In The 1990s, The Third-Richest Person On The Planet (Behind Gates And Buffett) Was… A Swiss Orchestra Conductor???

Let's travel back to June 1995 and take a pop quiz. Who were the three richest people walking the planet in the middle 1995? I expect even the casual CelebrityNetWorth reader would be able to name the top person. With a net worth of $22 billion, the richest person on the planet in 1995 was Microsoft founder Bill Gates. I actually think a lot of people will correctly guess the #2 richest person in 1995. With a net worth of $16 billion, that title went to Warren Buffett.

But who was the third richest person the world in the middle of the 1990s?

Larry Ellison? Nope.

One of the Waltons? Nope.

One of the Koch brothers? Nope.

Some Saudi king or prince? Nope.

Would you believe me if I told you that the third richest person on the planet was a random Swiss orchestra conductor name Paul Sacher?

Chris Wallace: So just to button this up, I’m gonna ask you one more question. Do you believe that the virus came from a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute?

Mike Pompeo: I do!

Wallace sat for almost 5 seconds, silently, after the former secretary of state answered, possibly stunned that he received such a direct, unequivocal answer on such a loaded question. No follow-up question was needed with that response.

Democrats are focused like a laser beam on passing a federal takeover of the voting system. In case you haven’t been taking notes, it’s completely out of bounds to question the veracity of our current election system — unless you want to mandate ballot harvesting, outlaw voter ID, and make mail-in voting universal across the country. Then, it’s totally cool to suggest our current elections aren’t free and fair. //

RNC Research
@RNCResearch
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on H.R. 1: "We cannot rely solely on a wish of winning elections" //

Oh, really? So Democrats can’t rely on simply winning elections fair and square? How very interesting.

In March 2020, Delta pilot Chris Dennis left a note in the aircraft he was parking in a storage lot in Victorville, California, thinking it would be found after a two-week quarantine. But after being discovered 435 days later, the note is now being called a "time capsule." //

Dennis said he parked the aircraft with dozens of other planes and said each represented hundreds of jobs. He described the scene as "Chilling, apocalyptic, surreal" in a Facebook post in March 2020. Airlines were parking passenger planes en masse as travel fell to historic lows.

Dennis wanted to commemorate his emotions in a note for the next pilot to find.

"Hey pilots - It's March 23rd and we just arrived from MSP," Dennis wrote in the note. "Very chilling to see so much of our fleet here in the desert. If you are here to pick it up then the light must be at the end of the tunnel. Amazing how fast it changed. Have a safe flight bringing it out of storage!"

In many ways, Locke is considered the father of political liberalism, the ideas and the institutions we take for granted now in America.

For example, the principle of government by consent of the governed, the separation of powers, the idea of natural universal rights of freedom of conscience, religious liberty, property as being sacrosanct—these ideas, virtually all of them come out of Locke’s thinking.

He was certainly one of the most, if not the most, important English philosopher in the 17th century. He had a profound effect on the American founding, and I’m sure we’ll get into that as well. //

the amazing thing about the Founders, of course, Virginia, is that they really studied the past intently to learn the lessons of history, in a way that no other political generation had done.

So yeah, they studied the classical Greeks, the Romans, the Greek tragedies, Rome as a republic. But then also these philosophers, like Locke, who are making these arguments for self-rule and self-government. And there was no philosopher who was quoted more often than John Locke by the American revolutionaries. So, he had a real significant influence. //

Why was Locke so appealing? I think several reasons.

One is, he had this ability to talk about these large political questions about human rights, natural rights. The idea of self-government. The idea of freedom of conscience. He could talk about it in a grammar that everybody could understand.

He was clearly friendly to the Christian religion. He’s not a radical enlightenment guy, like a Voltaire. He knew the Scriptures thoroughly. He wrote commentaries on the Epistles of Paul. I think he believed in the inspiration, the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.

So he’s operating more or less within this Christian tradition, but he’s using a grammar, a rhetoric, a style of argument that could appeal to people across denominations, across faith traditions. So he had an incredibly persuasive power with his most important writings. //

you ask yourself, “Wow, why do these people still care about John Locke?” Because he still speaks into our contemporary issues about rights, about self-government, about tyranny, freedom. He still speaks to us. So we’ve got all these scholars gathered.

My particular contribution, I’m going to focus on Locke’s “Letter Concerning Toleration,” and that’s his great defense of religious freedom.

