Thursday, July 30, 2015

What True Immigration ‘Reform’ Would Look Like

By Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, July 30, 2015

Can we be honest about illegal immigration?

It is a common challenge to almost every advanced Western country that is adjacent to poorer nations.

American employers and ethnic activists have long colluded to weaken border enforcement and render immigration law meaningless. The former wanted greater profits from cheaper labor, the latter wished more political clout for themselves.

Mexico conspired, too. It received billions of easy dollars in remittances from its expatriates in America. Mexico had few qualms about letting millions of its own citizens illegally cross its northern border into the United States — even though the Mexican government would never tolerate millions of Central Americans illegally crossing the border to become permanent residents of Mexico.

For better or worse, illegal immigration is tied to race and ethnicity. No doubt, ignorant racism drives some to oppose illegal immigration. But by the same token, the advocates of open borders, many of them with strong ties to Mexico, would not be so energized about the issue if hundreds of thousands of Europeans or Africans were entering the U.S. illegally each year.

There is too often a surreal disconnect about the perception of the U.S. in the immigration debate.

Millions, we sometimes forget, are fleeing from the authoritarianism, racism, corruption, and class oppression of Mexico. They have voted with their feet to reject that model and to choose a completely different — and often antithetical — economic, social, cultural, and political paradigm in the United States. Somehow that bothersome fact is lost in the habitual criticism of a hospitable and magnanimous America.

Then there is the matter of law. America went to war over the Confederate states’ nullification of federal laws. A century and a half later, do we really want hundreds of sanctuary cities, each declaring irrelevant certain federal laws that they find bothersome?

For every left-wing city that declares immigration statutes inoperative, a right-wing counterpart might do the same with the Endangered Species Act, gun-registration laws, affirmative action, or gay marriage. The result would be chaos and anarchy, not compassion.

Controversy has arisen over the number of undocumented immigrants who have committed felonies or serious misdemeanors, such as the Mexican national — a repeat felon and deportee — recently charged with the fatal shooting of a young woman in San Francisco. But the furor begs the question: Why would any guest violate the rules of his host? And why is the data on such violations so hard to come by and so prone to controversy?

Either the number of undocumented immigrants who commit crimes is so vast that no one knows the extent of the problem, or there are political hurdles in determining that number — or drawing politically incorrect conclusions from it.

We should not minimize criminality. Creating a false identity, using a fraudulent Social Security number, and knowingly filing inaccurate federal forms are serious felonies for most Americans. They are neither minor infractions nor simply the innocuous wages of living in the shadows, but undermine the sinews of a society.

Numbers also count. When millions come to a country illegally, integration breaks down and tribalism takes over. Do we really want permanent Balkanized ethnic lobbies, frozen in amber — another century of a monolithic Asian, white, or Latino vote? Are Americans to fragment even more, as they collectively sigh, “If they vote predictably along ethnic lines, I guess I should, too”?

President Obama talks grandly of “immigration reform.” But he apparently does not mean what most Americans would assume from that faddish catchphrase.

Reform should first include strict enforcement of the border. A new, ethnically blind immigration system would select from among applicants based on skill sets and education, and consider candidates from all over the world — not on the basis of ethnic identity or proximity to the border.

Immediate and lasting deportation would ensue for those who committed crimes or cynically chose to receive public assistance rather than work while here illegally.

Many Americans are in favor of offering a path to legal residence to those undocumented immigrants who have long lived and worked in the U.S. and have crime-free records — after they pay a fine for breaking federal law and then wait patiently in line while the legal process plays out — as long as the border is sealed to prevent future illegal immigration.

If some newly legal residents wished to become full-fledged citizens, then they could pass citizenship and English tests and assimilate into the American body politic.

Somehow I doubt that this fair, reasonable process is what the president really wants.

Why ‘Medicare-for-All’ Is A Terrible Idea

By David Hogberg
Thursday, July 30, 2015

As Wednesday was Medicare’s 50th anniversary, many on the left are celebrating by pushing a single-payer system they dub “Medicare-for-All.” Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich got an early start by publishing a piece the other day in Newsweek (yes, it still exists), claiming that, “Medicare isn’t the problem. It’s the solution.” The answer, he says, “isn’t to shrink Medicare. It’s to grow it—allowing anyone at any age to join.”

