E Mail To Biden. Avi Writes. Friedman And Homelands. Jan 6 Trials. Imbedded Israeli Spy? American Discontent.

THE OTHER SIDE. THERE IS ONE,YOU KNOW.

.

Dear Mr. President:

You can live in your cocoon without the "buck" but even Mr. Putin understands when you have less of something and the demand is high the price will increase. Rather than blame him for the misery you have caused you might chat with him and learn a thing or two. Even Adam Smith understood this. 

Respectfully,

Richard Berkowitz.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This from my dear friend Avi:

++++++++++++++++++++++

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-710916

I Went to Medina as Jew To Build Bridges. So Should Biden

By Avi Jorisch

The White House just announced President Biden will be traveling to Saudi Arabia in a few weeks, where he is expected to break his campaign promise to punish the country and treat them “like the pariah they are.” While there, the President may also wish to build bridges by visiting Medina, the place where Islam was born and where the Prophet Muhammed is buried. For perhaps 1,300 hundred years, only Muslims have been allowed to visit Islam’s second holiest city. But that appears to be changing, part of a larger transformation in Saudi society.

 

On the road to Medina, Saudi officials recently removed signs reading “Muslims only,” and last month, a delegation of 50 Jewish business leaders closely affiliated with Israel visited the Prophet’s Mosque, al-Masjid al-Nabawi, in Medina as part of a visit meant to promote mutual understanding, respect and tolerance. 

 

The delegation comprised members from 13 countries, and many were nervous before departure. Some wondered whether they would be allowed to enter the Kingdom, be restricted in meetings, be limited in what they could say, or be able to move around freely. The security officer of one of the members instructed him not to go and to expect the worst if he did. Another member worried that she might never see her eight children again.

 

In the end, though, the opportunity to promote friendship, peace and collaboration was strong enough to overcome their doubts.

 

Wherever we went, we found our delegation members and the Saudis shared deep family, personal and business experiences and began to explore business collaboration. It felt like old friends and family being reunited, not uncomfortable and guarded, as many in the delegation had envisioned. 

 

At no point during our trip did anyone evade the hard questions facing Saudi Arabia, Israel or the region. Not every conversation was easy, but the exchange of ideas changed every member of our delegation. Israeli technology’s solutions to some of the world’s most intractable problems was a constant source of dialogue, as was the Saudis’ willingness to open their society, diversify their economy and be seen as a willing partner in making the world a better place.

 

To us it seemed clear they were breaking centuries-old taboos, including speaking openly about Israel and Jews and re-imagining working together on society’s gravest challenges.  These conversations gave us tremendous hope. As our first event ended, I approached the man whose security officer had told him not to come, and he whispered quietly, “I can’t talk to you right now, this is the opposite of what I expected.” 

 

The heart and soul of our mission was in Medina. We came to telegraph to the Saudis and the greater Muslim world our desire to engage by seeing with our own eyes the places that shaped civilization. 

 

Medina was sublime. Our guide took us into the open-air courtyard filled with massive umbrellas outside the prayer complex, which accommodates 1 million worshipers. We saw people from every corner of the globe, speaking dozens of languages. When I sat down in sight of the mosque’s green dome, the resting place of the Prophet and two of the four righteous Caliphs, with a vacant place for Jesus, I went through my own daily meditation process and thought deeply about the long arc of history. I looked at my fellow delegates and knew that each of them was forever changed by coming to the Kingdom and to this holy place. 

 

As we shared our experience in Medina with our Saudi colleagues, they seemed overjoyed that we made the effort to understand their civilization by visiting one of Islam’s most revered places. “Coming openly and in the spirit of seeking to understand means so much,” said one Saudi. “Your visit will also force us to see Jews and Israelis differently.” 

 

In the last few years, Israel and its neighbors have continued the journey towards reconciliation begun with the peace accords with Egypt (1978) and Jordan (1994), signing the Abraham Accords with Bahrain, UAE, Sudan and Morocco (2020). I hope that soon, Saudi Arabia will join the Accords as well. 

 

Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi said that “a little bit of light dispels a lot of darkness.” Only by sharing the personal can we see each other for who we truly are. Before our trip it felt like there was a vast ocean between two worlds and that those who tried to cross it were turned away or drowned. Going to Medina, we felt like the first to make it to the other shore. 