I think Locke’s letter on toleration, published in 1689, so a hundred years before the American founding, … I think that document, not only was it transformative in its own day, I think it stands as probably the most important defense of religious freedom ever written. //

I think not enough scholars have given enough attention to the religious influences on Locke’s thinking, particularly on his “Letter Concerning Toleration.” And what I’m going to argue in this paper is, there was an earlier reform movement called Christian humanism.

A Catholic thinker named Erasmus of Rotterdam, who was a contemporary of Martin Luther—so you’re talking 1517, 1520s. Erasmus had put a real emphasis on the inner life, the life of the heart, the life of the soul, as opposed to outward religious observances or dogmas. He said, “You got to imitate life of Jesus.”

This is basically Erasmus and this Christian humanism, and as a bringing together of the intellectual and the heart, the mind and the heart with the Christian humanists. That movement didn’t die with Erasmus.

That movement, it took root in different places in Europe—in Great Britain and also in the Netherlands. And those two places were actually very important to Locke.

He’s an English philosopher. He finds these Christian humanist followers there in Great Britain. He’s reading their sermons, he’s going to their churches, he’s befriending them. And then in the Netherlands, when he’s in political exile, he meets really the successors to Erasmus in the Netherlands with that same spirit, imitate the life of Jesus and apply the principles of the life of Jesus to civic and political life.

So what do I mean by that? Something real concrete. The golden rule, right? Treat others as you want to be treated. What Locke is saying in so many ways, especially on this issue of religious freedom, it’s the civic application of the golden rule: equal justice under the law. Treat everyone the way you want to be treated, regardless of religious belief, religious commitment.

Equal treatment under the law, it’s the political application of the golden rule. That’s one example of how [these] Erasmian Christian humanist ideas, I think, found their way into Locke’s thinking. //

Look, if you take the issue of natural rights, which Locke was a real pioneer in making the case that everybody has these universal natural rights—life, liberty, and property. Those are the big three categories for Locke—life, liberty, property.

And property meant not just your physical property, but the fruit of your labor, the fruit of your creative efforts. That’s your property, too. Your intellectual property is your property, too.

How are we doing in protecting those natural rights? Well, if you think about the 20th century, for example, which has been called by [Aleksandr] Solzhenitsyn, has been called the caveman century, the great assault on human rights, natural rights, the challenge we have now, I think, Virginia, one of them is we don’t even understand what natural rights are. We’ve so confused “human rights.” Everything is a human right. We’ve confused natural rights with social aspirations.

For example, we’d like to have a country where people have access to quality health care. … Is that a human right? Is that a natural right? Or is it a social aspiration? I would argue it’s an aspiration.

And yet the confusion of these things, the things you’d like to see happen in society with your natural God-given rights, that confusion, that blurring of things, that has just invited all kinds of government mischief. The kind of thing that Locke would have been firmly opposed to, it seems to me. //

You say that the recovery of Locke’s singular moral vision is one of the most urgent cultural tasks of our day. What was that vision that Locke had? And how do we go about achieving that? //

The obligation, the responsibility, and the freedom of every person to seek after truth, according to the dictates of conscience, without the interference of church or state, this is one dimension of his singular moral vision.

Locke really believed that this, that the quest for truth, moral truth, spiritual truth, this is the most important quest anyone could be on in their life. And government’s prime responsibility was to create the civic space necessary for people to pursue truth.

So they have to have freedom, civic freedom, religious freedom. All of that is tied up with self-government. If you don’t have a political system that respects the individual’s quest, the individual capacity to govern himself, herself, then you’ve got a society that’s in crisis, and we’re edging in that direction you could argue. //

I think the assumptions that people’s rights and freedoms are negotiable because a government official says they are, if we think about the way we’ve responded to the COVID crisis—I’m not saying that there haven’t been real challenges and real issues, and a real need for concern and measures being taken. But you could easily argue that there has been an overstepping of political power.

The will to power, I think, has resurfaced in a way that I think is shocking to many Americans. The limitations on our liberties that have no rational defense in science, in civics, in our Constitution. And yet here they are still. We’re still living with them. I think Locke would look at that and be appalled at the erosion of human freedom, human liberty.