The article is a mix of misleading “facts” and incoherency, so let’s have some fun with it, starting with Reich’s silliest argument:

    Medicare’s administrative costs are in the range of 3 percent. That’s well below the 5 to 10 percent costs borne by large companies that self-insure. It’s even further below the administrative costs of companies in the small-group market (amounting to 25 to 27 percent of premiums).

Comparing government administrative costs with private sector ones is usually an apple-to-oranges comparison, and Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute has a great criticism of the argument that Medicare is more efficient because it has lower administrative costs here.

To make this simple, let’s apply that logic to other areas of the government. It’s quite possible that Amtrak has lower administrative costs than Georgia Southwestern, and the Post Office’s Priority Mail Service has lower administrative costs than Federal Express. I’ll wait for Reich to argue that freight rail and overnight delivery would be more efficient if run by the government, but I won’t hold my breath waiting.

Next, Reich argues that, “Medicare continues to be blamed for America’s present and future budget problems. That’s baloney.”

Was it just my imagination, or did the recent Medicare Trustees Report say that the “present value” unfunded liability of Medicare over the next 75 years is about $41 trillion? A little closer in time, the Congressional Budget Office numbers show that, net of interest payments, 1 in 5 dollars of the federal budget will be spent on Medicare by 2029. By 2041 it will be almost 1 in 4 dollars. Reich doesn’t address any of this “baloney.”

No argument for Medicare-for-All is complete without an erroneous comparison of the U.S. health care system to the rest of the world:

    Americans spend more on health care per person than any other advanced nation and get less for our money. […] The typical American lives 78.1 years—less than the average 80.1 years in other advanced nations. And we have the highest rate of infant mortality of all advanced nations.

Using life expectancy and infant mortality to measure the performance of a health care system is like using batting average and on-base percentage to judge football. Life expectancy is influenced by many factors such as per-capita wealth, sanitation, diet, and so forth that a health care system has little, if any, control over. Not only is infant mortality influenced by those same factors, it is measured inconsistently across nations. For example, in Canada, Germany, and Austria, a baby born weighing less than 500 grams is not counted as a live birth as it is in the U.S. That, obviously, makes their infant mortality statistics look much better than ours.

Reich next examines why our health care system has so many deaths due to medical errors:

    One big reason is we keep patient records on computers that can’t share the data. Patient records are continuously re-written and then re-entered into different computers. That leads to lots of mistakes.

Funny that he doesn’t say what Medicare can do to solve this. Since 2009, Medicare has had an Electronic Health Record (EHR) Meaningful Use incentive program through which physicians can receive $44,000 to switch to EHRs. It’s working out pretty much as you might expect. A poll from early last year found that 70 percent of physicians say EHRs have not been worth the cost. Despite the subsidies from Medicare and from a similar program in Medicaid, problems abound:

    Some physicians say it’s not nearly enough to cover the increasing costs of implementation, training, annual licensing fees, hardware and associated services. But the most dramatic unanticipated costs were associated with the need to increase staff, coupled with a loss in physician productivity.

‘We used to see 32 patients a day with one tech, and now we struggle to see 24 patients a day with four techs. And we provide worse care,’ said one survey respondent.

Finally, Reich complains that health care “costs continue to rise because doctors and hospitals still spend too much money on unnecessary tests, drugs and procedures.” Hospital and physicians order costly MRIs and then do back surgery. Physical therapy would be just as effective, but it “doesn’t generate much revenue.” If you seek treatment for diabetes, asthma or a heart condition in the hospital, Reich says: “20 percent of the time you’re back within a month.”

It would be far less costly if a nurse visited you at home to make sure you were taking your medications, a common practice in other advanced nations. But nurses don’t do home visits to Americans with acute conditions because hospitals aren’t paid for them.

Gee, is it possible that Medicare has something to do with this? Maybe, just maybe, as medicine evolves and providers find better and more efficient ways to treat patients, a sluggish bureaucracy like Medicare isn’t particularly good at updating what it pays for.

And what is Reich’s solution to this? As he states at the beginning of the article, “Medicare offers a way to reduce these underlying costs—if Washington would let it.”

I can see it now: You are slapping your forehead, exclaiming, “If Washington would let it! Why didn’t I think of that?!”

