issue or a bid for political power? The left sees it as a humanitarian crisis and to a degree, the right does as well. Yet, there is also a sinister component. There has been a long running argument that the open border approach is nothing but a means to get perpetual votes from grateful asylum seekers. Tucker Carlson explains the argument in this video. (The historical perspective is priceless! Please watch.)
If you find this border crisis concerning, here is something else to consider. We are only 2 months into the Biden Administration; three years and 10 months to go. Buckle up. Its going to be a bumpy ride.
Okay, I’m done. More rants tomorrow. Please share this newsletter with your network via the referral link below. Thank you in advance.
Okay, I am going to start this very long rant with a bible verse because I am praying that you read it all the way through. Also because, in all modesty, the world needs to read this. Please do pass it on. 😉
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.” Proverbs 18:2 ESV
When someone takes the time to respond to my content, I always appreciate it. Whether or not it is affirming, the worse rebuttal is silence. So, to any and all who respond to my work, future, past and present, thank you.
I do not get offended when someone thinks differently than I do. It takes all kinds to form a world. I do however find it concerning when people become irate when I choose not to agree with them. And should I decide to dialogue with them on a controversial topic, something I rarely do, the dialogue degrades into a monologue where I simply nod my head silently to maintain my inner peace and/or preserve the relationship. In these interesting times, I do that more than ever before. So, why do I say this?
I don’t want to read anymore of your misinformation…….
I suppose it was meant as a sarcastic quip to my last post on how the mainstream media can be misleading due to their personal biases. I laid out my reasoning and supported it with various articles, research and anecdotal evidence. They dismissed it because, I presume, they did not want to understand a point of view that was different from their own. (And I must stress that such was presumed because they had interacted with several of my posts in the past by clicking on various links I’ve shared.) Rather than say, “I disagree with your view” or some variation of that, they labeled it as misinformation. It made me wonder, how often does this scenario repeat itself every day and around the world?
Person A: I believe this because of that.
Person B: I feel differently, so, that makes you a liar. Regardless of whatever evidence you present.
If you are presented with new information that is verifiably true, will you change your mind? Or, will you allow your passion, driven by a desire to be right (or virtuous), push you to continue a narrative that is provably wrong?
Take a moment to consider that.
No matter how you chose to answer that question, Science says that you would likely double down on your beliefs. Check out this rather long quote from Psychology Today.
Our ability to reason did not develop simply to help us find the truth. Instead, reasoning evolved to fulfill fundamentally social functions, like cooperating in large groups and communicating with others.
This is one of the arguments advanced in “The Enigma of Reason,” a book by cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. According to their theory of reasoning, reason’s primary strengths are justifying beliefs we already believe in and making arguments to convince others. While this kind of reasoning helps us cooperate in a social environment, it does not make us particularly good at truth-seeking. It also makes us fall prey to a number of cognitive biases, like confirmation bias, or the tendency to search for information that confirms what we already believe.
Their ideas also help explain why politics seems to make us so bad at reasoning. If most of reasoning is for social cohesion instead of truth-seeking, then belonging to a particular political party should distort our reasoning and make us pretty bad at finding the truth.
A number of studies document the many ways in which our political party distorts our reasoning. One study found that people who had strong math skills were only good at solving a math problem if the solution to the problem conformed to their political beliefs. Liberals were only good at solving a math problem, for instance, if the answer to that problem showed that gun control reduced crime. Conservatives were only good at solving this problem if the solution showed that gun control increased crime. Another study found that the higher an individual’s IQ, the better they are at coming up with reasons to support a position—but only a position that they agree with.
Belonging to a particular political party can also shape our perception. In one study, researchers were asked to watch a video of protestors. Half of the participants were told the people in the video were protesting the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The other half were told that the people were protesting an abortion clinic. Liberals reported saying the protestors were more violent and disruptive if they were told they were watching abortion clinic protestors, and the opposite was true for conservatives—even though everyone was watching the same video.
There is mounting concern that social media sites contribute to political polarization by creating “echo chambers” that insulate people from opposing views about current events. We surveyed a large sample of Democrats and Republicans who visit Twitter at least three times each week about a range of social policy issues. One week later, we randomly assigned respondents to a treatment condition in which they were offered financial incentives to follow a Twitter bot for one month that exposed them to messages produced by elected officials, organizations, and other opinion leaders with opposing political ideologies. Respondents were re-surveyed at the end of the month to measure the effect of this treatment, and at regular intervals throughout the study period to monitor treatment compliance. We find that Republicans who followed a liberal Twitter bot became substantially more conservative post-treatment, and Democrats who followed a conservative Twitter bot became slightly more liberal post-treatment. These findings have important implications for the interdisciplinary literature on political polarization as well as the emerging field of computational social science.
So, in the environment we all live in, where everything is political to some degree, how do we pursue peace with our neighbors? I don’t have all the answers but, I do have a few suggestions.