On June 1, 2020 and afterward, corporate media didn't simply get it wrong, they flagrantly and shamelessly lied to Americans in order to hurt the president //

We were treated to what at first appeared to be rare mea culpa this week as reporters read the Department of the Interior inspector general’s report on the riots and police response in Lafayette Park last summer and appeared shocked to find that the Park Police and Attorney General Bill Barr and even President Donald Trump were telling the truth when they said the crowd was going to be dispersed before police knew the president was thinking of coming down there.

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson is pressuring Capitol Police to answer questions about Jan. 6 and why they weren’t prepared to stop people from entering the building.

There must be something about to break that is going to make Joe Biden and the Democrats look worse than they already do.

the CDC’s “Current Best Estimates” for age groups’ “Infection Fatality Ratio” have been indicated as follows:

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Reporter Who Broke the Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch Tarmac Meeting Found Dead
By Nick Arama | Jun 13, 2021 10:00 AM ET

Christopher Sign. Credit: Fox News.
When I saw “Clintons” trending on Twitter this morning, I knew something was up.

There’s another troubling death that has people talking: 45-year-old ABC 33/40 Alabama anchor Christopher Sign was found dead in his home and police are investigating it as a possible suicide.

You may recall the infamous meeting in the plane on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch in June 2016. That was while Hillary Clinton was running for president and also being investigated by the FBI over her private email server. Shortly after the tarmac meeting, James Comey announced that Hillary Clinton would not be charged, even though it was not his decision to make and even though Lynch never officially recused herself. Clinton and Lynch both claimed that they didn’t discuss the investigation into Hillary Clinton. Both, as lawyers, knew that they shouldn’t have been talking — talk about the screaming appearance of impropriety.

We learned about the meeting because of the great work of Christopher Sign, who broke the story and then later wrote a book about it, “Secret on the Tarmac.”

When pressed on what level of transmission would require agency action, Powell said the agency has broad authority from Congress to prevent the interstate and international transmission of disease, and there’s a need for “enforceable public health measures.” Legally, the agency has the power to try to reduce transmission to zero, even if that may not be practical in the coronavirus’ immediate future, she said.

Percival, for the state of Florida, pounced on that statement.

If that’s true, “it’s unclear what they cannot do,” he said. “They can bar your doors. … That is an astronomical power.” //

“Where does this mask efficacy theory come from?” Merryday said. “We’ve had masking and social distancing for a long time and we had a pandemic in the middle of it.”

Powell responded that neither masks nor social distancing are cure-alls, but that they reduced the number of people who died. //

What’s never mentioned to the judge is what “evidence” is available that the CDC is going by. The reason they can’t provide that is 1) because their own studies show mask mandates are statistically useless (the judge points that out) and 2) because they have no affirmative evidence that masks reduce the spread of COVID-19. If they did, they’d be announcing it from the rooftops. That they aren’t is dispositive on its own. //

John R
3 hours ago
The Greek word from which we get the word "hypocrite" means "actor," "pretender," from the idea that stage actors wore masks. Such an appropriate way to sum up the last year. Wear a mask, pretend you care and are doing good. So easy.

Larry Langford is owner and chief engineer of WGTO(AM/FM) in South Bend, Ind.

Larry Langford: I love the RCA 77-DX but let’s be real, who can afford that sweet but expensive and delicate broadcast icon? Aside from it making you feel like a “real broadcaster,” use of such expensive units like that are more emotionally based than technically necessary for great audio!

The more realistic answer? I like the newer cheaper mics, as the FET capsules do a great job for typical on-air voice, and the prices are very reasonable. I like the performance and pricing of the MXL imports, the MXL 770 goes for 80 bucks and the MXL 990 is about a hundred.

RW: How about for remotes and specialty applications?

Langford: For mics that are going outside, I want something that is a bit more rugged and does not need phantom power. The Electro-Voice 635 has always been my omni favorite in the street, and the Shure SM58 for cardioid. You can’t kill them and they are cost-effective.

RW: Tips to share or misconceptions to address?

Langford: I try to teach folks that no radio station ratings have ever been tied to the mic used in the studio.

Years ago some stations went way overboard on studio mics. NBC-owned stations used 77-DXs for all DJ operations, and I know WIND in Chicago used Neumann U 87s for AM announce work!

While certain mics can be tied to certain time periods as the “standard” — EV 666, Sennheiser 421 and EV RE20 —nowadays there are many inexpensive choices that will do very well in podcasts, broadcasts and general voice recording.