Well, Washington won’t let Medicare make such changes because it is filled with groups such as hospital and physician associations that have a vested interest in keeping a cash cow like Medicare largely the way it is. Those vested interests don’t care for the competition that would arise if Medicare started changing what it paid for.

That problem would only be exacerbated if Congress opened up Medicare to everyone. Treatment under Medicare wouldn’t necessarily be determined by what was best for the patient but by who had sufficient political power to influence Congress on Medicare policy.

As I argue in my new book, Medicare’s Victims, it is often the sickest patients who suffer the most under Medicare because they are the most likely to lack political power. Consider the Medicare patients who, as Reich complains, have to return to the hospital 20 percent of the time. There are probably too few of them to have much impact on Congressional elections, one of the most important ways of influencing Congress. Additionally, many of them may be quite ill and thus in no condition to be organizing, protesting, getting media coverage and other things that can get the attention of Congress to change Medicare policy.

Those with political power would get good care, while those without such power—often the sickest—would lose out. That would be the nightmare result if Reich’s dream ever became a reality.

Here’s Why Republicans Hate The Republican Party

By David Harsanyi
Monday, July 27, 2015

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza poses a good question:

There are, no doubt, countless answers to the above question, but let me take a stab at it: It’s conceivable, and I’m just spitballing here, that many conservatives are wondering: If the Republican Party is incapable or unwilling to make a compelling case against the selling of baby organs or the emergence of a nuclear Iran or the funding of a cronyist state-run bank—or all three—then really, what exactly can it do?

Setting aside presidential politics for a moment, three issues have filled the conservative ether the past few weeks: The administration’s pact abetting Iran’s efforts to become a threshold nuclear power, Planned Parenthood’s organ harvesting controversy, and, to a lesser extent, the renewal of the Export-Import bank. None of these are hobbyhorses of the wild fringe. They’re issues—ostensibly, at least—that are core issues of the modern GOP. And on all three, the GOP has, though it has plenty of leverage to raise a stink, capitulated. In fact, it has probably put more effort into evading confrontation than its standard response of pretending to court it.

I’ve long defended John Boehner’s House as one the most productive in history— obstructing more detrimental and intrusive legislation than any other in modern history. This is a meaningful legacy. From 2010 to 2014, the House was the nation’s checks and balances—inadvertently, perhaps, but still the only thing stopping a monocracy. Even most rank-and-file conservatives disagreed with this assessment. While no one (or, I should say, no sensible person) is expecting the GOP to demand a shutdown, what’s the point of a party that not only ignores issues conservatives are emotionally and ideologically invested in but ones that could appeal to a wider electorate?

How shameless was the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, as he laid into John Kerry at the Iran-deal hearings earlier this week? Corker had the temerity to claim the administration had “been fleeced” by the Iranians after listening to the administration’s rationalizations for the deal.

This might be true. It might also be true that Corker was willing to abdicate his responsibility of holding on to congressional oversight when he agreed to a framework that allows the Iranian deal to move forward even if a majority of the Senate votes no. It’s the risk-free alternative. Corker (and others) can now profess disgust at the outcome, lecture the administration about its impotence, and oppose the deal for the benefit of conservative voters while having, in essence, voted for it months ago.

It’s problematic, for one thing, because the Senate has a constitutional responsibility to stop terrible international treaties, no matter what euphemism we attach to them. And maybe Republicans never believed Kerry would come back with something this awful. Maybe they could never imagine that the president would seek the United Nations’ blessing of a nuclear deal before he went to Congress. Or maybe they never imagined that the deal would extend to Iran’s ballistic missile programs. Now it’s on Republicans, as well.

American voters may not understand all the intricacies of the deal, but they understand the Iranian position. How many Americans recognize what the Ex-Im Bank does? Not many. But most understand cronyism. The abortion debate almost always deteriorates into a partisan squabble, but when an organization that gorges itself on government funding is caught having discussions about the sale of human organs, Republicans are offered one of the best opportunities to make their case.

Yet, when Ted  Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee made noise about filing amendments to the highway bill to eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, Mitch McConnell used a procedural tactic known as “filling the tree” to prevent other amendments from being offered. This stopped any debate on Planned Parenthood.