 

Avi Jorisch is a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council and the author of Thou Shalt Innovate: How Israeli Ingenuity Repairs the World (Gefen Publishing)

And:

Sent to me by a very dear liberal friend and fellow memo reader:

+++

Homelands

Thoughts in and around geopolitics.

By: George Friedman

I am on a train from Budapest to Vienna. Last night, I delivered a speech and did something I never do. I began the speech in Hungarian, my native language. Hungarian is my mother tongue but I didn’t learn it in Hungary. I was 2 years old when we came to America, and Hungarian was the only language my parents and sister spoke. Until I entered school I spoke only Hungarian, and indeed I spoke only to my family. When I was about 5 we bought a television, and that television showed me that there was a world beyond our kitchen table. Included in that was the greatest mystery in the world to me – that others spoke a gibberish incomprehensible to me.

As I grew older, I learned English with the speed and agility of children. I faced an existential problem that ought not face 7-year-olds, but one that faces each wave of immigrants that has defined America. My parents loved America. It had no communists or Nazis (or none in our neighborhood); it gave my father a job as a printer, his native skill; and we had a bit more money than we spent. For them, it was a haven in a heartless world and they loved it. But they weren’t Americans. It was not the place their family had perished in, and it was not the place where their wit and luck had saved them. It lacked the familiar terrors of that place.

My parents did not share their past with me, but I sensed that the kitchen table was not of my time or place. We lived not far from Yankee Stadium, where a bleacher seat cost 75 cents and where Bobby Richardson and Yogi Berra sometimes tossed a ball around with their 10-year-old fans. I learned how to fight (and lose) in the schoolyard. I learned the proper matters of both. I grew away from my parents, their language and nightmares, and entered a world of the certainty of childhood – that we could imagine the future fearlessly. My parents couldn’t do that, and just as my native language became disengaged from my life, so did my parents’ life. I spoke fluent Hungarian, but it was not my language. Almost as an act of will, English became my language, and America was my homeland.

Homeland is a reality. It is the place where you are at home. The place where you earn a living. The place where you are taught the protocols of love. It is the place where you engage in the arguments that rage and you know which side you are on. A homeland is a place where you do not wonder what is going on. It is a place where you choose to live your future, even if you despise your neighbor. I went back to Hungary many times since the 1970s. I like it very much, and I could have chosen to sink into it. Hungarian women are lovely, and for a boy in his early 20s, that is the overriding consideration. But I could not resume being Hungarian because I loved America. I loved its size, I loved its bravery and I loved its argumentative rage. Above all, I loved its obsession with power – economic, military and the rest. I loved that it would allow me to try to enter that world, and I loved that I would have to measure up. I loved that there were so many Americas – the Bronx, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Texas. All different, all bickering within and without.

The essence of a nation is love of one’s own. I don’t mean by that the saccharine pronouncements. For me, love of one’s own is the unwillingness to take leave of a nation. The world is filled with migrants, and while leaving what you can’t stand can be difficult, it can be done. The measure of love is the unwillingness to leave, even in the face of all the forces that might repel us. That and language bind us. I lived in America when I couldn’t make myself understood. My father could never quite make himself understood. He would never leave because he knew the alternatives. This is a central geopolitical point. Whatever the internal raging, the measure of a national bond is, for whatever explanation, staying. It is like a not-too-bad marriage. The love is buried under anger, but it is still powerful enough to bind the couple together.

I did not really decide to open my speech at a Hungarian music hall in Hungarian. It happened. The speech came after I met for lunch with the Hungarian prime minister and the next day with the president. I had been immersed in Hungarian foreign policy for days, and normally that happens in countries I have no connection to. This time I stood at the podium, and I was for the moment at home. I felt the need to begin in the language of the kitchen table and to speak of past and family and my connection to Hungary. I did not continue in Hungarian, but the language came clearly to me.

I left Hungary the next day and do not long for it. It is not my homeland, and it never truly was. But the reality is that life is complex and the mind lives its own life, not subject to illusion or will.