My advice: Put money into the mixer and processing. The MXLs are dirt-cheap, sound fine and if you want to change after a couple of years, you can toss them and not feel you have thrown out a piece of gold.

Consortium argues that it is the best common solution for all radio bands there

The DRM Consortium reported the conclusion of its demonstration and trial of the DRM digital radio standard for proposed use on India’s FM band.

“It was highly successful and generated a lot of interest,” the consortium said in an announcement.

Trials in New Delhi and Jaipur were done for Prasar Bharati (All India Radio). Digital radio advocacy organizations are competing to be chosen for the digitization of the FM band in India; DRM argues that it is the best common solution for all radio bands there, in part because DRM is already used in India on the AM band.

“In Delhi, the [FM] trial demonstrated excellent results when transmitting a single DRM signal, multiple pure digital DRM signals side-by-side from the same transmitter (‘Multi-DRM’ configuration), and also using DRM’s simulcast option by putting on air both an analog FM and a digital DRM signal from a single transmitter,” the organization said.

“The Multi-DRM option proves DRM’s highly economic potential when it comes to frequency and equipment upgrades: A single FM-band transmitter with a bandwidth of 600 kHz can transmit six independent DRM signals (blocks) carrying up to 24 DRM services, e.g. 18 audio and six multimedia services. These can represent up to six independent broadcasters who remain in full control over their individual content and signal configuration.”

A conversation on Twitter this week resurfaced a Wall Street Journal report from April about big investors getting into real estate, overbidding normal people to do so. “If You Sell a House These Days, the Buyer Might Be a Pension Fund,” the title says. “Yield-chasing investors are snapping up single-family homes, competing with ordinary Americans and driving up prices.”

The resulting social media traffic made the article No. 1 on the WSJ website on June 10.

“You now have permanent capital competing with a young couple trying to buy a house,” real estate consultant John Burns told the Wall Street Journal. “That’s going to make U.S. housing permanently more expensive.” His firm estimates “that in many of the nation’s top markets, roughly one in every five houses sold is bought by someone who never moves in.”

This is a direct consequence of the Fed printing so much money and long encouraging debt by keeping interest rates so low for so long that investors are looking for better assets. Our government has long privileged debt over savings in large part because that makes it easier for the government to deficit spend, making debt less costly to Congress. So normal people essentially get punished for saving because Congress won’t stop spending.

Since the government quietly taxes away your savings through inflation, people and institutions who want to put money away for future use, or just grow their assets, are forced into riskier and more distortive behavior. Thus mega-dollar money asset managers and private equity firms are snapping up millions of homes at inflated prices because government profligacy has made it harder for them to secure a yield. //

CulturalHusbandry
@APhilosophae

Jun 8, 2021
Replying to @APhilosophae
So where does this position the average American in 30 years when its a given that every new neighborhood is to be bought up whole so they can be utilized as SFR's? It positions them as peasants. Being poor can be temporary condition bettered by upward mobility.

CulturalHusbandry
@APhilosophae
In the US and other nations home ownership is often the 1st and most vital step. This can provide for generational wealth and success. But as permanent, guaranteed renters youre pissing away a lifetime of equity and the chance for mobility. You just become a peasant. //

Blackrock is well known for its use of its massive financial power to elevate leftist social causes, including, as the tweeter noted, the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” strategy. WEF also predicted in an infamous 2016 video, based on “input” from their Davos crowd, that by 2030 “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”

But when people “own nothing,” they are not happy. Refusing to take ownership is a refusal to take responsibility. In the beginning, that may seem carefree and glamorous, but in the long run, a refusal to take responsibility — whether that be refusing to commit to marriage, children, faith, a community, or to all of the above — actually makes people deeply unhappy.

In responsibility is where people find happiness. Our government should stop making financial decisions that steal from all of us the ability to take responsibility for our own families, homes, and happiness. And, regardless of what our corrupt and feckless governments do, each of us must continue to pursue ownership of our own lives through every avenue possible.

In his 2008 white paper that first proposed bitcoin, the anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto concluded with: “We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust.” He was referring to blockchain, the system behind bitcoin cryptocurrency. The circumvention of trust is a great promise, but it’s just not true. Yes, bitcoin eliminates certain trusted intermediaries that are inherent in other payment systems like credit cards. But you still have to trust bitcoin — and everything about it.

Much has been written about blockchains and how they displace, reshape, or eliminate trust. But when you analyze both blockchain and trust, you quickly realize that there is much more hype than value. Blockchain solutions are often much worse than what they replace.

