Silence Dogood Wire

In this country, we are at an ideological turning point. Many people have begun to substitute the term democracy for liberty. These two terms are often conflated because democracy is a natural component of liberty. You cannot have liberty without some form of democracy. That is why democrats have sought to “democratize” the Supreme Court of the United States.

However, democracy alone is not enough to preserve our liberty. The French learned this in their revolution of 1789. The revolutionaries decided to create a National Convention, which gave suffrage to all males and was democratically elected. Unlike our Founding Fathers, they believed that their freedoms were secure, because the government was in the hands of the people. 

 Unfortunately, following the insecurities at home and abroad, the National Convention voted to create the Committee for Public Safety to govern France. Because there was no separation of powers, this group took complete control of the country and executed 17,000 of its political enemies. Pure democracy actually led to the downfall of the people because they voted to put themselves and their opponents in shackles. There was no Constitution or courts to stop them from trammelling on the rights of the people.

A similar phenomenon is happening today in Portland, Oregon. Democracy is certainly working there. The people have their say. So much so that the majority can run around burning the property of citizens and even assaulting them and elected officials will do absolutely nothing.

In fact, right now a woman named Sarah Iannarone is leading Ted Wheeler by 11 points in the Portland mayoral race. She was photographed wearing a skirt with images of the communist revolutionaries Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Che Guevara. If elected, she would actively encourage the violence to continue. Is it justified because she was democratically elected? I don’t think so.

A republic requires more safeguards to liberty than mere democracy. People can be fooled by tyrants and freedom is always one generation away from extinction. The founders recognized this and  realized that for the rights of all men to be protected, there must be limitations on the powers of government, even if that same government is elected by the people.

From their incisive vision for America, we have inherited one of the greatest bastions of freedom ever created; The Supreme Court of the United States. This institution was founded to prevent the gross excesses of government from infringing on the rights of the people. It is this court that prevents religion and speech from being controlled by the government.

Despite this fact, Democrats have threatened to pack the court if Amy Coney Barrett is elected to the Supreme Court. Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, and AOC have all said that the idea of court packing should be “explored.” Unfortunately, they don’t realize that the Supreme Court is not an outdated tradition. It is necessary for the preservation of a free and open society.

The fact that Mr. Biden has failed to disavow “court packing” is probably the most disturbing position that has been taken by a candidate in this election. As has been shown by history and our experiences with the failing city of Portland, democracy is not a sufficient safeguard for liberty. The Justices of the Supreme Court are not supposed to be beholden to the majority of the people. They are beholden to the God-given rights of every individual which are outlined in the Constitution.

Derrick Bell, founder of critical race theory

Photo Attribution: I, DavidShankbone / CC BY-SA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)

In recent months, an ideology called critical race theory has gained a lot of attention from politicians and members of the media. Some believe that it is important for making a difference in racial disparity, while others want to see it banned in schools and elsewhere.

However, the elements of this doctrine remain largely unknown to most Americans and has been misconstrued by many people who think that it is merely a recipe for improving tolerance in our society.

In this article, I will attempt to rectify this fallacy, by showing the destructive powers of this ideology. Critical race theory is an inherent justification of the destruction we are seeing in the streets and it is an intellectual framework for those who want to destroy America. Here I will outline 5 of the most damaging aspects of critical Race theory

1. No facts!! Only narrative.

Have you ever wondered why those who claim that the police are systemically racist almost never provide any evidence or statistics to support their position? Oftentimes they merely point out a few pieces of anecdotal evidence. Despite the fact that statistics don’t support their argument, they continue to cling to their position.

You have critical race theory to thank for this lack of logic. Followers of this legal movement believe in storytelling and narrative analysis. Instead of presenting the facts of a case, they use demagoguery to influence people’s decisions with stories. 

Take one example from a critical race theory scholar named Patricia Williams. She wrote a book called The Rooster’s Egg in 1995 to illustrate racism through stories. In one of these stories she wrote about how she was at a store and noticed that a doll resembling an African-American had a reduced price whereas the white dolls were full priced. She then tried to use this story to illustrate the “devalued condition” of blacks in society.

Stories like this show how critical legal studies convolutes our discussion of racial issues by introducing obscure anecdotal evidence that is unreflective of American society. People who have been influenced by this movement use stories like the Jacob Blake or Rayshard Brooks killing to illustrate systemic racism, while failing to back up any of their claims with statistics.

