Author: adler

Editor’s note: There’s been lots of talk about artificial intelligence in the news lately, and The Political Insider is just as curious as anyone. So we asked ChatGPT what would happen in the event of a war over Taiwan between the United States and China. Here’s what it said. 
Introduction
The relationship between China and Taiwan has long been a contentious issue, with China claiming sovereignty over Taiwan while Taiwan operates as an independent democratic state. The United States has historically been a strong ally of Taiwan, providing military support and maintaining diplomatic relations. However, tensions between China and the United States have escalated in recent years, with both countries engaging in increasingly hostile rhetoric and actions. In this analysis, we will explore the potential consequences of a military conflict between China and the United States over Taiwan.
Military Capabilities
China has invested heavily in modernizing its military capabilities in recent years, including the development of advanced weapons systems such as the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile and the J-20 stealth fighter aircraft. The Chinese military is also geographically well-positioned to respond to a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, with a large number of military bases and installations in close proximity to Taiwan.
The United States, meanwhile, has a significant military presence in the region, including a number of aircraft carriers and other naval assets. The United States has also invested heavily in advanced military technology, including stealth aircraft and missile defense systems.
In a conflict over Taiwan, both sides would likely suffer significant casualties and damage to military and civilian infrastructure. However, the United States would have a significant advantage in terms of resources and technology. China’s lack of combat experience could also be a disadvantage, as it has not engaged in a major conflict since its war with Vietnam in the late 1970s.
Regional and Global Impact
A military conflict between China and the United States over Taiwan would have significant regional and global impacts. The Taiwan Strait is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, and a conflict could disrupt global trade and commerce. In addition, neighboring countries such as Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines could be drawn into the conflict, potentially leading to a broader regional war.
The global economy would also be impacted, as both China and the United States are major economic powers. A prolonged conflict could lead to disruptions in global supply chains and a decline in economic growth. In addition, a conflict could have significant political ramifications, potentially leading to shifts in alliances and power dynamics.
Humanitarian Consequences
A conflict over Taiwan would also have significant humanitarian consequences. Taiwan has a population of over 23 million people, and a conflict could lead to large-scale displacement and humanitarian crises. In addition, the use of advanced weapons systems such as ballistic missiles and stealth aircraft could lead to significant civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure.
Potential Outcomes
There are several potential outcomes of a military conflict between China and the United States over Taiwan. These include:

A Chinese Victory: If China is able to quickly and decisively defeat the United States and Taiwan, it would likely result in a significant shift in the balance of power in the region. China would be able to exert greater influence over neighboring countries and potentially expand its territorial claims.
A U.S. Victory: If the United States is able to successfully defend Taiwan and defeat China, it would reaffirm U.S. commitment to the region and strengthen its alliances. It could also lead to increased tensions between the United States and China, potentially leading to a broader conflict.
Stalemate: If the conflict were to result in a stalemate, it could lead to a prolonged period of instability and uncertainty in the region. It could also lead to a shift in the balance of power, with neither side able to claim a decisive victory.
Diplomatic Resolution: It is possible that a conflict could be avoided through diplomatic means, with negotiations leading to a peaceful resolution of the dispute. This would require a significant shift in the attitudes and priorities of both China and the United States.

Conclusion
In conclusion, a military conflict between China and the United States over Taiwan would have significant and far-reaching consequences for both countries and the broader international community. It is in the interest of both China and the United States to avoid a conflict and seek diplomatic solutions to their differences. The potential costs of a conflict, including human lives and economic disruption, far outweigh any potential benefits.
However, it is important to continue monitoring the situation and work towards peaceful resolutions, while also ensuring that both sides maintain strong defensive capabilities to deter potential aggression. Ultimately, a conflict over Taiwan would have a devastating impact on both China and the United States, as well as the broader global community, and should be avoided at all costs.
Editor’s note: As you can see, there are clearly some limitations with this particular AI. The request for this analysis demanded 1,500 words, of which only 800 or so were provided. Readers will also note that, with a rather generic request, the AI will come back with rather generic answers. You’ll also notice that the AI provides an opinion – what it thinks is in the best interest of China and the U.S. – which in this case is obvious but may not be on other moral questions.
More from The Political Insider:

American Nuclear Subs Now Bound for South Korea Amid Taiwan Tension
Fox News Bends the Knee: Won’t Publish Leaked Ukraine Documents Casting Doubt About War Progress
The Pentagon Proves Tucker Carlson Right by Publicly Celebrating His Firing
$8 Billion in U.S. Funds May Have Gone to the Taliban

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post Here’s What AI Says Would Happen In a U.S. – China War Over Taiwan appeared first on The Political Insider.