First, a caveat. By blockchain, I mean something very specific: the data structures and protocols that make up a public blockchain. These have three essential elements. The first is a distributed (as in multiple copies) but centralized (as in there’s only one) ledger, which is a way of recording what happened and in what order. This ledger is public, meaning that anyone can read it, and immutable, meaning that no one can change what happened in the past.

The second element is the consensus algorithm, which is a way to ensure all the copies of the ledger are the same. This is generally called mining; a critical part of the system is that anyone can participate. It is also distributed, meaning that you don’t have to trust any particular node in the consensus network. It can also be extremely expensive, both in data storage and in the energy required to maintain it. Bitcoin has the most expensive consensus algorithm the world has ever seen, by far.

Finally, the third element is the currency. This is some sort of digital token that has value and is publicly traded. Currency is a necessary element of a blockchain to align the incentives of everyone involved. Transactions involving these tokens are stored on the ledger.

Private blockchains are completely uninteresting. (By this, I mean systems that use the blockchain data structure but don’t have the above three elements.) In general, they have some external limitation on who can interact with the blockchain and its features. These are not anything new; they’re distributed append-only data structures with a list of individuals authorized to add to it. Consensus protocols have been studied in distributed systems for more than 60 years. Append-only data structures have been similarly well covered. They’re blockchains in name only, and — as far as I can tell — the only reason to operate one is to ride on the blockchain hype.

All three elements of a public blockchain fit together as a single network that offers new security properties. The question is: Is it actually good for anything? It’s all a matter of trust. //

In 2012, I wrote a book about trust and security, Liars and Outliers. In it, I listed four very general systems our species uses to incentivize trustworthy behavior. The first two are morals and reputation. The problem is that they scale only to a certain population size. Primitive systems were good enough for small communities, but larger communities required delegation, and more formalism.

The third is institutions. Institutions have rules and laws that induce people to behave according to the group norm, imposing sanctions on those who do not. In a sense, laws formalize reputation. Finally, the fourth is security systems. These are the wide varieties of security technologies we employ: door locks and tall fences, alarm systems and guards, forensics and audit systems, and so on.

These four elements work together to enable trust. Take banking, for example. Financial institutions, merchants, and individuals are all concerned with their reputations, which prevents theft and fraud. The laws and regulations surrounding every aspect of banking keep everyone in line, including backstops that limit risks in the case of fraud. And there are lots of security systems in place, from anti-counterfeiting technologies to internet-security technologies. //

What blockchain does is shift some of the trust in people and institutions to trust in technology. You need to trust the cryptography, the protocols, the software, the computers and the network. And you need to trust them absolutely, because they’re often single points of failure.

When that trust turns out to be misplaced, there is no recourse. If your bitcoin exchange gets hacked, you lose all of your money. If your bitcoin wallet gets hacked, you lose all of your money. If you forget your login credentials, you lose all of your money. If there’s a bug in the code of your smart contract, you lose all of your money. If someone successfully hacks the blockchain security, you lose all of your money. In many ways, trusting technology is harder than trusting people. Would you rather trust a human legal system or the details of some computer code you don’t have the expertise to audit?

Blockchain enthusiasts point to more traditional forms of trust — bank processing fees, for example — as expensive. But blockchain trust is also costly; the cost is just hidden. For bitcoin, that’s the cost of the additional bitcoin mined, the transaction fees, and the enormous environmental waste. //

To the extent that people don’t use bitcoin, it’s because they don’t trust bitcoin. That has nothing to do with the cryptography or the protocols. In fact, a system where you can lose your life savings if you forget your key or download a piece of malware is not particularly trustworthy. No amount of explaining how SHA-256 works to prevent double-spending will fix that. //

Do you need a public blockchain? The answer is almost certainly no. A blockchain probably doesn’t solve the security problems you think it solves. The security problems it solves are probably not the ones you have. (Manipulating audit data is probably not your major security risk.) A false trust in blockchain can itself be a security risk. The inefficiencies, especially in scaling, are probably not worth it. I have looked at many blockchain applications, and all of them could achieve the same security properties without using a blockchain­ — of course, then they wouldn’t have the cool name. //

Honestly, cryptocurrencies are useless. They’re only used by speculators looking for quick riches, people who don’t like government-backed currencies, and criminals who want a black-market way to exchange money.