Love of one’s country is the foundation of national power. A nation unloved cannot long endure. There is no question where my homeland is. But homelands are tricky things. And this is at the heart of geopolitics. Europe and Asia are filled with national fragments embedded in national fragments. What you love is what you are loyal to, and how much you love it might determine the future of your country. And right now in Hungary’s neighborhood, those things are being tested. Even by my country.

A referral is the best compliment.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

Here’s What The Jan. 6 Show Trials Are Really After

BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND

The committee wants those who stood by Donald Trump to face shame, disbarment, personal and professional harm, and potentially prison.

The Jan. 6 Committee’s Stalinist show trial serves many purposes, but truth is not one of them. On Wednesday, the House committee holding hearings on the violence that broke out at the capitol on Jan. 6, 2020, issued a subpoena to former White House counsel Pat Cipollone. Cipollone, who had voluntarily participated in a closed-door interview in April, “decline[d] to cooperate” further with the committee, according to the letter subpoenaing him to testify before the committee on July 6.

It is unclear whether Cipollone will comply with the subpoena, but from the committee’s perspective, it doesn’t matter. The Democrat-stacked committee seeks to score political points, not secure the truth, and subpoenaing Trump’s former White House counsel serves that objective: If Cipollone refuses to testify, his assertion of executive privilege provides the committee a fresh opportunity to condemn Donald Trump while the committee provides the public its own version of the events the former White House counsel supposedly observed.

Scoring partisan points is not the only goal of the Jan. 6 Committee. Rather, the carefully massaged hearings seek, at minimum, three broader political objectives.

Propagandize Americans About Election Integrity

One subtle, but overarching objective of the Jan. 6 Committee is to convince Americans that the 2020 election was the most secure in American history. The hearings seek to achieve this by limiting their focus to select and disproven claims of election fraud, such as claims “that enemies of the former president hacked Dominion voting machines, flooded battleground states with counterfeit ballots, and engaged in other Machiavellian machinations to steal the 2020 election.”

The committee completely ignores, however, “the verifiable evidence of systemic violations of election law, illegal voting, and the constitutionally deficient execution of the November 2020 election.” Even more deceptively, throughout the hearings, the committee uses the word “fraud” to describe every complaint or challenge to the outcome of the 2020 general election, including Trump’s legal challenges premised solely on violations of the state election code.

The committee’s most blatant bait-and-switch in this regard came when the hearing framed a letter drafted by former Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark as discussing bogus election fraud claims. According to the committee, Clark wanted the Department of Justice to dispatch that letter to the Georgia legislature, even though he had no “evidence of widespread election fraud.”

But the proposed letter, which Clark’s bosses rejected, did not make any claims of election fraud. In fact, in one paragraph, Clark expressly referenced a pending lawsuit in Fulton County that focused on violations of the Georgia election code. It noted that as of late December, the trial court in that case had not even scheduled a hearing on the alleged election law violations. Yet the Jan, 6 Committee presented Clark as seeking to push debunked fraud claims to the Georgia legislature.

The committee’s use of testimony by former Attorney General William Barr likewise served to frame every objection to the 2020 election as related to fraud. Barr’s testimony that he “had not seen any widespread election fraud that would question the outcome of the election,” and that “the stuff” Trump’s people “were shoveling out to the public was bullsh-t,” provided the perfect fodder for the committee’s disinformation campaign.

After all, if Trump’s own attorney general found the claims of fraud “bullsh-t,” surely there was no legitimate basis to challenge the 2020 election or to doubt its outcome. That is precisely what the Jan 6. Committee wants Americans to think, but claims of election fraud “represented but a portion of Trump’s challenges to the November 2020 results,” and that the claims of election fraud Barr’s team investigated were “bullsh-t” “says nothing about whether there were systemic violations of election law and illegal voting.”

The lack of election fraud also leaves unanswered the many other ways the 2020 election was rigged, from the corrupt media’s burying of the evidence of the Biden family’s pay-to-play scandal discovered on Hunter’s laptop, to the flooding of Democrat-heavy voting precincts with millions of get-out-the-vote ZuckBucks.