By Jonathan Lesser for RealClearEnergy
Just recently, the International Energy Agency released its annual report on electric vehicles, this time celebrating that nearly one in five cars sold in 2023 is projected to be an EV. But if electric vehicles are so wonderful, why are consumers and businesses being forced to buy them?
The clearest example of this came with the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new emissions standards for vehicles, released earlier this month, which require manufacturers to increase overall fuel efficiency by over 25% by 2026, effectively mandating that EV’s make up two thirds of car sales. The EPA claims this will provide a total of over $1 trillion in benefits by 2055, reduce crude oil imports by 20 billion barrels, and reduce CO2 emissions by 10 billion tons.
RELATED: ‘Climate Envoy’ John Kerry’s Jet-Set Spending Is Getting Plenty of Cloud Cover
What’s not to like?  Just about everything.
Let’s start with the economic impacts, which will be ruinous. First, the price of EVs will increase; that’s basic economics. The new rules will require that about two-thirds of the vehicles manufacturers sell are EVs. Given that most consumers do not purchase EVs, the best way to do that is to raise prices on internal combustion (ICE) vehicles until they are more costly than EVs. (Today, the reverse is true, with the average EV costing around $65,000, while the average ICE vehicle costs around $48,000.) Increasing provides an umbrella under which EV prices can be raised, too. So, if a consumer or business wants to purchase a new vehicle, they effectively will be forced to buy a more costly EV.
Second, increasing the demand for EVs will increase the demand for the materials to manufacture batteries, which are the single largest cost of an EV. Prices for rare earths, for example, have increased between 60% and 400% since 2020. Prices for lithium, the basic ingredient in most EV batteries, have increased by about 400%. Moreover, the US continues to prevent development of new mines to supply those materials. Instead, China has a stranglehold on them, and lax environmental rules to boot.
Then there is the electricity needed to charge those EVs, along with the charging stations in homes, apartment buildings, and on highways. Claims that this electricity will actually reduce emissions are based on huge predicted increases in wind and solar energy development. Yet, the US Energy Information Administration projects that, by 2050, wind and solar will provide only about 40% of electricity supplies. Consequently, much of the electricity needed to charge those millions of EVs will be provided by natural gas and even coal.  So, while the EPA may limit tailpipe emissions, it will transfer many of those emissions to power plants.
RELATED: AOC, Democrats Reintroduce ‘Green New Deal’
Electricity costs will also increase, negating the anticipated savings from “refuelling” those EVs. That’s why the federal government has provided subsidies for wind and solar energy development for 45 years and why so many states implemented green energy mandates: developers of wind and solar could not, and still cannot, compete on price alone, despite proponents’ claims.
This is already the case in Europe, where efforts to increase reliance on wind and solar generation with lavish subsidies have led to punishing increases in electricity costs. Germany, for example, has the highest electricity rates in Europe, with the continent experiencing deindustrialization become industries cannot afford energy.
A wind- and solar-based electric grid will require colossal amounts of battery storage, equivalents to several centuries’ of output from Tesla’s “gigafactories.”  It’s not uncommon already for EV charging companies to charge more for electricity than the equivalent cost in gasoline.
But let’s suppose those hurdles magically are overcome. The environmental justification for the EPA rule is nonetheless absurd. The claimed reductions in CO2 emissions will have no measurable impact on world climate. Reducing CO2 emissions by 10 billion tons between 2027 and 2055 sounds like a lot. But world CO2 emissions were 34 billion metric tons in 2021 alone. So, over 28 years, the EPA’s proposed rule will reduce CO2 emissions by the equivalent of about four months of world CO2 emissions. And world emissions continue to increase because developing nations, especially China and India, have no intentions to restrict their economies.
RELATED: Biden Claims ‘Climate Change’ Bigger Threat Than Nukes as He Pushes Ever Closer to WWIII
The basic economic impacts, along with the negligible climate benefits, raise a simple question: why is the Biden Administration pursuing this EV windmill-tilting exercise? By effectively forcing consumers and businesses to purchase vehicles they do not want, the Administration will impose yet more damage on American’s standard of living, reducing mobility and raise costs.
That can’t possibly be their goal, right?
Jonathan Lesser is the president of Continental Economics and an adjunct fellow with the Manhattan Institute. 
Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.
The post Forcing Consumers to Purchase Electric Vehicles: A New Low for the Biden Administration appeared first on The Political Insider.

