Update: CIS has published a backgrounder on this agreement. 

Whatever adjectives can be used to describe our new President, ‘diplomatic’ is not one which springs readily to mind. His phone conversation with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull merely serves to reinforce a reputation for bluntness that was already solidified within the public imagination. In this case, however, I think his impolitic speech is actually beneficial for American citizens. For the refugee resettlement swap cooked up by his predecessor, which involves the exchange of non-Muslim Central American refugees for Muslim boat people currently being detained at the behest of the Australian government, is another disastrous scheme to further erase our borders.

The ordinary refugee resettlement process is almost completely insulated from the democratic process. Seemingly benefiting everyone from United Nations functionaries, to bureaucrats in the federal government, but especially VOLAGs whose survival depends upon a constant stream of clients, refugee resettlement takes no account of the feelings of ordinary American citizens. The people whose lives could be ruined by the decisions made hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away by unelected officials.

The last-minute decision of President Obama to craft a backroom deal with his Australian counterpart, in large part as a means of papering over his own catastrophic failure to enforce this nation’s immigration laws, merely highlights the lack of accountability and fundamentally anti-democratic nature of this entire process. Naturally, open borders fanatics are using this incident to parade their virtue before the benighted American public, condemning the philistinism of the Australian and American governments, as well as the people who insist that their representatives protect the internal security of their nations.

Nevertheless, this is a reminder that who lives in our country is not a matter for international plebiscites or social justice campaigns. Thousands of Muslim foreigners being transferred to the heart of this country as part of a sleazy quid pro quo is not what what Americans voted for in November, and simply because it has the stamp of approval from our outgoing President and Australia’s current Prime Minister-the sixth in less than a decade-doesn’t mean the American public should sit back and accept it. It is the current year, and the powers that be should get used to it.

Those of you who’ve read Todd Gitlin’s fantastic account of ’60s Era political activism are well aware of the New Left’s descent into chaos, infighting, and terrorism during the course of that decade. However, I’m not sure how many of you realize just how much destruction the sectarian left inflicted upon our society during the 1960s and the ensuring decade. That’s why this blog post, which explores another book about this tumultuous chapter in American history, is so fascinating. Although I’m not sure I agree that we are on the same trajectory as the baby boomers, there are some unsettling parallels, including the near universal support among the left for using violence against its perceived opponents, and passive acceptance of the terror visited upon completely uninvolved parties who are allegedly obstructing the militant left’s objectives.

Beyond any legitimate critiques of President Trump-whose administration has yet to take any significant executive action-the fact that the left, ranging from conventional liberal apparatchiks to hardcore Marxists, has become completely unhinged is not a good sign for political comity in the days ahead. While some progressives have taken anti-Trump Democrats to task for their hysteria, and even questioned the utility of identity politics, the vast majority seem obsessed with demonizing their opponents and purging those engaged in heretical thinking. It’s a far cry from large scale urban terrorism, but it would still be wise to keep George Santayana’s admonition in mind over the next 4 years.

Addendum: For some more historical context, here is Ayn Rand on The Return of the Primitive. 

A couple of news items before tonight’s VP debate:

-The Department of Homeland Security has scotched an investigation into the Clinton family’s bagman, Governor Terry McAuliffe, as well as Hillary’s younger brother, ex repo man/current parasite Tony Rodham. Both men were involved in a scheme to fast-track visa applications under the E-5 investor visa program, which is riddled with corruption and fraud. Of course, when the man accused of facilitating these potentially illegal acts is now the Deputy Secretary of DHS, what more can one expect?

-There were no blockbuster revelations of DNC chicanery or HRC contempt for Bernie supporters at the press conference held by Julian Assange earlier today. However, there was a promise of more disclosures to come, including information bearing on the current presidential race and the machinations of Google, a new media monopoly which continues to use AI as means of manipulating what information is available to the public. In case you were wondering which candidate Google is supporting this election cycle, take a peek at what its former CEO is up to these days.

-Finally, in a bit of good news, the Supreme Court has rejected the Obama administration’s request to rehear a case that put a halt to its unconstitutional administrative amnesty. The 4-4 decision merely serves to reinforce how important the upcoming presidential election is, because the  winner will be able to decide how far he or she is able to abuse the office of the presidency. It’s something else to keep in mind as you watch tonight’s debate.

Update: Anne Marie Waters makes a salient point. If you’re going to speak the truth, speak it boldly. The progressive smear machine will consign you to the outer darkness in any case, so it’s just as well you don’t mince words. 

While I can’t say I share Mr. Condell’s faith in the democratic process, there’s not much else in this video with which I disagree. The pestilential influence  progressivism has exerted over the United Kingdom can be felt in nearly ever facet of political and social life. However, the most concrete example is undoubtedly the indulgence of a irredentist, rapacious Islamic ideology-a wholly alien import, despite propaganda to the contrary-which has now resulted in the election of a man who can only be described as an Islamist fellow traveler.

The fact that Europe’s premiere city, and one of the financial capitals of the globe, will now be governed by someone who represents both the worst aspects of contemporary leftist non-thought-including an inveterate denial of the threat posed by Islamic dogma-and lack of Islamic self-reflection is no accident. This is the culmination of decades of Labour policy-that party being the embodiment of enlightened progressive values-which systematically effaced Great Britain as it had been historically understood as a nation. It’s why men like Tommy Robinson and Paul Weston have felt the heavy boot of the state simply for describing the reality around them, while others have had to travel to the United States in order to tell simple, undeniable truths about their unraveling kingdom, and why men like Pat Condell-heretofore lifelong Labour supporters and proud liberals-have felt compelled to speak out against the progressive disease which is ineluctably killing Great Britain.

It’s no surprise that the only political party which actually represents British interests is gaining steam, even as it gathers support from disillusioned former Labour supporters. Whatever you think of the utility or ethics of voting, it can’t be disputed that it’s one means of expressing public discontent, perhaps the only way to channel a growing frustration in nations where public dissent is being irrevocably erased.