2. Who needs rights?

Probably one of the worst elements of critical race theory is its disregard for rights that preexist government i.e. life, liberty, and property. Critical race theorists would love to trample all over these for their communitarian ends. 

In Critical Race Theory, An Introduction, Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado write that radical CRT scholars believe that, “moral and legal rights are apt to do the rights holder much less good than they think…Think how that system applauds equality of opportunity but resists programs that assure equality of results.”

To many critical race scholars, individual rights don’t matter. Their form of rights is the government guaranteeing that you receive something material. They are willing to throw away freedom in order to establish a tyrannical form of egalitarianism.

3. No more standards

Another critical race theory fallacy is a hatred of standards which yield unequal results. Critical race theorists believe that tests such as the SAT or the LSAT should be thrown out in favor of something more equitable. In essence, they want to destroy any standards which yield unequal results

The lack of awareness of those who advocate for this is shocking. Destroying academic standards in no way helps minority communities. 

A more helpful approach would be helping students to meet these standards by allowing them to have school choice and creating economic incentives for companies to move to impoverished areas. This would allow minority students to achieve the standards set by these tests. However, critical race scholars think that the problem will be solved just by destroying the standards.

4. Radical measures are necessary

Critical race theory is also one of the biggest contributors to radicalism in America. One might ask why the people who are rioting in the streets don’t run for elected office and attempt to participate in our democracy? 

One of the reasons is because people who are a part of the critical race theory movement don’t believe in bargaining. This is because they think that in order for society to be truly anti-racist, everything must be changed all at once, or no real progress will be made.

In Critical Race Theory, An Introduction, Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado also write that, “The predicament of social reform, as one writer pointed out, is that ‘everything must change all at once.’ Otherwise, change is swallowed up by the remaining elements, so that we remain roughly as we were before. Culture replicates itself forever and ineluctably.”

In this way, critical race theory is an absolutist doctrine. They believe that there is only one way to help minorities and that nothing can be remedied unless everything is changed all at once. And there is only one way to do that; revolution and the destruction of America.

5. Conclusion: America must go

The conclusion of the critical race theory doctrine is depressing and destructive. A realization of their goals would lead to a tyrannical society in which no one had any negative rights. Government would be unrestricted and omnipotent, with the ability to control everyone’s lives.

If everything needs to be changed all at once to realize this dream of the critical race theorists, then there is only one path; revolution and the destruction of America. President Trump was right to ban this horrible ideology from being taught in the government.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

The upcoming election is perhaps the most important in recent history in relation to foreign policy. It could very well decide whether the United States has the resolve to stand up and maintain its place at the head of world affairs, or it drifts into a state of complacency, with global powers trying to fill the vacuum left by U.S. influence.

The Chinese Communist Party would certainly like to see the latter scenario carried out. They would be quick to fill the void left by America in order to meet their timeline for territorial supremacy, especially in Southeast Asia where they wish to assert their dominance.

As such, in this election it is imperative that our president be willing to stand up to China. Democratic nominee Joe Biden has recognized this fact and attempted to counter President Trump’s claim that he is too soft on China. He has gone from encouraging China to be a “responsible stakeholder” to calling Chinese leader Xi Jinping “a thug.” 

However, as history has shown, rhetoric is no substitute for policy, and there is reason to believe that Biden would be as hard on China as he says he would be. In reality, his measures would probably be limited in the promotion of human rights and not at all capable of bringing about a geopolitical balance of power in favor of our allies.

As far as promoting human rights goes it is unlikely that Biden would make much ground. It is true that he has called the treatment of Uighurs genocidal and that he, “stands against it in the strongest terms.” However, his policy proposals for remedying this evil are less than effective. He stated that he would bring the case before the U.N. which is absolutely pointless given that both Russia and China have veto powers

Biden’s ability to create a balance of power in our favor is also extremely questionable. He prefers economic competition in alliance with East and Southeast Asian powers over the strengthening of military alliances. This would most likely take the form of a variant of the Trans-Atlantic Partnership Deal which was in effect during the Obama administration. The measure would have little effect in stifling China’s ambitions as it did not hinder the U.S. from having what President Obama called, “the most important bilateral relationship of the 21st century.” Suasion by denial is an extremely important part of the logic of strategy and ignoring the importance of military strength could prove fatal in our ability to combat China’s territorial expansion.