Oh, the number of ‘man hours’ Google put into this project had to be off the charts, ‘you guys.’
Google bosses have dispersed an “inclusive language dossier” to their employees in the United Kingdom asking them to stop using common phrases that could be deemed politically incorrect.
The list of words includes the requisite smattering of those which incorporate the word ‘black,’ because that’s not a common color for everyday objects or a useful adjective.
‘Black Box,’ ‘Blacklist,’ and ‘Blackhole’ all fail to make the cut in Google’s “inclusive language dossier.”
To be fair, ‘Whitelist’ is also on the … colorless list. But we have to assume that’s because it would convey some sort of supremacy by allowing its use over ‘Blacklist.’

Google’s “inclusive language dossier” bans staff from using terms like “man hours,” “you guys,” and “chubby” https://t.co/ZtoaITRbI7
— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) May 2, 2023

RELATED: Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Legislation That Will Further Infuriate Her Democrat Colleagues
Google Trying to Ban Words With ‘Inclusive Language Dossier’
Isn’t it simply amazing watching woke liberals run around setting their hair on fire over certain pornographic materials being banned from elementary schools in Florida and screaming about it being a ‘book ban’?
All the while trying to actually ban certain individual words for grown adults because they might be offended?
Who are the real fascists here, you guys?
Ah, speaking of which, Google apparently is under the impression that women are so fragile that any use of words with male connotations is now frowned upon in their ‘inclusive language dossier.’
Thus, ‘You Guys’ and ‘Man Hours’ are now passé.
Oh, the hu-man-ity!

nothing more important than woke word choice
to the big tech wokester idiots. WTP don’t give a shit about your little feelings. If you get offended, learn to deal with it https://t.co/1pJ4mt3pY8
— SueVotesRed2 (@Susan36495963) May 2, 2023

The Google dossier also discourages use of the word ‘Chubby.’ Cartman from “South Park” would be so happy to know that the search engine’s employees will have to shift to using the phrase ‘big boned.’

The left sure does love banning things.
— JWF (@JammieWF) May 3, 2023

RELATED: Stanford University Declares Calling Yourself ‘American’ is Offensive
Words That Offend
The Daily Mail found at least one employee who found Google’s effort to ban words through their ‘inclusive language dossier’ a little off-putting.
The employee said staff had essentially been ignoring the new directive.
“We’re much too busy to be worried about whether some totally harmless phrase that’s been used for years might upset someone, somewhere,” they said.
Amen. Or should we say ‘Awomen’?
Oh hell, the libs have that covered too.

Dems open congress with a prayer that ends “amen and awoman.” Amen is a Latin word that means “truly” or “so be it.” Awoman is a nonsense word that means nothing. Dems find a way to make everything stupid and nonsensical. Utter clowns, all of them.
pic.twitter.com/Q7Fml2pPeE
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) January 3, 2021

Which is odd, considering Democrats despise women so much that they eliminated gendered language from the official House rules in 2021.

Tulsi Gabbard blasts the new House rules that get rid of “gendered language” on Tucker:
“It’s the height of hypocrisy for people who claim to be the champions of rights for women to deny the biological existence of women.” pic.twitter.com/eoQEl1QNWR
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 5, 2021

And naturally the lunacy has infected academia.
Stanford University, less than five months ago, published a list of words they’d like to eliminate from the public discourse on campus.
One of the offensive words according to Stanford? ‘American.’
Oddly enough, their list also included the phrase ‘You Guys’, you guys.