Silencing Complaints About Election Irregularities

A related goal of the Jan. 6 Committee is to silence conservative complaints about election irregularities. The committee’s strategy to achieve this objective focuses first on convincing the country that the violence that day was caused by false claims of fraud and, therefore, those who alleged fraud bore responsibility for the attack on the capitol. As the committee had already framed all attempts to legally challenge the election as pushing disproven accusations of fraud and cast the riot at the capitol as an insurrection, under the committee’s logic, any American criticizing the 2020 election is complicit in the supposed attack on our democracy.

Even before the House formed the sham Jan. 6 Committee, Americans who merely attended the rally found themselves fired from their jobs. Since then, the committee and the corrupt media have teamed to create a guilt-by-association mentality throughout the country, with both politicians and the John and Jane Q. Public protest attendees cast as co-conspirators in a violent insurrection.

But the committee seeks to spread the blame for the supposed insurrection far beyond the speakers and protestors, presenting state representatives and officials investigating election irregularities, attorneys advising Trump, and lawyers litigating election violations as equally culpable for fomenting an insurrection. Now, with the committee apparently angling to concoct some sort of criminal conspiracy, the message to conservatives is clear: stay silent or risk your livelihood and your liberty.

The zone of silence the committee and the complicit media push for is all-encompassing, from ordinary Americans to a U.S. Supreme Court justice. The show trial seeks to shame conservative voters from speaking out about election irregularities witnessed at the polls, commenting on social media about questionable election results, peacefully protesting, or even voting for candidates who challenge election results.

In short, the committee has made clear that “anyone who complains about the disastrous American electoral system on display during the last presidential election [will be branded] a conspiracy theorist seeking the violent overthrow of the government.” That promise provides a pretty good incentive for citizens to stay silent.

Relatedly, the committee hopes to keep conservative candidates from challenging elections, either their own or those of other Republicans, and to scare attorneys away from such clients. The targeting of Justice Clarence Thomas serves as a warning to other judges and justices not to take conservative complaints seriously, or else a family member may find herself under investigation.

Also targets of the Jan. 6 Committee’s campaign of shame are state legislatures, which are charged with establishing rules and regulations for elections. By framing all complaints about the November 2020 election as concerning non-existent voter fraud, the committee seeks to paint the state legislative bodies’ election integrity measures as racist. After all, since there was no fraud, as the committee’s theme goes, the state lawmakers must be seeking to disenfranchise minority voters.

Make no mistake about it: the shame and silencing will only go one way—to squelch conservatives. That Hillary Clinton could simultaneously brand “Donald Trump, his allies, and supporters” “a clear and present danger to American democracy” and question the legitimacy of Trump’s 2016 victory establishes that Democrats will retain the right to question elections, while a Republican challenge to an election represents treason.

The vitriol leveled at the originalist Supreme Court justices following the leak of the Dobbs opinion, when coupled with the protests outside of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home and the later arrest of a man who plotted to kill him, confirms the double-standard in play. Rhetoric on the right holds responsibility for prompting an armed revolt, but the equally charged condemnation of Supreme Court justices merely represents the expression of strongly held views, even when a member of the public responds by plotting the assassination of one of the justices.

While such hypocrisy proves the Jan. 6 Committee’s true concern is not political violence, conservatives without the wherewithal to withstand guilt by association will bow out of the debate over election integrity, leaving Democrats and their friendly media players to bury any legitimate concerns.

Safeguard the Swamp

A third global goal of the Jan. 6 Committee is to protect the establishment by clearly conveying to outsiders that they will be destroyed if they attempt to clean out the swamp and that anyone who assists in those efforts will be likewise ruined.

Early on, Trump learned that the deep state and members of both political parties had him in their sights. Spygate and the first impeachment demonstrated the strength of the establishment and the media’s willingness to assist in efforts to take down the outsider.

But even Trump losing in 2020 was not enough for the D.C. crowd: The establishment needed Trump destroyed, not just to prevent a rematch in 2024 but as a warning to any other Mr. Smith who might want to go to Washington that they are in charge and any attempt to change the power structure will end in disgrace and potentially even prison.

The Jan. 6 show trial drives home that point. Not only is the committee seeking to destroy Trump and his legacy, but it wants the former president indicted and put in prison. But even that is not enough. The committee also wants those who stood by Trump, whether politically or personally, to face shame, disbarment, personal and professional harm, and potentially prison.