“What we saw today was an absolute demonstration that not only what he told every Republican senator, but what he told the press over and over again was a simple lie,” said Cruz on the Senate floor.

Say what you want about Cruz’s self-serving theatrics (Sen. Orrin Hatch and other senior Senators lined up to scold him on Sunday), but was he wrong in substance? In June, McConnell claimed he wouldn’t block efforts to combine legislation reauthorizing Ex-Im with a transportation-funding package. “The highway bill is an ‘obvious’ vehicle for the bank, said McConnell, who opposes extending Ex-Im,” reported Bloomberg.

Republicans blocked amendments offered by other Republicans to work with Democrats. On Sunday, 24 GOPers voted to move forward with reauthorizing the bank. Opposition is purely theoretical.

As Tim Carney put it in the Washington Examiner:

    It’s impossible to read McConnell’s mind. But it’s clear he desires, deeply, to be seen as a majority leader who knows how to govern, not merely fight. Perhaps this perception will help him keep his majority, or help his party win the White House. But it’s hard to make sense of the argument that voters should vote Republican so that McConnell can cut deals about subsidies with Sen. Maria Cantwell in order to pass Sen. Barbara Boxer’s tax-and-spend highway bill.

McConnell can “govern” and “fight.” Obama does. And when we hear, according to a new CNN/ORC poll, that 52 percent of Republicans believe Donald Trump should stay in the presidential race (33 percent say drop out, 15 percent say run as indie) we are seeing a reckless but understandable acting out. In a new Pew Research poll, just 32 percent of Americans view the Republican Party favorably, a nine-point drop since January. Among Republicans, that decline has been steeper than among others— dropping 18 points since the beginning of the year. This might, in part, be precipitated by the presidential primary fight that many grassroots activists see as a battle between the establishment and the true conservatives. This tension is often built on an assortment of unrealistic political expectations.

And then other times, it’s not.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

How I Realized I’m A Conservative

By Dana R. Casey
Wednesday, July 29, 2015

In the late 1970s, I went to an experimental high school. Most of the students were some form of nature-loving hippie. Not the raw, shocking, and rude kind of the true hippie era, more of the granola-eating, yogurt-making, calico-and-work-boot-wearing kind, but still dabbling in some risky sex and drugs.

These hippies were mostly the children of wealthy progressive parents who had purchased immense Roland Park mansions with their trust funds and who raised their children by the most progressive paradigms. Most of the rest were rock-n-roll drug addicts. A few of us, children of working-class parents attending the school on scholarship, were a little closer to normal. I came from an educated working-class family, and am daughter of a public-school teacher.

I remember some of the students sitting around one afternoon talking about the beauty of Native Americans and their respect for nature, recounting that, when the natives killed an animal, they first prayed to thank gods, ancestors, or perhaps the animal itself. My schoolmates talked about how the natives honored the animal they had killed by using every part, wasting none: the meat for food, the skin for clothes, the bones for tools and jewelry, the sinew for bindings and cords, and the hooves for rattles and bells. I could feel the awe this inspired in my fellow classmates. They felt enlightened, that a truth was revealed.

My First Encounter with Liberal Hypocrisy

The next morning, I brought a scrapple sandwich to school for breakfast. A friend, who was indeed wearing a calico skirt with long johns and work boots (although no deodorant) leaned over to me and asked, “What ’cha eating?”

“Scrapple,” I replied.

“Eww! That’s disgusting! Do you know what they put in that stuff?” Thus the Scrapple Theory was born to me at the tender age of 16.

For those of you who are not familiar with scrapple, it is corn meal, ground pork, and spices baked in a loaf pan, cooled, sliced, and fried in butter. It is often eaten with catsup, a nice sweet contrast to the peppery spiciness. It is a true American specialty of the Pennsylvania Dutch. It was originally made from “scraps” of pork (i.e., scrapple) left over from butchering that could not be sold or used elsewhere, in order to avoid waste!

Perhaps you can see where I am heading. According to my schoolmates, Native Americans who “honor” an animal by using all of its parts are noble human beings in touch with nature. However, a good German peasant (from whom the Pennsylvania Dutch originated) who makes use of the entire animal is abhorrent and disgusting. This scrapple sandwich epiphany was one of my first observations of ubiquitous liberal progressive hypocrisy.