Tonight at #BidenTownHall Joe Biden called Russia an opponent. He was pressed twice asking if China was also an opponent and he refused to call them that even after they lied about COVID and sent it to America. Instead he calls them a "competitor". Biden is a pro-China candidate.

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) September 18, 2020

These weak-willed measures are not just worrisome for American citizens concerned about our global prominence. People in Asia are also conspicuously pro-Trump. Many are rightly concerned that a Biden victory would mean a reversion to cooperative diplomacy with China rather than effective countermeasures to mounting aggression.

An anonymous writer from Japan’s Foreign Ministry stated that, “having a poorly implemented but fundamentally correct strategy (under Trump) is better than having a well-implemented but ambiguous strategy.” 

Another Singaporean official worries that Biden would be too focused on peripheral issues and unable to effectively confront China. “She (Susan Rice, Biden’s suggested candidate for secretary of state or defense) was amongst those who thought the United States should deemphasize competition to get China’s cooperation on climate change, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of international relations.”

Although Biden has started condemning China more fervently, it is unreasonable to believe that he would be willing to completely change the failed policies he supported during his years as Obama’s vice president. His strategy for dealing with China is fundamentally lacking in the heavy-handedness which is necessary to deter the Chinese Communist Party from pursuing its territorial ambitions. His change in speech has not evoked a change in policy, and this should be worrisome to all who are concerned with stopping China from becoming the world’s dominant power.

Your humble servant, 

Silence Dogood

People who perpetrate terrible acts and those who support them often have well thought out excuses. The murderer has his alibi and the abused wife defends her husband’s actions. The same phenomena occurs in the realm of policy making and in the culture. Those who are in power serve as shields for criminals and sometimes sex offenders who perpetrate abhorrent and disgusting acts. 

These excuses can have far reaching and influential consequences which perpetuate society’s gradual slide into the abyss of a society without morals. In the past year we have seen drag queen story hour, a California law reducing the sentences of sexual offenders, and a movie that is so disgusting in its portrayal of children that people are calling for its creators to be arrested. Whether or not you think these events should be legal or not they are undoubtedly odd, perverse, and shouldn’t have any moral supporters. Despite this, large groups of people have been standing up to defend them from what they call “right-wing” attacks.

An event which gained widespread attention in 2019 is called drag queen story hour, where grown men dressed up as drag queens read story books to children and their parents. The description is creepy enough. Why would a grown man want to read books to children he doesn’t know at a library?

As you watch this video of a cross dressing man teaching toddlers how to twerk, remember that there’s nothing sexual about these drag queen story hours. It’s all totally innocent and fun. Only a bigot would object to it.

pic.twitter.com/6dwbSQI8QM

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 2, 2020

Some were there for obviously bad reasons. In fact, one of the drag queens reading to kids at the Houston Public library was a convicted sex offender. Despite the obvious drawback of exposing kids to a concept like “gender fluidity” I’m sure that most of the drag queens weren’t horrible people. But exposing children to men who dress up as hypersexualized caricatures of women seems like borderline exploitation. However, I’ll admit that I didn’t think of this as indicative of any broader trend to take away the innocence of children.

Then California happened. State Senator Scott Wiener introduced a bill that would stop adults from being automatically put on the sex offender if they sodomize or perform oral sex on a minor between 14 and 17 whom they are less than 10 years older than. This bill was passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Gavin Newsom. It is unclear how sex between a 24 year old and a 14 year old or anyone in their twenties and a 14 year old could be consentual, but the bill leaves room for that sort of behavior.

Senator Weiner’s logic behind the bill was that California state law was more lenient for people who performed vaginal sex than those who performed the types more commonly engaged in by LGBTQ+ individuals. If this be the case then he easily could have crafted legislation to make laws harsher for those who engaged in the former type of sex. The fact that he did not is telling. For those who protest about the exception for an 18 year old who has sex with a 17 year old, it is important to note that thiss exception already exists and those cases are often tried as misdemeanors.

However, the thing that truly exposed this movement as a left-wing phenomena which is now gripping the country is the film Cuties. The IMDb parent guide warns viewers that there are “Frequent scenes of 11 yr old girls dancing lewdly where the camera pans in and zooms in on the children’s buttocks and midsections.” It goes on to describe a number of sexual acts performed by the children.

Politicized backlash?

Normalizing child pornography & the sexualization of young children is evil.