You guys, this list of words that Stanford doesn’t want us to use anymore is truly insane. https://t.co/mUMGgSSUAr pic.twitter.com/A7DtfpjIUv
— Justine Moore (@venturetwins) December 18, 2022

Google has indicated the ‘inclusive language dossier’ is simply being offered as “editorial guidelines for writing clear and consistent Google-related developer documentation.”
Why would the phrase ‘You Guys’ ever appear in an official tech document or developer text?
They deny the dossier is a ban and insist other companies like Apple and Microsoft have similar suggestions.
“This is not us banning words in the workplace,” they told the Daily Mail.
“These recommendations are not new, they’re from years ago and are part of an industry-wide move to introduce more inclusive language into coding languages.”
The vast number of Google employees worldwide are men.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post ‘You Guys’ Won’t Believe the Words Woke Google Bosses Have On Their ‘Inclusive Language Dossier’ for Staff appeared first on The Political Insider.

By James Varney for RealClearInvestigations

John Kerry leads an international jet-set life that might exhaust a runway model. If President Biden’s special envoy for climate was not in Washington or relaxing at his mansion near Nantucket Harbor, he could be found in Brazil, Panama, the Bahamas, or Germany. And that’s just in February and March. 

While Kerry trumpets his meetings and appearances around the world, the State Department wraps the rest of his efforts in a cloak of secrecy usually reserved for CIA black box operations. It has refused to specify lists of people he is meeting with and who is advising him as he circles the globe. His office has stonewalled requests for budget and staffing information from legislators and government watchdog groups.
RELATED: Biden Sending Another $1 Billion of Your Money to Other Countries – This Time to Fight Climate Change
In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed last year by RealClearInvestigations for a breakdown on how the climate envoy’s roughly $16.5 million 2022 budget was spent, the State Department said it could not comply with the request until April 2025, months after both the 2024 election and the expiration of President Biden’s current term. 

The secrecy surrounding Kerry’s work is reaching a boiling point with the threat of a congressional subpoena. 

Frustrated that Kerry’s office ignored two previous requests for detailed information about its budget when his party was in the minority, Republican Rep. James Comer, who now heads the House Oversight Committee, sent what he labeled a final courtesy letter on April 25 and added that a subpoena would accompany the next request if Kerry’s “powerful, unchecked position” continued to hide the information. 

“The State Department has not provided any meaningful updates to Committee staff inquiries on the status of producing these documents,” Comer wrote. “Envoy Kerry is engaging in activities that skirt congressional authority, threaten foreign policy under the guise of climate advocacy, and could undermine economic health. Yet, Envoy Kerry and his office are refusing to be transparent about their activities, spending, and staffing with the Committee – and the American people.” 

Biden, who has identified climate change as the single greatest threat facing the United States, named Kerry the nation’s first “special envoy for climate” on his first day in office in 2021. 

His precise job description is difficult to determine, although Kerry has been given a seat on the White House national security team, and it is commonly referred to as a “cabinet level” position – even though it did not require Senate confirmation.  
RELATED: AOC, Democrats Reintroduce ‘Green New Deal’

Since taking office, Kerry has been indefatigable in attending conferences and meetings in far-flung posts and glittering capitals. His office has sent out his pronouncements to the press and copies of his public remarks from places such as Hanoi, Dhaka, London, Cairo (twice) and, last month, the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. But almost nothing is known about discussions and potential agreements made at his private meetings. 

Given the Biden administration’s penchant for issuing sweeping executive orders, especially regarding the climate, Republicans worry that Kerry’s undefined position could translate into unchecked power to commit the United States to binding agreements with foreign powers. Neither the White House nor the State Department responded to questions about the precise nature of Kerry’s work, and whether he was authorized to negotiate treaties on behalf of the United States.  

“John Kerry continues to negotiate deals with foreign governments, including the Chinese Communist Party, that potentially undermine the United States’ interests,” Comer wrote, without the envoy’s providing any detail about the nature or scope of those deals or whether any have been approved.   