I began to see that if an act, religion, or tradition comes out of Western European and American culture, it is something to ridicule, to looked down upon as backward or oppressive. If it comes from other world cultures like China, India, Africa, or even pre-Columbian America, it is admirable and deep, something to imitate. Buddhist prayer beads are wonderfully spiritual, but a rosary is a symbol of fascist misogynist oppression. It is a xenophilic rather than xenophobic intolerance, a hatred of your own culture. This has become such a part of the cultural norm that it has evolved into the white self-hatred becoming so pervasive today.

Not long after the scrapple theory was born, I got a ride from yet another trust-fund hippie in his mother’s hand-me-down Volvo station wagon to a concert at Goucher College. He told me that life would be so cool if we could have anarchy in the country. Then people could do whatever they wanted. The effing “pigs” and “the effing man” would have no control. Already knowing the real consequences of anarchy, I said, “Don’t you realize that you would be one of the first people slaughtered, that the people who were no longer controlled by ‘the pigs’ would steal your stuff?” He looked dumbfounded, and knew that I was no longer as cool as he had thought.

Sitting on the Fence

Now I was still young and new to serious political debate, but I was raised in a political family. The news was always on in the morning and evenings. My parents discussed the current issues of the day at the dinner table, but I was still learning. For the next 17 years through the late 1970s into the 1980s, I studied and worked in the arts and theater. There I was surrounded by the enlightened ones who knew that everything liberal was good and everything conservative was evil. After all, President Nixon was not that far in the past (although Nixon now looks junior varsity next to the scandal-ridden houses of Clinton and Obama).

I was sure that I was on the side of good, but I still had a feeling of unease. I would read books like J.D. Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye,” Jack Kerouac’s “On the Road,” and Carlos Castaneda’s “The Teachings of Don Juan,” expecting the illuminating awakenings my friends professed, but the books always fell flat. I just didn’t get it. I wondered what was wrong with me. It turns out that there was little to get. The books were crap.

But I also read the theology of C.S. Lewis and George McDonald, the fiction of Ayn Rand and Elizabeth Gouge, the classics like “The Histories” by Herodotus, “Confessions” by Augustine, and the philosophies and plays of the ancient Greeks and Shakespeare. And my faith was strong; it was a constant, and I went through bouts of church-going that irritated my liberal friends to no end. They actually said to me, “How can someone as intelligent as you believe in nonsense like that, especially Catholic dogma?” Ironically, they believed in runes, tarot cards, psychics, the supernatural, séances, auras, and every other idiot mystical fad that came around.

I waffled between being conservative and liberal. My first presidential votes were for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, followed by a series of votes for independents and libertarians, because I could stand none of the choices the two main parties offered. Even though I didn’t think of myself as conservative, through the years I would get into arguments with liberal friends about taxes and big government, welfare and food stamps, double standards and affirmative action. Usually, they completely disagreed with me.

Liberal Policies Reward Bad Choices

In one instance, I discussed abortion with a fellow waitress and the bookkeeper at a very hip restaurant where I worked. I said that I was not sure how I felt, that I saw why people wanted to keep it legal, but that it also made me very uneasy that it might be taking a life. My fellow waitress reverted to the now-familiar liberal outraged and offended scream, which is something like the body snatchers from the 1978 sci-fi classic. “WhaaaAATTT!!! Are you in-SANE!!!! You’re a WO-MAN!!!!” There was no further use in continuing the conversation after that. I shut up.

In another instance, one liberal friend earned a teaching degree on scholarship, but found teaching just too taxing. She had received the scholarship because she was a single divorced mother living on welfare. She quit teaching and went back on welfare instead. While on welfare, she owned multiple properties she rented out and a bank account into which she funneled thousands. She spent most of her days playing with her children.

Another friend had three children with a man she didn’t marry until after the third. He was abusive, which she knew quite well before she had her second and third child, and she eventually had to leave him. She lived in her mother’s house for free. She also received welfare and food stamps. Then she also went to university for nothing, while I was going on student loans and working full time to support myself.