Choose carefully who you debate with – As I pointed out, people who are shown information that goes against their belief system will likely refute it and double down on their personal viewpoint anyway. That being the case, if you are invited or baited into a discussion over politics, onlydebate political discussions with people who are willing to listen and likewise, be open to what they have to say. Establish a rule at the beginning that no matter what is said, has no bearing on your relationship because your relationship with them is bigger than politics. That is, if you want to preserve the existing relationship.
Consider your losses – In some cases, you know where someone else stands on their politics and that it is opposite of you. When tempted to discuss your political views with them, ask yourself if it is worth the potential loss of friendship. In some cases, it is not. Back in the 90’s, the official US policy on military service was “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. The spirit of that agreement, applied to political discussions, could preserve a lot of family, social and work relationships. Don’t ask me how I feel about Donald Trump and I won’t tell you; just continue to assume that I believe as you do. Sometimes, there is safety in ignorance.
When you feel you must debate or defend your political position – Have a good understanding of why you believe what you believe and have 3 facts to share (or more, but at least one) to substantiate your position and reasons why your position benefits you and them.
In conclusion, some people believe that opposing views should not be heard; that’s called Cancel Culture. In America we have free speech and those who seek to drown out speech they don’t like, reveal themselves as intolerant bullies demanding their opinions be sacrosanct and all others be damned. From those people, walk away, leave them to argue with themselves, but place sunlight on the things they say and the actions they commit. Why? Because bad ideas, over time, perish in the sun.
Wow. You actually read this to the end. Much appreciated. See you tomorrow. Hopefully, my rant won’t be as long.
Original air date: FEBRUARY 21, 2006 – This is the 2nd episode in the original series and I am glad to be sharing it with you. In this episode, I interview Ken Verges about his experiences recruiting in India. At the time, he was Senior Vice President, Corporate & IT Recruitment for Countrywide. Tune in to hear what it was like to recruit in India back in 2006!
“I’ll be driving our efforts to ensure that matters of equity and justice are fully incorporated into all that we try to do,” said Susan E. Rice, chair of Biden’s Domestic Policy Council.
The talk of equity sounds good yet, it doesn’t mean what most people think when they hear it. There has been a long running argument focused on equity vs equality that will only heat up during the Biden administration. However the crux of the argument of equity verses equality could be summed up in two expressed viewpoints: Kamala Harris vs Ben Shapiro. In this episode, I discuss the equity verses equality argument and add my viewpoints as well. Tune in for a very controversial episode.
If no one wants to buy your product, you have a few options.
Option A: Improve your product.
Option B: Stop selling your product and sell something else.
Option C: Cancel your competition so there is no other choice.
I think most sober minded individuals would choose options A or B. However, there are those who see Option C as the most logical step and more often than not, they lean left on the political spectrum. To see this illustrated to the fullest, watch the war on conservative content. Check out the video in the tweet below:
Former Facebook insider Alex Stamos tells @brianstelter: “We have to turn down the capability of these Conservative influencers to reach these huge audiences… There are people on YouTube for example that have a larger audience than daytime CNN.” pic.twitter.com/gP0XtnjhCQ
Stamos: One of the places you can see this is the fact that you know have competitors to Fox News on their Right — OANN, Newsmax — which are carried by all the major cable networks, who are trying to now outflank Fox on the right because the moment Fox introduced any kind of realism into their reporting, immediately a bunch of people chose to put themselves into a sealed ecosystem. And they can do that both on cable, they can do it online, and that becomes a huge challenge in figuring out, how do you bring those people back into the mainstream of fact-based reporting and try to get us all back into the same consensual reality.
Here we see Stamos ominously mention that OANN and Newsmax are carried by all major cable television providers (he erroneously refers to “providers” as “networks”). Despite his verbal slip, his intention is clear. CNN has been actively campaigning for weeks to have rival news networks deplatformed by cable providers. CNN would like Fox News banned in addition to OANN and Newsmax. Stamos is somewhat more conciliatory and thinks Fox News should be allowed to stay on the air, as long as they remain anti-Trump.
There is a lot more to the article and I would recommend you check it out. In a nutshell, these are reasons why they say the conservative outlets FOX, Newsmax and OANN should be deplatformed.
They (Conservatives on YouTube) have the ability to reach audiences bigger than CNN.
People have too much choice and that freedom is being abused by bad actors.
Conservative outlets do not carry the same messaging as CNN and thus, operating outside of reality.
Trump supporters are akin to Isis terrorists. As such, their communications should be limited in order to suppress radicalization.
Although admitting that Americans have freedom of speech, they debated whether or not Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and the like should be enabling said speech.
It is this kind of thinking that makes me so concerned for our country. Why ban ideas? Why not bring all ideas into the sun, debate them and let the bad ideas fall away? When big tech bans Conservative content it does not do their side any favors. It places them in the uniform of a totalitarian dictator who is not content until the only dancing is to the music they play. When that happens, bigger rebellions are inevitable.