To answer the question of whether the blockchain is needed, ask yourself: Does the blockchain change the system of trust in any meaningful way, or just shift it around? Does it just try to replace trust with verification? Does it strengthen existing trust relationships, or try to go against them? How can trust be abused in the new system, and is this better or worse than the potential abuses in the old system? And lastly: What would your system look like if you didn’t use blockchain at all?

By Irina Slav - Jun 11, 2021, 11:00 AM CDT
China will stop subsidizing new solar farm projects, distributed solar projects for commercial users, and onshore wind farms as soon as this year, Reuters reported, citing the central planning authority of the country.

The change will enter into effect on August 1 and is a departure from the course set late last year. The country’s finance ministry had previously committed to granting 57 percent more subsidies to solar power projects this year, although it did slash subsidies for wind power.

After you have installed the RouterOS software, or turned on the Router for the first time, there are various ways how to connect to it:

Accessing Command Line Interface (CLI) via Telnet, SSH, serial cable or even keyboard and monitor if your router has a VGA card.
Accessing Web based GUI (WebFig)
Using the WinBox configuration utility (Windows app, compatible with Wine)
Every router is factory pre-configured with the IP address 192.168.88.1/24 on the ether1 port. The default username is admin with no password. After you log in for the first time, please create a new user with a password in the "full" group, re-login and delete the default admin user. We highly recommend you to follow the general guidelines of the article Securing your router to protect the device from any unauthorised access.

“Just coming off of May 31st, marking the 100 years of the Tulsa riots, it is sad that we are even contemplating something like critical race theory, where children will be separated by their skin color and deemed permanently oppressors or oppressed in 2021,” she said.

King then immediately checked one of the aspects of the left’s arguments that they haven’t yet considered.

“That is not teaching the truth unless you believe that whites are better than blacks,” she added. //

“I don’t know about you, but telling my child or any child that they are in a permanent oppressed status in America because they are black is racist, and saying that white people are automatically above me, my children or any child is racist as well,” she said.

King said that we can’t allow this kind of thinking in our country after we’ve spent so long fighting and dying for the exact opposite of what CRT is trying to accomplish.

“Our ancestors, white, black, and others hung, bled, and died right alongside each other to push America towards that more perfect union,” said King. “If this continues, we will look back and be responsible for the dismantling of the greatest country in the world by reverting to teaching hate and that race is a determining factor on where your destiny lies.”

AOC and her ilk thought they could accomplish their legislative goals while they appeared to be ascendant within the party — “get on board or get left behind”. But the progressives/socialists never had the votes even when the media touted every move they made. Yes, the Democrat caucus is more liberal, but it is not monolithic. It’s easy to vote “Yes” in the House or Senate when you know the legislation is DOA because Joe Manchin said so.

Joe Manchin is the Senate’s exterminator, and he allows a lot of Democrat friends to make “Show Votes” to keep the socialist hounds at bay back at home.

But AOC has seen enough. She knows he’s not the only problem.

We’ll know if she more than “just talk” when it comes time for her to decide whether to try and slay the King himself — a primary challenge to Chuck Schumer.

“My [county] judges are asking for one thing in particular,” Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) told Newsmax. “I sit in front of them and I go, ‘If I can do one thing for you, what would that be?’ And this is the ask I’m getting. They go, ‘Tony, we need more body bags.’ And I’m going, ‘Body bags? Why do you need body bags?’ They go, ‘Migrants are dying at record numbers, and we don’t have body bags to handle the situation.’ //

Further, even if migrants are lucky enough to make it across the U.S. border, the chances are high that they’ve been raped and/or abused along the way. Men, women, and children are being used as drug mules, and in some cases, murdered. In short, while exposure, including dehydration and starvation, is taking lots of lives, that’s hardly the only threat faced. And on the topic of exposure, deaths as a result of that will skyrocket as the summer heat sets in.

All of this was preventable. The “remain in Mexico” policy and other safe-third-country agreements the Trump administration negotiated had stemmed the flow. We’ve seen an explosion since Joe Biden took office, and it’s solely his fault. That’s become so obvious that even the President of Guatemala is placing blame where it belongs.

Do you know what you call causing a tragedy that was otherwise completely preventable by elected officials? You call it immoral. Joe Biden may be absolved of the great sin of mean tweets, but the immorality of his presidency far surpasses anything the left ever accused Donald Trump of.