And the backlash against @Netflix film "Cuties" isn't political, it’s about common decency and protecting childrenhttps://t.co/hFqUccjH8x

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) September 15, 2020

  It is hard to imagine who in their right mind would support this film or portray it as morally acceptable, yet this is exactly what the left did. They stated that it “dramatizes the difficulties of growing up female” and called it “a Moving Coming-of-age Drama,” because the movie is meant to show sexualization in a bad light. However, it doesn’t seem justifiable to sexually exploit child actors in the name of raising awareness about sexual exploitation. This all happened while conservatives were criticized for their “creepy obsession” with the movie.

Leftists also pointed to the director’s comments for a moral justification of their position. She stated that, “Today, the sexier and the more objectified a woman is, the more value she has in the eyes of social media,” which is a problem for underage girls. However it is completely incompatible for leftists who are praising WAP by Cardi B as a deeply feminist song to also complain about the sexualization of underage girls who are on the internet. The utterly confused nature of their position shows their lack of principles.

Alexander Hamilton stated, “If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.” Leftists have proved that their moral relativism and ends justify the means approach to life prevents them from standing for anything. And they have fallen for supporting activities that are encouraging to pedophiles and allow the exploitation of children.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

An extremely prominent policy proposal which has been embraced by the liberals in the United States is that public universities and colleges should be tuition-free institutions. A Pew Research poll conducted in 2020 found that 83 percent of democrats and left-leaning independents support this proposal. Despite its popularity, the idea of “free” college in the United States is one that is extremely dangerous, because it continues to be embraced by moderates and opens the door for government indoctrination.

One of the reasons why this policy is so prominent in the national discourse is because it is not just embraced by radicals like Bernie Sanders. Presidential nominee Joe Biden, who presents himself as a moderate, adopted a modified version of Sanders’ plan in a bid to gain more progressive voters. His plan would make public colleges and universities tuition free for people earning less than $125,000 per year which is a significant portion of the population. It is also important to note that this is a plan that was proposed by Bernie Sanders in the past. 

His embrace of this radical policy illustrates an important dynamic within the democratic party which you could call the progressive lag effect. It occurs when a progressive leader like Bernie Sanders infuses an idea into the public mind like free college for some people. Although it might have seemed absurd in the past, it gradually gains traction as people come around to his way of thinking. 

Meanwhile, progressives have moved on from wanting free college for some and want free college for everyone. Eventually, the lag will catch up and democratic party leaders will be calling for this proposal while Sander’s followers move on to something more progressive.

However, the main danger with the idea of tuition free college for everyone, or even just people making less than $125,000 per year does not have anything to do with increased taxes or the removal of individual responsibility (although these are also problems). The main danger of “free” college is that it opens up the door to total government run indoctrination. 

In fact, one of the reasons why indoctrination is so prominent on college campuses is because tuition increases allow universities to hire more administrators that serve their leftist purposes. However, they are only able to make these tuition increases because of government subsidies which guarantee loans to students. By making all public colleges “free” the government would be eliminating many cost barriers to universities, which would allow them to hire even more administrators, who often drive on campus neo-marxist events. 

The totalitarian mindset behind the liberal vision shows through in innumerable ways. There are no institutions in America where free speech is more severely restricted than in our politically correct colleges and universities, dominated by liberals.

— Thomas Sowell (@ThomasSowell) September 6, 2020

Subsidizing college even more would actually be subsidizing revolution. The people who are currently rioting and their leaders, are often college educated. They have been steeped in critical race theory nonsense which erodes the foundations of society. When they go to college they don’t hear anything about America being good, all they hear is that it is evil at the core. When you tell someone this, how do you expect them to react? If America is truly like Nazi Germany, then that would make black people like the Jews. The Jews certainly had a right to kill and burn and pillage in the streets of Nazi Germany. So why shouldn’t these college grads do it to America?

If free college were ever made a reality, those who supported it would be contributing to our society’s destruction. College is merely a credential and people measure its value through a cost benefit analysis. If your future earnings aren’t going to be improved enough for you to pay off your degree and have a higher standard of living, then you shouldn’t go to college. However, people like Bernie Sanders know that college has become much more powerful than a credential. It is a center for indoctrination that allows neo-marxists to push forth seemingly just views on unsuspecting students. Subsidizing college is subsidizing revolution.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

BLM rioter throws tear gas at police in Portland

Over the past few months, as cities have been burning, democrats and their supporters have been largely silent on the rioting. Only a few have come out to mildly condemn rioting. On Sunday Joe Biden stated, “I condemn violence of every kind by anyone, whether on the left or the right.” However, he has been living under a rock for the past few months or just wanted to save his poll numbers. 