The lesson here to the D.C. types is also clear: Don’t cross the establishment and don’t help any outsiders who want to change the way Washington does business, or you too will be destroyed.

The committee’s efforts in this respect hurt conservatives in a secondary way as well, by stoking divisions in the Republican Party. Since Trump first entered the Republican primary in 2015, the party has been divided over his role in the party. Following his election, while some Republicans remained antagonistic to the president, most of the party moved forward, working with Trump to move the country forward on a conservative footing.

The 2020 election fallout reopened the rift in the Republican Party, and now, nearly two years later, the committee hearings, among its other broad goals, serve to feed that infighting. Conservatives seem oblivious to this reality, however, allowing the show trial to stand in the way of a unified party going into the midterm elections.

So, in advance of Cipollone’s testimony, either live or if he asserts executive privilege, Republicans would be wise to remind themselves that Joe Biden and Democrats represent a much bigger threat to the future of our country than either Trump or those Republicans who disagree with his approach to fighting the 2020 election.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Brig. Gen. Ali Nasiri was a senior commander in the IRGC Protection of Information Unit.

By Batya Jerenberg, World Israel News

A top general in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has been secretly arrested as an Israeli spy, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

Brig. Gen. Ali Nasiri, who is reportedly a senior commander in the IRGC Protection of Information Unit, was detained earlier this month, according to officials in Tehran who requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak on the record, said the paper.

The New York Times tied his arrest to the detainment some two months ago of what it said were “dozens” of members of Tehran’s missile development program on charges of leaking classified information to Israel, including design blueprints.

Nine days ago, Iran’s state news agency IRNA reported that three people were arrested in April for allegedly “disseminating classified intelligence and documents” were going to be charged with planning the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists on behalf of Israeli intelligence.

According to the Israeli news site Walla, the district attorney said that there was “ample evidence” against the prisoners, and that “some” of them have already “admitted that they had been in contact with Mossad officers.”

Their trial would begin “soon,” said the IRNA report.

Iran also claimed to have busted at another spy network last October, whose members were trying to gather “sensitive information” for “regional actors,” a coded term that includes Israel.

The failure to prevent such Israeli infiltration, as well as the inability to protect Iranian nuclear installations from mysterious explosions, and top Iranian scientists and IRGC personnel from being assassinated, all allegedly at Israel’s hands, led to the abrupt removal last Thursday of the powerful organization’s long-time intelligence chief, Hossein Taeb.

The final straw for the mullahs, an unnamed Israeli official told the American paper, was the success Jerusalem and Ankara had in foiling a serious Iranian attempt to kidnap or kill Israeli tourists in Turkey over recent weeks.

Eight alleged plotters were detained according to Turkish media, at least five of whom were Iranian nationals.

“The security breaches inside Iran and the vast scope of operations by Israel have really undermined our most powerful intelligence organization,” a former Iranian vice president who is counted among the more reform-minded Iranian politicians, told The New York Times from Tehran.

“The strength of our security has always been the bedrock of the Islamic Republic and it has been damaged in the past year,” added Mohammad Ali Abtahi, who said that the move could be part of a general rethinking of how to deal with the threat Israel poses to the Islamic Republic.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

As government expands the more likely it is to fail at what it commits.  The more it fails at what it commits the more citizens lose faith in that government.  Whether intended or not, this is one of the great problems with progressives and liberals. They are seldom content with what works but generally fall short of being better. 

To make matters worse, they are convinced everything they propose will make  things better. Empirically, there is no basis for this view.

As for conservatives, they too own part of the problem progressives and liberals create. They are too timid and go along to get along because they place being elected and re-elected above what is best for the nation.

At some point citizens become fed up and say a plague on both.

 I believe this helps explain the attached.

+++

A quarter of Americans open to taking up arms against government, poll says

Survey of 1,000 registered US voters also reveals that most Americans agree government is ‘corrupt and rigged’

By Victoria Bekiempis

More than one quarter of US residents feel so estranged from their government that they feel it might “soon be necessary to take up arms” against it, a poll released on Thursday claimed.

This survey of 1,000 registered US voters, published by the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics (IOP), also revealed that most Americans agree the government is “corrupt and rigged against everyday people like me”.