I stayed with her for a short period when I was going through a particularly hard stretch. I was grateful for her generosity of a free room. One day, she came back from the grocery store irate. The store had a sale on hot, freshly steamed shrimp. She ordered two pounds and went to the checkout line, where she was told that she could not buy hot food with food stamps. She was welcome to get some fresh uncooked shrimp and steam them herself, but free fresh shrimp paid for by the working people of America was not good enough for her. She told me, “People on food stamps deserve luxuries, too.”

Much to her chagrin, I responded, “No, they don’t. They deserve to eat, and they should be grateful for that.” My friend was not very happy with me.

Later, while I was struggling to support myself and finish my undergraduate degree, she went on to get her master’s, also for free. We both started teaching at around the same time, but she got paid much more because she already had a master’s degree, a degree that I could not afford, and she had no student loans to pay off.

I started to see that liberal policies rewarded poor choices, while penalizing those who worked hard, didn’t get pregnant as a teen, and were responsible for taking care of oneself. It really ticked me off. Little by little, I was starting to see that liberalism was hypocritical and destructive while conservatism actually promoted individual freedom, self-reliance, laws applied equally and fairly to each individual, and limited government. These were ideas I thought liberals, particularly hippie-type liberals, actually believed. I was mistaken.

Public Schools Reinforce Rather than Correct Poor Behavior

Then I started teaching in a Baltimore City Public High School, one of the worst. It was shut down not long after I began teaching there. Low expectations, both academic and behavioral, shocked me at first. There was no structure in place to assist teachers with disruptive students. Students were rarely held to basic etiquette standards, so raising a hand before talking or not using foul language regularly in the classroom were not norms and difficult to establish.

Homework was obsolete. Parents whom I called about their misbehaving children told me that they hadn’t been able to control their children since the kids were 12 or 13. They often told me not to bother them anymore. Some parents cared very much, but the hectic atmosphere of the school worked against anyone learning. Daily attendance was around 50 percent. The freshman class was 400, and the senior class was around 100 with only 75 graduating at the end of the year.

At the end of my first year teaching, I failed one of my seniors. She had done little of the work, she had a fourth-grade reading level, and she did not truly know the difference between a dedication page in “Island of the Blue Dolphins” and a character list in a play. I had tried to work with her all year, but she was absent more than present.

The entire administration and college advisor begged me to pass her. Their reasoning was that if I did not pass her, she would refuse to go to summer school and then she would never graduate. I had to pass her, or I would ruin her whole life. Did she deserve to have her life ruined, I was asked? I told them that they could do what they wanted, but I would have nothing to do with it. She graduated; she still wasn’t functionally literate.

The Truths I Can Never Un-See

My understanding of liberal versus conservative slowly started to shift. Like one of those optical illusions where there are two images in one, once I started to see the second image, I could not un-see it. Sometimes the second image becomes primary and the first is no longer visible. In the article “Things You Cannot Un-see (and What They Say about Your Brain),” Alexis C. Madrigal writes, “People report this kind of thing all the time, and they use this same phrase: cannot un-see. Someone points out something and suddenly a secondary interpretation of an image appears. There’s something a little scary about this process, even when the images are harmless. We have a flash of insight and a new pattern is revealed hiding within the world we thought we knew. It surprises us.” That’s a duck. NO—it’s a rabbit!

For me, it was “that’s a compassionate and good liberal policy” becomes “that’s a policy of destructive collectivism and government overreach.” Nothing brought this more clearly to light for me than observing the destructive practices and policies implemented at our public schools and in our inner cities. Policies that claim to help but almost always cause irreparable harm: welfare that destroys the black family, school busing that ruins a once-thriving school system that often served even the poorest students well, taxation and regulation that drives out business which take with them jobs that provided a decent living even for not-well-educated citizens, middle- and working-class neighborhoods that become rat-ridden slums. Everyone loses.

Once I started to see, I realized that I was never really a liberal, but always a conservative, a believer in self-reliance, individual freedom, small government, and individual equality of opportunity. Once I started to see, I could not go back. I could not un-see.

So many Americans in this country are liberal and Democrat just because that is what they have always been, and this political stance is presented as the only intelligent and humane stance one can have—but they don’t live life like liberals. They are for family and against abortion, they want jobs, not handouts, they believe that capital punishment is sometimes necessary, they want to have the right to own guns to protect their family, and they want government out of their schools, churches, and homes. If we can get them to see, they too will not be able to un-see, and we might just restore America.