At the same time as he condemned the violence Biden also called on President Trump to do so as well. This despite the fact that when Trump tried to send federal troops to Portland, Biden’s running mate Kamala Harris supported a bill that would prohibit him from doing so. Therefore, it’s safe to say that the Biden/Harris ticket doesn’t actually care whether or not your cities burn.

However, the people that they are beholden to- radical politicians, their progressive base, and the media- are not merely passive about what is happening, they are actively rooting for, justifying, and covering up the violence.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler is one of those people. His August 28th letter to President Trump shows that he is a liar and a fraud. In the letter he refused help from Trump, saying that the president had failed at his COVID-19 response and that he wanted images of violence for his reelection. 

If it was true that images of unrest were good for Trump’s reelection, then why would he refuse federal help? The federal troops would obviously be employed to stop the violence. Also, if he is worried about COVID-19, then wouldn’t he want to enforce physical distancing which is absent at the riots? The truth is that Ted Wheeler doesn’t care about the violence. If we are to judge his motives by the outcome of his actions we could easily come to the conclusion that he likes it. Despite saying that “Those who commit criminal acts will be apprehended and prosecuted under the law,” officials in his city have dropped the charges of numerous people, some of whom were accused of felonies

In June, Reinoehl, the alleged antifa shooter, was arrested in eastern OR w/stash of drugs & illegal pistol.

In July, he was arrested at a Portland antifa riot w/an illegal gun. He fought police. Those charges were never pursued.

On Sat., he went on to allegedly kill Danielson. pic.twitter.com/h4DsdcnSgL

— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) August 31, 2020

Kamala Harris also likes the riots despite her claim that she disavows violence. On June 1 of this year she posted a link for the Minnesota Freedom Fund on her personal twitter account. The goal of the fund was to post bail for people who were arrested while protesting in Minnesota. 

Despite what she tells us now, she has always been in favor of the destruction, because she believes, like her democratic colleagues, that America is systemically racist. If this is true, why wouldn’t you support rioting? If the system is truly rigged, then you are justified in destroying the system.

If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota. https://t.co/t8LXowKIbw

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) June 1, 2020

The media is also covering up and justifying the violence which is occurring in cities across America. CNN has run multiple chyrons which prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. On “The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer” CNN displayed a chyron which read “8PM Curfew Ordered After Violent Protests Over Police Shooting Of Unarmed Black Man In Wisconsin.” However, fifteen seconds after it appeared, CNN’s employees removed the word “violent” from the screen. There is no way to read this other than that they don’t want people to know what is happening in major cities. They care more about the democratic politicians who run those cities than about the people who are having their livelihoods destroyed.

CNN accidentally displays honest chyron about #ViolentProtests, quickly changes it to remove “violent” about reporting on the Kenosha riots…

Well, at least they didn't call them “peaceful protests” anymore!#FakeNews #CNNisTrash pic.twitter.com/w1j0UTeQix

— D Alex (@D_Alex_connect) August 25, 2020

However, major news organizations have gone even further than merely covering up the violence. “Your most trusted name in news” also justified it. Another CNN chyron read “Fiery but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting.” It was displayed as CNN correspondent Omar Jimenez stood in front of a burning building which had been torched by rioters. CNN and other news organizations blatantly justify the violence that is occurring in cities.

Although democrat leaders have suddenly decided to disavow violence, they are merely showing that they are vicious opportunists who do not care about the American people. Don’t count on Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to stop this violence. Their progressive base and the media support it. And if Harris wasn’t the VP nominee, she would too.

President Trump’s hard-line stance with Iran has not escaped criticism from many people who feel that his diplomatic style is too incendiary and provocative. Many believe that his scrapping of the Iran deal and the recent vote to extend the Iranian arms embargo will force us into an isolated foreign policy which will be damaging to the U.S. However, critics of an aggressive strategy on Iran suffer from a severe case of eurocentrism, forgetting that we have many non-European allies. Far from risking isolation, the hardball U.S. foreign policy against Iran is an important counter-measure to hostile actors who want to see a dangerous and powerful Iran in the Middle East.