The data suggests that extreme polarization in US politics – and its impact on Americans’ relationships with each other – remain strong. These statistics come as a congressional committee is holding public hearings on the January 6 insurrection.

This deadly attack on the US Capitol stemmed from the false, partisan, pro-Donald Trump belief that Joe Biden did not win the 2020 election. Rioters attempted to thwart certification of the election, in an effort to keep Trump in office.

Although the violent insurrectionists targeted Republicans and Democrats alike, GOP Trump loyalists have insisted that the committee is illegitimate. These attacks on the committee intensified after Trump staffers themselves – including former attorney general Bill Barr – publicly described his efforts to push “the big lie” that the presidential election was stolen.

The survey indicates that distrust in government varies among party lines. While 56% of participants said they “generally trust elections to be conducted fairly and counted accurately”, Republicans, Democrats and independents were dramatically split on this point. Nearly 80% of Democrats voiced overall trust in elections, but that number dipped to 51% among independents and a mere 33% of Republicans.

Per the poll, 49% of Americans concurred that they “more and more feel like a stranger in my own country”. Again, this number reflected sharp political divisions: the sentiment was held by 69% of self-described “strong Republicans”, 65% of self-described “very conservative” persons, and 38% of “strong Democrats”.

Of the 28% of voters who felt it might soon be necessary “to take up arms against the government”, 37% had guns in their homes, according to the data.

One-third of Republicans – including 45% of “strong Republicans – hold this belief about taking up arms. 35% of independent voters, and 20% of Democrats, also agreed, the poll said.

Meanwhile, those polled voiced negative sentiments about persons from opposing political parties. Seventy-three per cent of self-described Republican voters agreed that “Democrats are generally bullies who want to impose their political beliefs on those who disagree,” and “an almost identical percentage of Democrats (74%) express that view of Republicans”.

“While we’ve documented for years the partisan polarization in the country, these poll results are perhaps the starkest evidence of the deep divisions in partisan attitudes rippling through the country,” said the Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducted the survey in May with and Democratic pollster Joel Benenson.

The survey also stated that almost half of respondents expressed averting political talk with other people “because I don’t know where they stand”. One-quarter described losing friends, and a similar proportion claimed to have avoided relatives and friends, due to politics, per the survey.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Biden never learned about the "buck."

+++

Biden Has Public Meltdown Over Putin And Gas Prices

(RoyalPatriot.com )- Last Wednesday, a scolding, insufferable President Biden stood on his faux White House stage set and lectured the country about the high cost of gas while blaming it on Putin, the Oil Industry, and even mom & pop gas station owners.

The only time Biden mentioned taking any blame himself was when he lectured Republican lawmakers for blaming him.

The excuse-making Chief Executive pretty much accused anyone blaming him for the high cost of gas of being a Putin stooge.

Biden claimed that high gas prices were the result of Putin’s war in Ukraine and lectured Republicans asking if they were “saying we were wrong to support Ukraine and stand up to Putin.”

No matter how much his “Putin’s Price Hike” talking point fails to resonate among voters, Biden just can’t stop himself.

He then asked Republicans if they would rather have lower gas prices here “and Putin’s iron fist in Europe?”

The lengths this man will go to avoid taking any responsibility for his actions.

Like everyone else in this administration, Joe Biden pretends that gas prices weren’t already skyrocketing long before Russia invaded Ukraine.

But try as he might, Americans aren’t buying his excuses anymore.

A Rasmussen survey last week found that only 11 percent of respondents blame Vladimir Putin for higher gas prices while the majority, 52 percent, blame Joe Biden’s energy policies.

It wouldn’t matter if 100 percent of Americans thought “Putin’s Price Hike” was utter garbage. Joe Biden would still parrot the talking point.

This is the man who, in 2020, vowed that, unlike Donald Trump, he would always “take responsibility instead of blaming others.”

Well, he lied. And that’s probably Putin’s fault too.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

                     It takes some kind of idiot to be this stupid.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What Is The Point Of Universities?by Ayaan Hirsi Ali via UnHerd What is the point of university? It used to be, when Harvard was founded in 1636, “to advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity”. But in recent years the university has taken on an altogether narrower character. Learning is no longer enough. ++++++++++++++++++++++