In his speeches and other public appearances, Kerry warns that humanity has just a few years left to avert the catastrophic consequences of climate change.  

“It is an existential issue; it is an issue where people today are dying,” he told MSNBC in late April. He has called for a 45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and endorsed the goal of zero emissions by 2050.  
RELATED: JP Morgan CEO: Biden’s Push for Electric Vehicles Will Benefit China

In his effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions, Kerry has flown hundreds of thousands of miles – sometimes commercially, sometimes on his own private jet – leaving a gigantic carbon footprint in his wake. In just nine months last year he logged more than 180,000 miles, emitting some 9.5 million pounds of carbon, according to an analysis of his official travel announcements by the Washington Free Beacon. 

The global travel and speeches to combat global warming have enjoyed glowing coverage from media outlets including The New Yorker, which praised his effort to “save the climate.” But thus far it has unfolded behind a cloak of invisibility beyond the press releases. 

RCI reached out to the Washington office of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development and the liberal Common Cause, which trumpets the need for “transparency and accountability” in government. Neither group responded to questions about the special climate envoy’s refusal to make his spending public. 

In the House, it’s unclear how much support there may be for the efforts of Comer and others to shine a light on Kerry’s black budget. RCI reached out to more than 80 representatives, including every Republican member of the Freedom Caucus and the Appropriations Committee – which is ultimately responsible for directing federal funding – and asked if they possessed any information about Kerry’s budget and spending and whether they believed government bodies should hide their financial activities. 

Only six responded, and there was no response from a dozen Democrats on the Appropriations Committee, including ranking member Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut. 
RELATED: EPA Announces $400 Million for ‘Clean’ Buses in $5 Billion Plan to Transform School Fleets

Those who did respond were united in saying they thought Kerry’s office should allow public review of its work. Republican Reps. Chip Roy and Scott Perry, of Texas and Pennsylvania respectively, sent a letter in March to DeLauro and others asking them to defund Kerry’s office, citing what they fear is his willingness to partner with left-wing environmental agencies and alleged free market meddling. 

“The U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, is actively undermining U.S. energy production and independence in the name of climate hysteria,” Roy and Perry wrote. “Despite skyrocketing energy prices and an increasingly unreliable electrical grid, Kerry has said ‘we have to push back hard’ on efforts to increase oil production and expand fossil fuel infrastructure. Kerry has also reportedly pressured banks and other financial institutions to divest from fossil fuels. Finally, Kerry actively jeopardizes U.S. sovereignty by making dangerous commitments at international climate conferences without the backing of Congress.” 

Congress and RCI are not alone in being stonewalled by Kerry’s office. Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group, also filed a FOIA request for information on Kerry’s spending and staff, and they followed that up with a lawsuit last October. 

“They’ve gone and created this new position, but they don’t want to tell us anything about what he’s been doing,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told RCI. “The resting state of the deep state is secrecy, and unfortunately it’s not unusual to get this obstruction and contempt for the FOIA law.” 
RELATED: Report: Biden’s Energy Plan Costs Jobs, Ratepayers

Since February, Kerry’s office has provided Judicial Watch with small batches of documents, such as a vague organizational chart, trying to slow-walk compliance with the law, Fitton said. 

The notion that such a government agency’s work and spending should be beyond public purview is preposterous, said Adam Andrzejewski, CEO of OpenTheBooks, which works to make government spending public. (His work appears in RealClearInvestigations.) 

“Kerry can’t operate according to his own accord and spend tens of millions of dollars in his budget as the special envoy without transparency,” Andrzejewski said. “The people, the press and politicians in Congress need to hold him accountable for his spending as they do with all unelected bureaucrats.” 
Syndicated with permission from ReaClearWire.

The post ‘Climate Envoy’ John Kerry’s Jet-Set Spending Is Getting Plenty of Cloud Cover appeared first on The Political Insider.