Those who criticize U.S. foreing policy as risking isolation against Iran completely ignore our status in areas of the world other than Europe. While it may be true that Western European countries wish to preserve the shoddy Iran nuclear deal, we have many Middle Eastern allies who support us in our fight to stop Iranian aggression. One such ally is Israel who has been a harsh critic of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Back in 2018, in a bid to convince the U.S. to leave the deal, Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu brought forward evidence detailing how Iran lied about its nuclear goals before singing the Iran deal in 2018. Israeli operatives recovered 55,000 pages of evidence in a Tehran warehouse. 

Critics of Netanyahu argued that he was engaging in political showmanship in order to convince the Trump administration to leave the Iran Nuclear Deal. Even if this is true it is important to realize two things 1.) The Iran Nuclear Deal is meant to stop Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon 2.) Israel doesn’t want Iran to get a nuclear weapon because Iran wants to destroy them. If the nuclear deal actually did its professed job of stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear warheads, Israel’s criticism of the deal would be incongruous with its desires. From the beginning Israel recognized the fact that the deal will not stop Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon and they are prepared to stand with use in our fight for international stability.

However, U.S. policy is not merely a bilateral pact with Israel. Other Arab countries are also in strong opposition to Iran because it is a threat to the entire Middle East. The U.A.E.-Israel peace deal offers a prime example of how U.S. policy towards Iran is a recognition of Middle-Eastern interests. The peace deal is as much (if not more) about stifling Iran’s regional ambitions as it is about promoting peace. Recognizing this fact, Iranian officials were quick to criticize the deal as a “huge mistake.”

Even countries who haven’t normalized relations with Israel are highly supportive of U.S. measures to neutralize the Iranian threat. Saudi Arabia voiced its support of the U.S. decision to leave the deal back in 2018. According to their Foreign Ministry, “Iran used economic gains from the lifting of sanctions to continue its activities to destabilize the region, particularly by developing ballistic missiles and supporting terrorist groups in the region.” The powerful gulf states have affirmed their position that they see Iran as a threat to be countered with the help of the U.S.

Those who believe that the U.S. is wrong for voting to extend the Iranian arms embargo without the support of other UN security council members or for leaving the Iran Nuclear deal suffer from the arrogance which causes powerful countries to impose their will on other states. President Trump’s Iran policy is a recognition of what is best for the peace and stability of the Middle East. The great powers of the region in question have spoken and they are allied with the U.S. in its fight to stop Iran from being a dominant power.

Photo Attributions: Tom Page / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)

No single organization in the history of the world has been more over-hyped than the United Nations. Despite extravagant pushes for reform, it is severely limited in its goals. While the U.N. may purport to promote peace building, this does not change the fact that while it was in existence we have had multiple international conflicts including the Vietnam war, Korean War, Iraq War, and the war in Afghanistan. Additionally it did nothing to save the 100 million people who died from communism or prevent the nuclear standoff between the United States and Russia. The U.N. is merely a nice facade which serves the purpose of making power rivals seem more civilized. In reality, the U.N.  is ineffectual, subverts the interests of its greatest members, and gives power to dictators. Despite the organization’s nice title, the nations of the world could not be more disunited and private alliances between countries will always take precedence over the U.N. Its inability to counter Iran and its de facto disregard for human rights make it a neutered and weak organization.

The U.N. has shown its incompetence in regards to checking hostile foreign powers in its conduct towards Iran which has been a designated state sponsor of terrorism since 1984. A 2019  Report conducted by the U.S. Department of State reported that Iran has continued to instigate violence throughout the Middle East by supporting “Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various terrorist groups in Syria, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East.” Additionally, “Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to provide support to terrorist organizations, provide cover for associated covert operations, and create instability in the region.”  Despite this, four days ago the U.N. rejected an extension of an arms embargo which has been in place in the country since 2007. This move would allow weapons to be shipped directly to the Tehran regime by October 18 of this year. Unsurprisingly, the two countries that voted no were Russia and China. However, 11 countries abstained because the Europeans were worried that it would destroy the shoddy Iran nuclear deal. The fact that the U.N. cannot pass resolutions to stop state sponsored terrorism is absurd and points to its ineffectuality.