By Bethany Blankley (The Center Square)
Following Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s letter to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Sunday and his response, New York City Mayor Eric Adams rejoined the feud, accusing Abbott of being racist over his strategy to bus foreign nationals from the border state to northern sanctuary cities.
Abbott’s office says Adams’ claims are “outright lies.”
Adams tweeted Monday that Abbott “is once again deciding to play politics with people’s lives by resuming the busing of asylum seekers to New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver and Washington, D.C.”
RELATED: Biden Spox Karine Jean-Pierre Ludicrously Claims Illegal Immigration is Down 90%
Last April, in an effort to provide relief to border communities, Abbott first bused foreign nationals who were released by the Biden administration into Texas to Washington, D.C. He later expanded the program to three other cities: Chicago, New York and Philadelphia. Texas hasn’t bused anyone to Denver or Los Angeles.
As of January 2023, Texas bused over 9,100 illegal foreign nationals to Washington, D.C.; over 4,900 to New York City; over 1,500 to Chicago; and over 840 to Philadelphia, according to data from the governor’s office.
Adams said it is “impossible to ignore the fact that Abbott is now targeting five cities run by Black mayors. Put plainly, Abbott is using this crisis to hurt Black-run cities.”
Last September, the Democratic mayor of El Paso, Oscar Leeser, and other city officials who are Hispanic men, approved a plan to bus people to New York City and Chicago who were released into El Paso by the Biden administration. Fifty percent of them didn’t have sponsors or money, Leeser said, so they “helped” them move north. El Paso sent 10,713 people to New York City and 3,259 to Chicago in September and October, according to city data.
Last October, Adams asked El Paso to stop, which city officials said it wouldn’t do, though it later reversed course right before the midterm elections. In January, Adams met with Leeser and Democratic officials responsible for busing foreign nationals to his city. He made no accusations of them wanting to “harm Black-run cities.”
On Sunday, Leeser declared a state of emergency ahead of Title 42 ending, including stating the city expects to begin busing people north after learning nearly 40,000 are waiting in Mexico to enter El Paso when Title 42 ends May 11.
After Leeser’s announcement on Sunday, Adams instead attacked Republican Abbott.
RELATED: Biden to Expand Entry Into U.S. Ahead of Title 42 Ending
Adams also claimed on Monday that foreign nationals were being bused “against their will,” that “security guards [held] them hostage on buses when they tried to get off in other cities, shipped them off while sick and COVID positive, and tagged individuals with barcodes.”
In response, Abbott Press Secretary Andrew Mahaleris told The Center Square, “Mayor Adams is once again spreading falsehoods and outright lies. He knows full well these migrants willingly chose to go to New York City, since his staff saw firsthand on their secret trip to Texas last year as migrants raised their hands to go on buses to his sanctuary city. Migrants also sign a voluntary consent waiver available in multiple languages upon boarding that they agree on the destination. And they were processed and released by the federal government, who dumped them in small Texas border towns.”
The current process involves adults signing waivers and agreements for themselves and minors under their care to be transported for free to one of four cities by Texas. None are charged for transportation, food, water or security provided to them.
“Mayor Adams, along with Mayor [Muriel] Bowser, Mayor Lightfoot, and Mayor [Jim] Kenney, were proud to tout their self-declared sanctuary city status until Texas began busing migrants to New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Philadelphia to provide relief to our overrun and overwhelmed border communities,” Mahaleris continued.
RELATED: Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Begs Texas Governor Abbott to Stop Sending Illegal Aliens to Her Sanctuary City
“With millions of residents, New York is only dealing with a fraction of what our small border communities deal with on a day-to-day basis,” he told The Center Square. “The real crisis isn’t in New York City – it’s on our southern border, where President Biden’s open border policies have allowed record-high levels of illegal immigrants, deadly drugs like fentanyl, and weapons to surge into our state and country.”
Border Patrol agents in Texas in March alone apprehended nearly 90,000 people and reported more than 38,000 gotaways.
Mahaleris said he agreed with Adams that “the federal government should step in and provide support as the crisis is more than one city can handle,” but added that the Biden administration “should address the true crisis along the southern border and help support the small Texas border towns dealing with the direct burden of the Biden Administration’s open border policies.”
Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.
The post NYC Mayor Eric Adams Calls TX Gov Abbott ‘Racist’ for Sending Illegal Aliens to His ‘Sanctuary City’ appeared first on The Political Insider.