The U.N. also spouts high-handed rhetoric about the need to preserve human rights. In 1948 the organization passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which outlined basic human rights. However, despite this supposed desire to uplift humanity, the U.N. has virtually no power to actually enforce the recognition of human rights. It can’t even condemn member states who don’t live up to its standards. Take China’s treatment of the Uighur Muslims. If someone were to bring forth a resolution condemning the Chinese Communists Party’s evil behavior, they could automatically veto the resolution. Another country that has veto power on all resolutions is Russia, whose power hungry president has been maneuvering for years to continually stay in power. Last month these two countries vetoed a resolution to extend humanitarian aid for millions of Syrians suffering from violence. Due to the veto power of these two dictatorships, the resolution was defeated despite the fact that every single other country on the security council voted to approve the measure. An organization that relies on Russia and China for support can do little to uphold human rights or bring about a substantial change in geopolitical relations.

The United Nations -as implied in the name- can only work if nations are united. It does not magically heal a divided world or silence the repression of brutal dictators. It is a weak and hamstrung organization that cannot effectually bring about substantial change. Because the U.N. relies on tyrannical regimes to cooperate in its quest for noble goals it can do little more than spout moralistic rhetoric and provide aid to countries that Russia and China deem as non-threatening. This organization is nothing more than a nice facade which covers the bitter power rivalries which plague our world.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Colin@TheTruthAbout / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)

Democrats often posit themselves as the party that will defend and protect workers to their last breath. Each of the democratic presidential candidates this year supported vastly changing employer/employee relations. The democratic nominee Joe Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris support a $15 minimum wage, forcing people who work in unionized places to pay union dues, and raising teacher wages by $13,500. Despite this fiery rhetoric in favor of workers rights, democrats are not the party of the working class. Either democratic politicians are ignorant or they are trying to fool workers into voting for them. They discourage new hiring and their policies cause unemployment. If the democratic party were allowed to achieve all of its goals they would do much more to harm workers than to help them.

The list of jobs which democratic states could have created but discouraged with their policies should be enough to serve as an indictment of the far left policies which the democratic party continues to endorse. This week, in an effort to protect workers, a California superior court ordered  Lyft and Uber to reclassify their drivers as employees. Before, they were classified as independent contractors.  This new classification would force Uber and Lyft to provide full benefits to people completing a part time job to earn extra money on the side. Uber has threatened to leave California altogether if the state remains steadfast on this ruling. 

It is also important to note here that Joe Biden would support measures like this on a national level because he wants to fight the “gig economy” by forcing many companies to reclassify independent contractors as employees. Electing him would be an endorsement of these failed policies. It is hard to understand how democrats could be so completely oblivious as to think that discouraging a company from hiring people and causing it to lay off its employees could be good for workers. My guess is that they didn’t ask the some 100,000 Uber drivers in California, who make their livelihood from the company, whether or not they disagreed with the ruling.

Workers in New York have also suffered from the failed scheming of democrats. The infamous Alexandria Ocasio Cortez caused Amazon to pull their plans to build a campus in Queens, New York. She was not alone, though. State senator Michael Gianaris led the movement. They cost the city the 25,000 jobs that Amazon would have created. AOC then had the audacity to ask “haters to apologize,” after Amazon decided to open offices in a New York neighborhood. Apparently she doesn’t realize that a single office location won’t bring the 25,000 jobs that an entire headquarters would have. To be fair, Governor Cuomo and Mayor De Blasio did support Amazon’s initial move, but it is hard to imagine that this ever would have happened in a state that was run by republicans.

In addition to discouraging individual companies from moving to their cities, democrats’ plans would also cause layoffs throughout the entire country. This is due to the fact that they want a federally mandated $15 minimum wage to be implemented. It is an undisputed fact among economists that minimum wages hurt low income workers by causing layoffs of people who are not considered to be worth $15 an hour. According to a study done by the Congressional Budget Office in 2019, a minimum wage of $15 would  increase wages for some but, “1.3 million other workers would become jobless, according to CBO’s median estimate.” It  is extremely disingenuous that a party who presents itself as pro-worker could call for this radical policy which would cause over one million people to be laid off. The only reason they would do such a thing is either because they are ignorant or they like demagoguery.

Despite imploring workers to vote for them and promising a number of protections, democrats are in no way the party for workers. They are out of touch with reality and call for radical measures which would hurt America’s working population almost beyond repair. Demonizing the companies that provide people with jobs and imposing stringent regulations on them is a surefire way to make it so that workers have very little opportunity to work.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood