Tuesday, July 27, 2021

Pelosi's Latest Claims About the January 6 Commission are Absolutely Shameless

Congressional Democrats, along side Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, will hold their first January 6 commission hearing on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning. 

Last week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi removed Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan from the commission for the "sake of bipartisanship."

Now, Pelosi is shamelessly claiming the commission will not be done in a "partisan way" after allowing Democrats Adam Schiff and Jaime Raskin to remain onboard. 

 

Democratic Party's Statue in Seattle
 


 

"I do believe that the work of this committee, in order to retain the confidence of the American people, must act in a way that has no partisanship, is all about patriotism and I'm very proud of the members of the committee and I'm certain that they will accomplish that goal. We have to, again, ignore the antics of those who do not want to find the truth," Pelosi released in a video message. "It will be done patriotically and not in a partisan way. 

Schiff spent four years of President Donald Trump's White House tenure falsely claiming his campaign colluded with the Russia government to steal the 2016 presidential election. Even after a lengthy Special Counsel investigation, led by Robert Mueller, showed that never happened, Schiff continued with his conspiracy theories. He repeated destructive lies well after Mueller issued his report. 

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on Sunday said he thinks there is “ample” evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians but that it’s not the same as conduct that rises to the level of criminality.

“Yes, there’s ample evidence of collusion in plain sight. But that is not the same thing as proof of a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt,” Mr. Schiff, California Democrat, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Not to mention, Schiff led the first impeachment against President Trump after he dared to ask about President Joe Biden's obvious corruption in Ukraine with his son Hunter. When Congress certified the results of the 2016 election with Trump as the winner, Congressman Raskin objected.

 

We Have a New Term to Describe RINO Traitors Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney

 

This isn’t shocking. We all knew that Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) and Liz Cheney (R-WY) would probably be the top picks to sit on this January 6 clown committee that’s about to start. They’re the two of the most vocal anti-Trump Republicans on the Hill. They would rather get their media hits on CNN or MSNBC than work to win elections for the GOP. They have no qualms about stabbing the GOP base in the back repeatedly. They think they’re principled. They’re not. They’re morons who are unaware that their participation gives Democrats the talking point that this is bipartisan. Now, we all know it’s not. An anti-Trump Republican is no better than a Democrat, and the extent to Liz Cheney’s mental malfunction is based on her belief that this committee is going to be non-partisan. I mean, this is ‘laugh or cry’ territory. These two are not the faces of the GOP. Adam Kinzinger may think that he is, but I’m sure he was able to assess his position when he tried to boot GOP House leader Kevin McCarthy post-January 6 only to drop the plot…when no one wanted to join this idiotic effort. 

Now, with Pelosi tapping Kinzinger to serve on this freak show of a committee, and Liz was already a willing participant. There’s the ‘Republicans In Name Only (RINO)’ pejorative, but Mr. McCarthy has a more damning one I think (via CBS News) [emphasis mine]:

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy mocked Republican Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger Monday as "Pelosi Republicans" Monday over their appointment to the select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol assault. 

A small number of Republicans are pushing for Cheney and Kinzinger to be punished for agreeing to serve on the select committee, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected two of McCarthy's picks for the committee and McCarthy in turn said no Republicans would serve on the committee if all five of the men he chose could not. Pelosi then selected Cheney and Kinzinger to join Democrats on the committee. 

McCarthy made the comments to reporters ahead of an event in the White House Rose Garden. Asked if the two Republicans will face consequences for serving on the select committee, McCarthy responded, "We'll see."

Pelosi dismissed McCarthy's shot at the two outspoken Republicans. 

"I don't care what he said," she told CBS News.

I like it. McCarthy has floated stripping Cheney of her assignment on the House Armed Services Committee. After this spat, he should. Cheney has already been booted from her leadership post after she refused to shut the hell up about Donald Trump and January 6. She’s a cancer in the locker room. She deserved to go. But even if she’s removed from Armed Services, she’s still there to cause trouble. The best way to remove Liz is to vote her out in a primary. We’ll see what happens, but that ‘Pelosi Republican’ line will be popular with base voters who hate what’s going on with this witch hunt that will only seek to smear Trump and his supporters as domestic terrorists. Somehow, this will help the party, according to Cheney and Adam. I think it will only help Democrats as they prepare to build something of a fortified line to help blunt their expected 2022 midterm losses. I guess Liz and Adam decided to lend a hand in that effort.

Thursday, July 22, 2021

These Aren’t the Democrats of Old

In the old days, Democrats had predictable agendas, supposedly focused on individual rights, the “little guy” and distrust of the military-industrial complex.

The left, often on spec, blasted the wealthy, whether the “lucre” was self-made or inherited. The old-money rich were lampooned as idle drones. If the rich were self-made, they were deemed sellouts. A good example was ’70s pop icon Jackson Brown’s “The Pretender,” with lyrics that railed about a “happy idiot” and his “struggle for the legal tender.”

Democrats talked nonstop about the “working man.” They damned high gas and electricity prices that hurt consumers.

Almost every liberal cause was couched in terms of the First Amendment, whether it was the right to shout obscenities, view pornography or bring controversial speakers to campus.

The Supreme Court was sacred. With a liberal-packed court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, progressive justices restrained the supposedly harebrained initiatives of hick right-wing populists.

Once upon a time, Democratic congressmen investigated the CIA and FBI seemingly nonstop. Progressive political cartoonists caricatured the Pentagon’s top brass as obese, buffoonish-looking clerks with monstrous jowls. The “revolving door” was a particular leftist obsession. Democrats blasted generals who retired from the military, then went straight to defense contractor boards and got rich.

Unions were sacred. So farm union kingpins such as Cesar Chavez headed to the border to confront (or physically assault) any would-be undocumented immigrant “scabs.”

Politicians such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bill and Hillary Clinton railed against the cheap labor provided by undocumented immigrants, which drove down American wages.

That was then; this is now.

Liberals became rich progressives who transmogrified into really rich hardcore leftists. Suddenly, not just millionaires but multibillionaires such as Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Jay-Z, Oprah Winfrey and a host of other celebrities and CEOs were cool and hip.

Deified Silicon Valley monopolists ensured that leftist candidates were usually better funded than were conservatives. “Dirty money” disappeared from leftist invective.

The Fortune 500 became mostly a list of billionaires who did not make their money the old-fashioned way of manufacturing, assembly, construction, farming, transportation, or oil and gas production.

The left got drunk on the idea that it now had its hands on the money and influence in America. So it systematically began targeting institutions and leveraged them not from the noisy street with empty protests but from within.

Suddenly, the once-revered Supreme Court, now with a majority of conservative justices, became an obstacle to democracy and had to be packed or restructured.

The First Amendment was redefined as a bothersome speed bump that slowed progress. It needlessly protected noisy conservatives and their backward values.

The CIA, FBI and Pentagon were suddenly OK — if staffed with the right people. Their clandestine power, their chain-of-command exemption from messy legislative give-and-take and their reliance on surveillance were now pluses in the correct hands. These institutions became allies, not enemies, and so their powers were augmented and unchecked.

Sports were cool, given that they offered a huge platform for the social-justice warriors among the athletes to damn the very system that had enriched them.

The higher the gas and electricity prices, the better to shock the clueless bourgeoisie that their SUVs and home air conditioners were anti-green and on the way out.

The union shop was written off as a has-been enclave of old, white dinosaurs — an ossified, shrinking base of the Democratic Party.

The media glitterati were no longer to be mocked as empty suits and pompadour fools, but rather treated as useful foot soldiers in the revolution.

So what happened to turn the party of Harry Truman, JFK and even Bill Clinton into a woke neo-Maoist movement?

Globalization created a new multibillion-dollar consumer market for American media, universities, law firms, insurance groups, investment houses, sports leagues and entertainment outlets, not to mention the internet and social media.

In contrast, work with hands was passe, the supposed stuff of deplorables and clingers — and so better outsourced and offshored.

Traditional Democrats were seen increasingly as namby-pamby naifs who rotated power with establishment Republicans. Now with money and institutions in its hip pocket, and cool popular culture on its side, the left would not just damn American institutions but infect them — alter their DNA and reengineer them into revolutionary agencies.

So here we are with a near one-party system of a weaponized fused media, popular culture and the administrative state — confident that all Americans will soon agree to love Big Sibling.

 

Before Investigating American Policing, The UN Must Clean Its Own House

President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have invited the United Nations (UN) to come to the United States and investigate any “systemic racism” and human rights abuses in American policing.

“The United States intends to issue a formal, standing invitation to all UN experts who report and advise on thematic human rights issues,” Blinken wrote in a July 13 statement. “As a first step, we have reached out to offer an official visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism and the UN Special Rapporteur on minority issues. I also welcome the UN Human Rights Council’s adoption today in Geneva of a resolution to address systemic racism against Africans and people of African descent in the context of law enforcement.”

At the UN, “Special Rapporteur” is the title given to an individual or member state assigned to advise and publicly report on specific human rights issues, and then make policy recommendations to solve any abuses. Special Rapporteurs are appointed by the UN’s Human Rights Council (HRC), a body of 47 member states from around the world that is explicitly responsible for protecting freedom of expression rights, as well as the rights of women and racial, religious, and sexual minorities.

A commitment to protecting human rights is noble, but this is the UN we’re talking about. Since its HRC is the body that would appoint international actors in a potential investigation, it is important to recognize the rampant human rights abuses among its current members. Particularly, the records of the 15 new HRC members elected last October should raise some serious doubt into the UN’s authority to lecture America about human rights — especially in terms of their citizens’ interactions with police. (HRC elections function similarly to U.S. Senate elections, with members serving three-year terms and one-third of all members up for election every year. No member can serve more than two consecutive terms.)

The 15 new members are: Bolivia, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, France, Gabon, Malawi, Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Senegal, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan.

This list is terrifying. Nearly all of these member states have egregious human rights abuses on their record currently, never mind throughout centuries of their history. From a glance, it seems that only France and the United Kingdom are advanced democracies aligned with the U.S., both geopolitically and from the standpoint of governing values. And given the harsh Wuhan coronavirus lockdowns in both of these countries, the idea that the U.S. has a better human rights record than any of the new members arranging an investigation is not a far-fetched argument to make.

The 2020 member class is also reflective of the direction that the HRC seems to be heading. Seasoned American adversaries like China and Russia have ascended to the council, and the council’s Latin American-Caribbean delegation has experienced a similar authoritarian shift. Coup-plagued Bolivia and communist Cuba have replaced Chile and Peru, relatively democratic members of the council whose terms expired last December.

Police abuses and severe democratic limitations in many of these countries need no introduction. China and Cuba have been communist nations for more than half a century, and the measures taken by their respective governments to suppress protests from Hong Kong to Havana are well-documented. Both countries have recently weaponized state authorities against peaceful freedom fighters and therefore should have no say in appointing anyone to investigate policing in the U.S.

Russia, while no longer a soviet stronghold, is not much better. Vladimir Putin has ruled there for more than two decades with an iron fist. Efforts to improve civil liberties are silenced with old-fashioned police brutality, and opposition leader Alexei Navalny is facing nearly three years behind bars for his anti-Putin activism.

Beyond the obvious, the HRC’s African delegation — a particularly relevant group in arranging any investigation into abuses against people of African descent — is no saint of human rights either.

In Côte d’Ivoire and Malawi, investigations into violence against women are often dismissed or covered up by police. In Senegal, similar investigations are particularly dismissive of LGBTQ citizens, and they often end in beatings or worse. In the rare case that investigations are treated seriously in any of these countries, police impunity remains a serious problem.

And in Gabon, a former French colony on the west coast of Central Africa, political prisoners are subjected to harsh conditions by the political dynasty that has ruled since 1967. Last August, two students active in the Human Rights League at Gabon’s largest university were reported missing. Information about the students is limited, but the U.S. State Department reported that they remained missing as of last December.

Uzbekistan is plagued by many of the same abuses rampant among the HRC’s African delegation. Journalists and religious activists are often jailed and given excessive sentences, while those suspected of “extremism” face intense restrictions on their rights to travel freely throughout the country. 

Police in Nepal, another landlocked Asian nation, are often complicit in human trafficking, a cruel practice known to disproportionately subject black women to violence worldwide.

Lastly, the countries of Mexico, Pakistan, and Ukraine have decent human rights records, at least when compared to this joke of an HRC class. However, all three face serious internal threats to ensuring their commitment to upholding rights for their citizens.

Mexico has been crippled by cartels for years, leading police to torture suspected drug smugglers — and even kill them extrajudicially. More recently, the ongoing U.S.-Mexico border crisis has prompted the Mexican authorities to attack their own people for traveling toward the border. The border crisis has also caused rampant police corruption as wealthy cartels take advantage of police officers eager to better provide for their families.

Pakistan still grapples with Islamic terrorists, and the increasingly limited U.S. presence in the region has seen a resurgence in support for the Taliban. And Ukraine faces assaults from an aggressive Russia and an apathetic Europe, whose efforts in Crimea have been consistently crushed by the Putin Police.

Because the UN trusts all of these countries to be stalwart authorities on human rights, any effort by them to coordinate an investigation into the flawed policing of a great nation founded on a recognition of God-given human rights will simply provide a forum for the Special Rapporteurs to air their grievances toward the U.S.

In fact, this has already been happening for several months. In March, the Chinese Communist Party issued a report about the poor state of human rights in America. The death of George Floyd, Donald Trump’s Wuhan coronavirus response, and gun violence were among the topics cited in the report.

In the eyes of the UN, condemning some unfortunate events while shipping members of a religious minority off to concentration camps by the thousands apparently qualifies a country to send a delegation to speak about “human rights” on the world stage. The UN has no shame, and the Biden administration’s attempt to cozy up to its investigators suggests it has no shame either.

 

I hate dating sites

 

I just wanted a girl relationship, and they IP banned me again today for the fourth time.


Monday, July 19, 2021

McConnell Joins Calls for Biden Administration to Withdraw Eco-Terrorist Nominee for Public Lands Post

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is calling on the Biden administration to withdraw the nominee to head the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Tracy Stone-Manning. It was reported recently that Stone-Manning was involved previously with eco-terrorism, specifically tree spiking. 

The nominee lied to the Senate in testimony about the occurrences, McConnell said.

“We now know that President Biden’s nominee to run the Bureau of Land Management lied to the Senate about her alleged participation in eco-terrorism,” McConell said, per The Hill. “The White House should immediately withdraw her nomination.”

Republicans on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee have also called on President Biden to withdraw Stone-Manning’s nomination.

“Ms. Stone-Manning has made false and misleading statements in a sworn statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (Committee) regarding her activities associated with an eco-terrorist cell whose tree spiking in Idaho’s Clearwater National Forest in 1989 put lives at risk,” Ten Senate Republicans on the committee wrote to the president. “As you are aware, the BLM manages one in every ten acres of land in the United States, and approximately thirty percent of the nation’s minerals. The BLM also manages close to 65 million acres of forests and woodlands across twelve western states and Alaska. Any individual who leads this important agency must have the faith and trust of the American people. Ms. Stone-Manning has violated this trust.”

The lawmakers also pointed out that President Obama’s director of BLM, Bob Abbey, retracted his endorsement of Stone-Manning for the job after the revelations of eco-terrorism were reported.

 

Amy Klobuchar Flip-Flops. Again.

On CNN's State of the Union Sunday, Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) spoke about this week's field hearing in Georgia on voting rights and the obstacle the filibuster poses to Democrats' attempts to seize control of elections.

"What I think we should do, myself — having been here the last decade and seeing exactly what's going on — we need to abolish the filibuster," Klobuchar said, repeating a call made by many radical leftist Democrats. 

Those calls have only increased after the so-called For the People Act failed to secure enough votes to overcome a Republican filibuster earlier this summer, setting up yet another act in the Democrats' great tragedy of allegations that election integrity measures are the worst thing to happen to America since the Civil War. 

"If you want to move on immigration reform, if you want to move on climate change as fires are going in the west and we've seen record heat, 120 degrees up in Canada, I think we know what we need to do," she continued.

"I'm here in Georgia to tell people we're not giving up just because of some archaic rule in the Senate that basically was set up for not good purposes," Klobuchar said, adding the filibuster "is once again blocking legislation that would help the people of this country."

Her call to abolish the filibuster is portrayed as a clear-eyed conviction for which she's long advocated during her time in the U.S. Senate — but that's not the case.

In April of 2017, Klobuchar signed a letter — along with sixty-one other U.S. Senators — calling on Leaders McConnell and Schumer to preserve the filibuster she now condemns. 

"We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions as they pertain to the right of Members to engage in extended debate on legislation before the United States Senate," reads the letter spearheaded by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Christopher Coons (D-DE) that Klobuchar signed. "We are united in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor," it continues.


We are mindful of the unique role the Senate plays in the legislative process, and we are steadfastly committed to ensuring that this great American institution continues to serve as the world's greatest deliberative body. Therefore we are asking you to join us in opposing any effort to curtail the existing rights and prerogatives of Senators to engage in full, robust, and extended debate as we consider legislation before the body in the future.

Yet within five years, Klobuchar would go from urging the preservation of these rules and procedures to calling them "archaic" and "set up for not good purposes" as part of an attempt to abolish the filibuster. By her own words, Klobuchar's push to end the filibuster will dethrone the Senate as the world's greatest deliberative body, all so she and her radical colleagues can push through their unpopular agenda that can't secure enough support to advance through established processes.

 

As Inflation Rises and the DOW Crashes, Biden Insists on New Massive Spending

As the DOW crashes and inflation rises, with the cost of basic goods skyrocketing for American families across the country, President Joe Biden insisted Congress pass trillions more in government spending during remarks at the White House Monday. Biden argued his agenda can be paid for through a tax increase on Americans who he says need to "pay their fair share." 

"Simply put, we can't afford not to make these investments. We're going to pay for them responsibly as well. By ensuring our largest corporations, and the very wealthiest among us, pay their fair share," Biden said from the East Room. "Whatever different views some might have on current price increases, we should be united in one thing: the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure framework...and my Build Back Better plan will be a force for achieving lower prices for Americans looking ahead." 

Biden's Build Back Better Plan, which includes the American Rescue Plan, American Jobs Plan and American Families plan, costs more than $7.5 trillion. The current U.S. debt sits at $28.5 trillion. 

During his remarks, Biden attempted to downplay inflation concerns by arguing the change is "temporary." 

"We also know as our economy has come roaring back, we've seen some price increases. Some folks have raised worries that this could be a sign of persistent inflation. But that's not our view," Biden said. "Our experts believe and the data shows that most of the price increases we've seen were expected and are expected to be temporary." 


Inflation is at its worst levels in decades. 

 

Thursday, July 15, 2021

Congressman Visits Rural America, Discovers Something That ‘Might Shock Kamala Harris’

 

As we have covered here at Townhall, Vice President Kamala Harris denigrated rural voters and their capability to use voter ID during an interview with BET. This certainly didn't go over well, especially in rural America. Townhall spoke with Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI) who took advantage of remote hearings to bring his committee to rural America. 

The congressman is the House Administration Election Subcommittee Ranking Member. He addressed the vice president's remarks during his time, as well as the unconstitutionality of the Democrats' attempts to takeover elections with HR 1. The committee held a Monday hearing on "The Elections Clause: Constitutional Interpretation and Congressional Exercise." 

Rep. Steil shared a tweet of himself in his home district when it comes to addressing Harris' remarks. He told Townhall that it was about how he was "going to bring the committee to rural America virtually."

The congressman acknowledged that his remarks were "tongue in cheek," but also explained that he used these remarks in such a way to "bring some attention to the fact that folks in rural America are forgotten by the liberal elite in Washington, DC." 

While "to folks like Kamala Harris, places like Wisconsin is flyover country," Rep. Steil noted that states like the one he represents "are really the bread and butter where things get it done for the United States of America and our economy," especially when it comes to farming and manufacturing. 

Steil emphasized that there are those who already acknowledge that rural Americans are "sophisticated," and still issued this reminder for those like the vice president. 

He explained that "obviously... rural America is the heart and soul of our country, but also the people there are just as sophisticated as anywhere else, are as smart, as hardworking, and also have resources at their disposal, and want elections that have integrity, that it's easy to vote and hard to cheat."

Another reminder is that when it comes to voter ID, it's "not an impediment to people voting, it's simply a way of making sure that our elections have the safeguards and the integrity so people can feel confident in the results."


Just as congressman did in the portion of his remarks shared over Twitter, he explained that in Wisconsin voters "can simply utilize basic technology that's around to make sure that we are adhering to our voter ID law--which provides integrity in our elections in the state of Wisconsin."

It's not merely elites in public office who don't know much about rural America, but those in the media as well, Steil argued.

He shared that the vice president's take gave him an opportunity to "have a little fun with the mainstream media, pointing out that they don't even know what rural America is."

Madness in Minnesota: CRT Protests Erupt at School Board Meeting

n a manner that would make Loudoun County, Va. blush, the city of Rochester, Minn. has cemented itself as the latest battlefield in the war against teaching Critical Race Theory (CRT) to children across America.

Rochester, which is located about 90 minutes southeast of Minneapolis and is home to 115,000 people, held its semimonthly school board meeting on Tuesday evening. Parents and other attendees poured into the meeting, which was otherwise going to address mundane summer business, carrying signs against a number of left-wing ideas, including CRT, mask mandates, and Black Lives Matter (BLM).

Several attendees decorated their vehicles with these signs. Pro-Trump organizer Brian Braaten displayed signs likening BLM (which her called “Burn Loot Murder”) to the Nazis. Another even decked out their SUV to look like a SWAT van, complete with the modified text of Matthew 5:9 on the right rear window. 

According to Post-Bulletin reporter Jordan Shearer, the meeting was quickly filled to standing-room only. Attendees began taking the podium during the meeting’s “public comment period” to directly voice their disapproval to the board members, but not before shouting the United States Pledge of Allegiance in unison.

Among the speakers were two women who railed against CRT and mask mandates, respectively.

But the evening’s most impactful speaker was a man whom Shearer identified as Wes Lund. In his impassioned speech to the board, Lund implied that there were “deep state characters” present at the meeting, and that supporters of CRT are racists who only intend to create divisions.

“Let me clarify, that on no uncertain terms, that those who oppose critical race theory and the organization called ‘Black Lives Matter’ are not racist,” Lund said to applause. "We do not see ourselves as being better than anyone else. We value all lives and the rights of every person, whether or not we have the same level of melanin in our skin.”

Before leaving the meeting, the attendees recited the Lord’s Prayer.

The meeting was also the first for the new superintendent of Rochester Public Schools, Kent Pekel. Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Pekel seemed to dismiss the CRT debate, saying that the curriculum is “not even something being taught or even discussed right now in Rochester Public Schools.”


Rochester Public Schools will convene again on July 27. It is unclear whether this meeting will be open to public attendance.

Despite the controversy, the attendees’ disruptions are generally indicative of Americans’ attitudes toward CRT. A June 16 poll conducted by The Economist and YouGov found that 58 percent of those familiar with CRT find the curriculum either “somewhat” or “very unfavorable.”

The origins of CRT date back to the 1970s, and its teachings were furthered by Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell in the early 1990s. Bell’s CRT lectures, which then-student Barack Obama sat in on, explored the concept of “white privilege” and asserted that all of America’s legal institutions inherently discriminate against minorities.

 

Democratic Party won’t admit it’s become the party of wealth

 

How often during the last year of wokeness have middle- and lower-class Americans listened to multimillionaires of all races and genders lecture them on their various pathologies and oppressions?

University presidents with million-dollar salaries virtue-signal on the cheap their own sort of “unearned white privilege.”

Meghan Markle and the Obamas, from their plush estates, indict Americans for their biases.

Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors Brignac decries the oppressive victimization she and others have suffered — from one of her four recently acquired homes.

Do we need another performance-art sermon on America’s innate unfairness from billionaire entertainers such as Beyonce, Jay-Z or Oprah Winfrey, or from multimillionaire Delta or Coca-Cola CEOs?

During the 1980s cultural war, the left’s mantra was “race, class and gender.” Occasionally we still hear of that trifecta, but the class part has increasingly disappeared. The neglect of class is ironic given that a number of recent studies conclude class differences are widening as never before.

Middle-class incomes among all races have stagnated, and family net worth has declined. Far greater percentages of rising incomes go to the already rich. Student debt, mostly a phenomenon of the middle and lower classes, has hit $1.7 trillion.

States such California have bifurcated into medieval-style societies. California’s progressive coastal elites boast some of the highest incomes in the nation. But in the more conservative north and central interior, nearly a third of the population lives below the poverty line — explaining why one of every three American welfare recipients lives in California.

California’s heating, cooling, gasoline and housing costs are the highest in the continental United States. Most of these spiraling costs are attributable to polices embraced by an upper-class elite — in Silicon Valley, Hollywood and marquee universities — whose incomes shield them from the deleterious consequences of their utopian bromides. The poor and middle classes have no such insulation.

So why are we not talking about class?

First, we are watching historic changes in political alignment.

The two parties are switching class constituents. Some 65% of the Americans making more than $500,000 a year are Democrats, and 74% of those who earn less than $100,000 a year are Republicans, according to IRS statistics. Gone are the days of working people automatically voting Democratic, or Republicans being caricatured as a party of stockbrokers on golf courses.

By 2018, Democratic representatives were in control all 20 of the wealthiest congressional districts. In the recent presidential primaries and general election, 17 of the 20 wealthiest ZIP codes gave more money to Democratic candidates than to Republicans.

Increasingly, the Democrats are a bicoastal party of elites from corporate America, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the media, universities, entertainment and professional sports. All have made out like bandits from globalization.

Democrats have lost much of their support from working-class whites, especially in the interior of the country. But they are also fast forfeiting the Hispanic middle class and beginning to lose solidarity among middle-class African Americans.

The Democratic Party does not wish to admit it has become the party of wealth. All too often its stale revolutionary speechifying sounds more like penance arising from guilt than genuine advocacy for middle-class citizens of all races.

The wealthy leftist elite has mastered the rhetoric of ridicule for the lower-middle classes, especially struggling whites. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden wrote off their political opponents as supposedly crude, superstitious and racist, smearing them as “clingers,” “deplorables,” irredeemables” and “chumps.”

Class is fluid; race is immutable. So by fixating on race, the left believes that it can divide America into permanent victimizers and victims — at a time when race and class are increasingly disconnecting.

The wealthy of all races are the loudest voices of the woke movement. Their frequent assumptions of “victimhood” are absurd.

Americans who struggle to pay soaring gas, food, energy and housing prices are berated for their “white privilege” by an array of well-paid academics, media elite and CEOs.

Note that the woke military is the brand of admirals, generals and retired top brass on corporate boards, not of the enlisted. It’s multimillionaire CEOs who bark at the nation for their prejudices, not saleswomen or company truck drivers.

America is a plutocracy, not a genocracy. Wealth, not race, is the factor most likely to ensure someone power, influence and the good life.

In the pre-civil rights past, race was often fused to class, and the two terms were logically used interchangeably to cite oppression and inequality. But such a canard is fossilized. And so are those who desperately cling to it.

The more the elites scream their woke banalities, the more they seem to fear that they, not most Americans, are really the privileged, coddled and pampered ones — and sometimes the victimizers.

Critical Race Theory Is a Complex — Oh, Who Are We Kidding?

One of the unintended consequences of teachers using COVID to refuse to do their jobs in 2020 is that their students suddenly had to take classes remotely — within earshot of Dad. A mother at a fancy New York City private school told me that the wokeness curriculum was nothing new, but mothers never made a fuss about it. Then the fathers overheard their kids’ remote classes — and all hell broke loose.

Now that the teachers’ anti-white agenda has been exposed (thank you, fathers of America!), the left is spinning a series of increasingly hilarious defenses of “critical race theory,” which is just a more boring version of the left’s usual hatred of Western civilization.

Their current position is that they simply can’t discuss CRT with you because it’s too complex and can only be understood by high-level graduate students after years of study.

Paul Begala on CNN: “It’s a graduate-level construct.”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper: “It started in the ’70s, as I understand, in sort of academic circles, law schools.”

“Dr.” Ibram Kendi — who is a “doctor” in the same sense that Jill Biden is — explaining his position on CRT:

Oh, cut the crap. The “theory” is: Everything is based on racism.

The preposterous conceit that CRT rises above the level of a child yelling “THAT’S RACIST!” has the advantage of allowing liberals to refuse to debate it.

Here’s MSNBC’s Joy Reid dismissing Christopher Rufo, a Manhattan Institute scholar, brought on her show putatively to debate CRT: “Are you like an expert in race or racial history? Are you a lawyer? Are you a legal scholar? Is that part of your background?”

How else could Rufo possibly understand a “theory” that says:

America is racist!

Criminal law is racist!

Policing is racist!

Arrests are racist!

Incarceration is racist!

Standardized tests are racist!

Mortgages are racist!

Oh my gosh, how am I ever going to master this complex theory? I thought the quantum field theory of subatomic particle forces was tough, but THIS? I guess I’ll be hitting the books tonight.

CRT is like the Monty Python sketch, “Anne Elk’s Theory on Brontosauruses“:

Anne Elk: “My theory, that belongs to me, is as follows … (throat clearing) This is how it goes … (clears throat) The next thing I’m going to say is my theory. (clears throat) Ready?”

Presenter: (whimpers)

Anne Elk: “My Theory, by A. Elk (Miss). This theory goes as follows and begins now …

“All brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine and belongs to me, and I own it and what it is, too.”

Presenter: “That’s it, is it?”

CRT advocates talk in hushed tones about where the “theory” was “invented,” like they’re describing the apple falling on Newton’s head.

In fact, CRT grew out of black student protests in the 1970s, forcing universities to hire more black professors. That’s literally how the father of critical race theory, Derrick Bell, got his job. Black students protested the lack of black professors, so Bell was given a professorship at Harvard Law School.

How’d you like to be hired by the (then) premier university in the world, not based on the excellence of your scholarship, but because of students threatening to burn the campus down? Instead of being embarrassed and hoping no one ever asked how he got his job, Bell rationalized his hiring by accusing Harvard of … well, I’d tell you, but it’s too complex for you to understand. On the other hand, I don’t know how else to convey the intricacies of this deeply intellectual theorem, except to just state it:

Bell accused Harvard of … RACISM!

And thus a new academic discipline was born. (I guess all the new hires had to teach something.)

The idea that our country is steeped in white supremacy is laughable. Most of what built this country had nothing to do with race — conquering the West, the invention of electricity, the telephone, the automobile, airplanes and steamboats, bringing drinking water to Manhattan, smashing the Nazi war machine and on and on and on.

I’m sorry, Black America, but all this was happening with or without you.

Yes, slavery was an abomination, the worst thing that ever happened within the borders of the United States. But there are whole vast areas of the American economy that didn’t have anything to do with slavery.

In fact and to the contrary, the slave economy had turned the South into a backwater. If the South had won the Civil War, not only would slavery have continued, but half the country would have had a primitive third world economy.

No need to feel bad about it. The main players in America’s explosive growth weren’t women, immigrants, Hispanics or Asians, either. Somehow we got over it. On the plus side, we get to live in the best country in the world.

Jealousy and obsessive self-regard are not the stuff of an intellectual movement. The daily denunciation of white men is more akin to the tantrum of a 4-year-old.

Which, by the way, is exactly how liberals think of black Americans. If there were an international symbol for liberals, it would be one adult patting another on the head. Otherwise, liberals would just come out and say: CRT’s not a theory! It isn’t complex, it isn’t interesting, and it isn’t true. (Also: We think you’re capable of getting a voter ID.) Instead, liberals coo to the CRT devotees, It IS your birthday every day!

 

I hate plentyoffish

 

I just wanted a girl relationship, and they IP banned me again today for the fourth time.

Wednesday, July 07, 2021

Lefty Blogger Zeroes in on Who Is to Blame for America’s Endless Culture Wars

 

The culture war isn’t meant to be won. It’s meant to be continuous. For starters, white liberals will always find new ways to complain so if they’re around, we’re just going to have to deal with their antics. But make no mistake; the culture wars are the fault of liberals and liberals alone. Democrats are the only group of folks who have increasingly become more insane. It’s not that conservatives have become more radical. We want to bar biological males from competing in women’s sports. That isn’t radical, but erasing language regarding to pregnancy because transgender females don’t have uteruses is not just insane, but anti-science. Remember folks, you have to say “birthing people” instead. Even liberal blogger Kevin Drum, formerly of Mother Jones, said that liberals were to blame for the pervasive culture warfare. Granted, he’s personally okay with this shift for the most part, but he’s also rational about its implications (via Jabberwocking):

Since roughly the year 2000, according to survey data, Democrats have moved significantly to the left on most hot button social issues while Republicans have moved only slightly right.

This wasn’t meant to be a rigorous scholarly analysis. And you can argue about margins of error, question wording, choice of topics, and so forth. Still, the gaps are too big and the trend too consistent to ignore the obvious conclusion that over the past two decades Democrats have moved left far more than Republicans have moved right

I’ve made this point many times before, and I want to make it again more loudly and more plainly today. It is not conservatives who have turned American politics into a culture war battle. It is liberals. And this shouldn’t come as a surprise since progressives have been bragging publicly about pushing the Democratic Party leftward since at least 2004.

Now, I’m personally happy about most of this. But that doesn’t blind me to the fact that “personally happy” means nothing in politics. What matters is what the median voter feels, and Democrats have been moving further and further away from the median voter for years.

“Since roughly the year 2000, according to survey data, Democrats have moved significantly to the left on most hot button social issues while Republicans have moved only slightly right.” https://t.co/XfugK3tAhr— Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) July 3, 2021

And that’s not a good recipe for winning elections. The ideological shift was explicit in the 2020 exits. White college-educated liberals are swelling the ranks of the Democratic Party and their brand of politics is all ideological which does not mix well with the nonwhite bloc that has made up the backbone of the base for years. Blacks and Hispanics especially are not liberal on a slew of issues, including racial resentment, which is why a lot fled the Democratic Party for the Republicans in 2020. Even notable loudmouths of the Left, like Al Sharpton, have criticized the “latte-sipping liberals” who peddle stuff like defund the police. Being pro-crime isn’t popular, but white liberals don’t care. For those who disagree with them, which is most of the country, liberals merely dismiss them as ignorant, uneducated, racist, or a combination of all three. If reaching out to voters is essential for winning elections and changing public opinion, liberals are in for very rough days ahead, and proper pronouns will be the least of their worries.

Whatever Happened to Property Rights?

 ’m no lawyer, that’s for sure, and so I don’t have expertise on the intricacies of the law, but I am angry as a hornet by the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the federal “eviction moratorium.”

On Tuesday, the high court in a divided 5-4 opinion will allow the moratorium to continue until August. This moratorium allows people to stay in their apartments and other rental units and not pay the rent they agreed to.

This policy started more than a year ago when the pandemic was in full force. But the policy is unconstitutional — an affront to basic property rights and the sanctity of contracts. It should have never been allowed and implemented in the first place and certainly has no place in the law now that COVID-19 is over and there are 9.1 million open jobs in the country.

Since when can the government tell a private enterprise that it can’t collect its rightful payments from its customers? What’s next? Politicians promising to end hunger in America by allowing poor people to go into a grocery store or 7-Eleven and taking whatever food they want without paying? This law puts all the cost of achieving a social objective — not having people lose the roof over their heads — during tough times on businesses and individuals. Amazing how humanitarian the political class is with other people’s money.

The latest national estimate is that landlords are losing about $13 billion A MONTH in rental payments. But as one apartment owner tells me: “If I can’t collect the rental payments, I can’t pay the bank the mortgage on the property. I may have to default on the loan.” The latest estimates from CNBC are that more than 11 million Americans have stopped paying their rent on time — or have just stopped paying entirely.

What is especially galling about this story is that we are creating another new de facto federal entitlement: free rent. Now apartment dwellers are indignant when the landlords try to get their monthly payments. Many hang signs outside their windows that say, “No justice, no rent” — as if the apartment owners are responsible for the social ills in our country.

The signs used to say, “No jobs, no rent,” but no one is sympathetic to that view now that jobs are aplenty from coast to coast.

Speaking of justice: How do edicts like this help in the left’s crusade of increasing affordable housing? If apartment and rental housing owners can’t legally collect rental payments, they aren’t going to build more units. They will build less.

In the court case, the losing plaintiffs argued — persuasively — that “Congress never gave the CDC the staggering amount of power it now claims.” Who elected the bureaucrats at the CDC? These are the same people who were caught asleep at the switch when the pandemic hit these shores. They were too busy studying gun violence and LGBTQ issues. These kinds of dictates should be rarely imposed, and when they are, they should come from Congress, not from a federal agency that is completely separated from the voters and thus the will of the people.

The government’s argument was that the CDC believes the regulations are necessary to “prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases.” Never mind that the pandemic is over and that anyone who wants to be protected against COVID-19 has ready access to the vaccines.

This country really is headed down the road of tyranny when the government tells our citizens they don’t have to pay their bills.

Monday, July 05, 2021

The White House Has Little to Say About Claims Working for Kamala Takes Place in an 'Abusive Environment'

 

As Matt recently reported, POLITICO dropped a bombshell revelation that working for Vice President Kamala Harris could best be summed up by this source who said "it's an abusive environment," and "not a healthy environment," but one where "people often feel mistreated" and "feel treated like s***t."  When asked about it on Friday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was very tight-lipped:

Q: Thank you, Jen.  Is the White House concerned that some vice-presidential staffers reportedly feel like they work in a, quote, “abusive environment”?
 
MS. PSAKI:  Well, I would first note that I try not to speak to or engage on anonymous reports or anonymous sources.  I will say that the Vice President is an incredibly important partner to the President of the United States.  She has a challenging job, a hard job, and she has a great, supportive team of people around her.
 
But other than that, I’m not going to have any more comments on those reports.

POLITICO indeed turned to anonymous sources for the report. But, as Matt also mentioned in his writing on the issue, this fits a pattern from when Harris tried to run for president, which POLITICO also covered:

“It’s a campaign of id,” said one senior Harris official, laying much of the blame on Rodriguez, but also pointing to a leaderless structure at the top that’s been allowed to flail without accountability. “What feels right, what impulse you have right now, what emotion, what frustration,” the official added. The person described the current state of the campaign in blunt terms: “No discipline. No plan. No strategy.”

Could Psaki really think of nothing better to say, though? None of that speaks to how it is working for Harris, certainly not that it would be positive. If anything it almost sounds like Psaki is justifying what a pain it could very well be working for the vice president.It may be what the White House is going with but it takes some spin to say that Harris "is an incredibly important partner" to Biden, considering he keeps just throwing things her way for her to do and she keeps failing.

It's why reports are coming out with pretty regular frequency on what a problem Kamala Harris is. Matt reported earlier today, too, that "Democrats’ Latest Fear About Kamala Harris Has Serious 2024 Implications," citing a New York Post article. Let's see how Psaki tries to spin that one.

Friday, July 02, 2021

Yes, We Should Ban Critical Race Theory from Our Schools

 

As we head toward this weekend's 245th anniversary of American independence, critical race theory has emerged as the dominant subject gripping and dividing the nation. The threshold question, itself the subject of rancorous and oftentimes disingenuous debate, is what the term "critical race theory" even refers to. When this semantic debate surfaces, proponents usually attempt two things at once.

First, they accuse their CRT-skeptical interlocutors of being bigots, white supremacists or apologists who want to deliberately muddle and whitewash America's complex -- and at times tragic -- history of race relations. This first step involves CRT proponents grilling CRT critics as to why they are so "scared" to "discuss racism" or "discuss slavery," as if that applied to anyone other than a truly infinitesimal and politically powerless fringe subset.

Second, while publicly seizing the moral high ground, CRT proponents simultaneously work behind the scenes to advance what it is that they actually believe. Consider this forthright (and harrowing) admission from "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction," a 2001 book from Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic: "Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law."

CRT proponents, in line with the "anti-racism" movement and vogue notions of "equity," candidly advocate for discrimination -- as long as it is anti-white, anti-Asian, anti-Christian or anti-Jewish. As leading CRT "anti-racist" intellectual Ibram X. Kendi wrote in 2019's "How to Be an Antiracist": "The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."

In practice, as courageous investigative journalists such as the Manhattan Institute's Chris Rufo have laid bare for all to see, CRT takes the form of crass racial indoctrination that ascribes collective and historical guilt to white Americans, urging white parents of schoolchildren to seek "white abolition" and accusing schools of wantonly "spirit murdering" black children. The two-step CRT apologia described is thus willfully dishonest. It is a bad-faith argument, pure and simple. In formal logic, we would recognize it as a prototypical motte-and-bailey fallacy.

It is, furthermore, a logical fallacy committed to advancing profoundly un-American notions of collectivized and racially hierarchical guilt and innocence. This weekend, as we recall the most famous exhortation in the Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal," we should consider just how antithetical CRT is to that most foundational American principle. That principle of real, genuine human equality, subsequently woven into our legal and social fabric via the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sits in an irreconcilable state of tension with the crass and overt anti-white bigotry embodied by CRT.

CRT in most forms is already illegal under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, but many Republican-governed states have gone further, crafting and passing new legislation to specifically ban CRT pedagogy from corrupting their impressionable youth. While every piece of legislation or regulatory rule is distinct and must be legally assessed on its own merits, these states are absolutely correct to ban CRT indoctrination against the protestations of both left-liberal and right-liberal critics.

Many arguing against the states' CRT bans resort to trite First Amendment appeals. "You're infringing on teachers' speech!" they risibly claim. Nonsense. A public school classroom is not a utopian "marketplace of ideas" derived from an Enlightenment-era political pamphlet. On the contrary, states in our constitutional order retain near-plenary power to craft their educational curricula. If the First Amendment-appealing crowd were intellectually consistent, they would similarly object to a state education bureaucracy banning the teaching of Holocaust denial. And if the secular leftists among this cohort were consistent, they would presumably object to a state's ban on teaching the Book of Genesis' creation story. They won't.

More generally, any society that takes the bare minimum amount of pride required to wish to sustain itself for its progeny must understand that instilling racially divisive poison in the minds of impressionable students is a recipe for disaster. No nation will long endure if its youngest generation is full of disdain, disgust and self-hatred. The traditional goal of education, as the Founders conceived it, was to help inculcate the sound republican habits of mind and civic virtues necessary for a flourishing polity. Suffice it to say we have deviated far from that, but surely we can at least ban pedagogies that are often outright deceitful -- such as The New York Times' much-criticized "1619 Project" -- and are always dedicated to collective self-immolation.

Banning CRT is neither coercive nor liberty-infringing. Rather, it is a prudent and necessary first step to salvaging a fractious nation teetering on the brink of collapse.

Thursday, July 01, 2021

Every New Republican Is the Most Evil Republican Ever

According to the Democrats, Donald Trump is literally Hitler or something, but rest assured that the next Republican to become a threat to their dominance will be Hitler2 because of course he will. Or she. Maybe it won’t be Ron DeSantis, who we will be told is Baal without the upside. Maybe the GOP will go insane, climb over my and other real conservatives’ dead bodies, and nominate pliable establishment shill-ette Nikki! Haley – and then she will promptly morph into Moloch. It’s just one of those things that simply is and cannot be denied – the sun rises in the east, Brian Stelter is a potato, and every Republican leader is a million times worse than the one who preceded him.

The corollary, liberal nostalgia for dead or exiled Republicans, is as predictable as it is tiresome. Chimpy McBu$Hitlerburton is tolerated now that he’s snuggling with the Obamas and Clintons, stabbing his loyal supporters in the back, and doing cheesy watercolors of veterans his grotesque incompetence got mutilated. All that unpleasantness about him being in on 9/11 is just a vaguely troubling memory from long ago. Some of us were actually alive when Ronald Reagan strode the earth, vanquishing America’s foes and causing mass liberal panty micturition, and we remember the slings and arrows these puny posers cast his way. But now he’s wonderful, being dead, and the Dems are getting warmed up to give Trump the same treatment. Pretty soon we’ll be hearing the victims of Ron DeSantis moaning, “I miss Donald Trump!”

Good. 

Because, for the first time in recorded history – which, I am informed by smart people with degrees in Credential Studies from approved A1-level regime conformity factories, began in 1619 – liberals are right. Whoever comes after Trump will be on a scourge kick the likes of which would make Genghis Khan smile with approval like Robert Redford in that Jeremiah Johnson meme.

It’s often been said in this space that Trump was not us normal folks’ last chance but the elite’s last chance. They treated Trump like some radical, but they misunderstood him as they misunderstand so much else. Donald Trump was less a revolutionary than an eccentric with an inability to hide his contempt for his fellow caste members. He grew up and prospered in elite society, and he enjoyed it – as his myriad amorous adventures splashed across the cover of the NY Post testified. What made him dangerous is that he didn’t participate in the framework of Mutually Assured Discretion that keeps the members of our upper crust from telling the proles just how inept, corrupt, and unaccomplished our elite truly is. They know that they are a bunch of clowns, posers pretending to be the best and the brightest, and they work together – Democrats and Republicans – to preserve that status by not spilling the beans on how their class has none. They will tear each other up individually, but to blow the whistle on the establishment as a whole is a no-no.

But not Trump. They hated him not because he embraced a few conservative ideas. They hated him not even because of those mean tweets – they like meanness. No, they hated him because he told the forbidden truth. He told the terrible secret to those unwashed people out there in Americaland who make things for a living and sweat when they work, that our elite is not only not better than the plebs but is much, much worse in every sense.

Yet, Donald Trump did not want to destroy the ruling caste. At least until the end, he still maintained residual respect for its institutions. He might have accurately labelled it the “failing New York Times,” but at some level, he still thought he could win over Maggie Haberman and get a sweet write-up. He didn’t want to burn it all down; he just wanted to slap some of the swells around.

But the follow-up GOP base leader – whoever that is – is going to wreak havoc. And it will be glorious.

Because the truth is undeniable – our ruling caste is beyond salvage. Our institutions are beyond saving. The current conflict is really them holding on, fearfully, to power that is slipping through the fingers of their soft, girlish hands. The key indicator is their norm-breaking – the norms they touted for so long about free speech, due process, and self-determination were all fine right up until the outsiders started to use them to threaten the insiders’ positions and prestige. All these attacks on free speech are really desperate attempts to do by force what they can’t do by persuasion, and they can’t do it by persuasion anymore because they so completely and manifestly suck.

When you have to try to intimidate and gag your opponents, you aren’t winning. You are losing. And it might work for a while, but in the long-term you are only putting off your inevitable ejection from power. And ticking off their enemy – us – in the process.

Oh, we’ll have our vengeance.

The next victorious Republican – one will come even if we detour back to another squish for a cycle or so – will be ruthless. He will understand that the enemy is serious about holding on to power and that means holding us by our throats. He will understand that to win means to take the fight to them, to ignore the whining and howling and to impose fair election laws, free us to carry weapons, ban the cancer that is CRT, and do all the other things Democrats fear. And he will do it without the baggage and the mean tweets that let the left shift the argument from “Conservative Policy Good” to “Orange Man Bad.”

He will not care about earning their favor. He will care about payback. He will be woke, conservative woke, and for the first time in a long time, Democrats will be right about something, for they shall fear him.

Media Ask Non-Catholics to Comment on Catholic Abortion Beliefs

 

In an effort to understand Catholic Church teaching on abortion, the media are consulting with – wait for it – non-Catholic abortion supporters.

“‘Religious leaders should be asking for your forgiveness’ on abortion – not the other way around,” a Salon headline claimed on June 30. The description to the piece added, “Church leaders are challenging Biden's stance on abortion, but people of faith say his views jibe with religion.” But those “people of faith” Salon spoke to were largely figures without ties to Catholicism: two non-Catholic Christians, a rabbi, and the president of Catholics for Choice, who was “born and raised a Catholic.”

All vehemently supported abortion.

Staff writer Kylie Cheung turned first to CoWanda Rusk, a “person of faith” whose father was a youth pastor. Pregnant at 17, Rusk sought an abortion after praying to God.

“Rusk says she decided to have her abortion when she reflected on everything God had prepared for her, like scholarships and her bright educational future,” Cheung wrote. “Because of this she knew she had God's support.”

Cheung added that Rusk “cringed” when she “heard Pope Francis' message in 2016 that people who had abortions should be forgiven.” (Although, had Cheung looked at the piece she linked to, she might have realized that Pope Francis’ message was that priests could forgive post-abortive women – in addition to bishops. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that abortion can’t be forgiven.)

“I absolutely do not agree with needing forgiveness from God nor other people for making a decision to take care of yourself,” said Rusk, a non-Catholic. If anything, “Religious leaders should be asking for your forgiveness for not using their powers to make sure people have access to basic needs and health care.”

Both Rusk and another woman, called Tohan, are involved with We Testify, a group dedicated to sharing positive abortion stories, Cheung reported. Tohan also identified as Christian and had a minister father, but said that her abortion was “personal” and had “nothing to do with religion.”

“The divide for me is figuring out who you are inside of God — not what your priest thinks, not the Pope telling you who you are,” said Tohan, a non-Catholic who doesn’t have a parish priest or a pope.

Cheung centered her piece around the news that “the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops voted to draft new guidance on the sacrament of the Eucharist, which,” she claimed, “will challenge President Biden's ability to receive communion because of his support for abortion rights.” 

According to Cheung, the move “is just the latest of near daily political efforts to shape abortion policy around the religious views of some.” But, she added, “Progressive spiritual leaders say the religious anti-abortion narrative is new — and entirely political.”

She spoke with Jamie Manson, who was “born and raised a Catholic” and now leads the group Catholics for Choice, which directly contradicts official Catholic Church teaching on abortion. To Manson, “the church believes essentially in forced motherhood.”

The “wedding of Catholic identity with anti-abortion politics” has “only happened in the last few decades,” Manson claimed, calling it a “very reductive understanding of Catholicism.”

That understanding exists, she added, because of the influence of the Christian right wing. Because of them, “people automatically equate religion with anti-choice values” and that’s “simply not true,” even “for Catholics.” 

Danya Ruttenberg, a rabbi and founder of National Council for Jewish Women’s Rabbis for Repro campaign, added that Catholic theologians St. Thomas Aquinus and St. Augustine believed “there were certain stages of fetal development where abortion should be fine, and had different standings about when a fetus got a soul.” 

In other words, the "church's teaching has changed” and the “church and hierarchy and right wing laity are not being honest about the history of this teaching."

This is a common misconception in the media. Salon might have benefited from taking a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which summarizes official Church teaching. 

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception,” the catechism reads. “From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

The catechism states that the Church’s position on abortion “has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” the catechism adds, citing Didache, Ep. Barnabae, Ad Diognetum, and Tertullian.

The U.S. bishops also provide a fact sheet for “those who say this teaching has changed or is of recent origin.”

While the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) admits that the “knowledge of human embryology was very limited until recent times,” it held that “mistaken biological theories never changed the Church's common conviction that abortion is gravely wrong at every stage.”

The sheet also clarifies the positions of St. Augustine as well as St. Thomas Aquinas, who “rejected abortion as gravely wrong at every stage.”

These documents tell a very different story from those in Salon.

“The conversation especially among progressive Catholics has to move to a place where abortion is not intrinsic evil,” Manson concluded, “it can be a moral good, and it's a freedom that allows women and pregnant people access to other kinds of freedoms, political power, economic power."

But as many Christians, the Catholic Church, and the pro-life movement recognize, there’s another person involved there too: the unborn baby.

Top Wuhan Lab Scientist Is Connected to the Chinese Military

 

A leading scientist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology has confirmed ties to the Chinese military. Dr. Shi Zhengli has repeatedly denied the lab has any connection. 

"In January, a Trump administration fact sheet accused China of 'secret military activity' at a lab in Wuhan. Dr. Shi Zhengli, a leading researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, says it is a civilian institution, but NBC News has found evidence of her connections with military scientists," NBC reports.

The Chinese Communist Party has repeatedly denied Wuhan coronavirus came from or was engineered in the lab, but intelligence officials haven't ruled out the disease was designed as bioweapon. Republican Senator Tom Cotton brought up the possibility in February 2020. 

Earlier this week House Republicans held a hearing on the origins of the disease. 

Traitor Liz: Pelosi Taps Democrats' Favorite Anti-Trump Republican to Sit on Their Witch Hunt Committee

I wish I could say this is shocking, but it was really going to be one of these two people. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has tapped Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) to be on the select committee investigating the Capitol Hill riot. Liz was one of two Republicans who supported this partisan project. 

Everyone but the Left has moved on from this event, but the Democrats need distractions. Jobs reports are bad. Inflation is soaring. The deficit is going to hit $3 trillion. Biden’s abroad trip was not well executed, the border is a mess, and Kamala Harris’ office is reportedly a disaster zone. So, let’s keep reshaping this January 6 stuff. It’s an exercise to keep the liberal moral superiority complex afloat and it will offer Democrats another way to attack Trump. It’s also a long-awaited revenge project, as Democrats thought the select committee on the Benghazi terror attack was a waste of time. It’s a game and around and around we go.

Cheney is an anti-Trump Republican, so it’s not a shocking move by Pelosi. Will it lend this witch hunt committee credibility due to its bipartisan appearance? No. An anti-Trump Republican is no better than a Democrat. And Liz must know she’s being played here. She may think this is a patriotic duty. She’s really accelerant to this massive anti-Trump media pyre. Her last name is key. It’s the liberal media latches onto like a barnacle and we’re off to the races. 

Here’s what she said upon her appointment:

"I'm honored to have been named to serve on the January 6th select committee. Congress is obligated to conduct a full investigation of the most serious attack on our Capitol since 1814. That day saw the most sacred space in our Republic overrun by an angry and violent mob attempting to stop the counting of electoral votes and threatening the peaceful transfer of power. 

"What happened on January 6th can never happen again. Those who are responsible for the attack need to be held accountable and this select committee will fulfill that responsibility in a professional, expeditious, and non-partisan manner.

"Our oath to the Constitution, our commitment to the rule of law, and the preservation of the peaceful transfer of power must always be above partisan politics."

It’s not about any of this, Liz. This is about the Left trying to get Trump after failing so many times before. Democrats know the chances of them getting blown out in the 2022 midterms, so again—it’s about trying to find ways to keep their base animated. They can’t form a good messaging campaign over Biden. Nothing he’s done is great. The vaccines? That was a Trump initiative. We know Trump gets Democrats motivated, but this isn’t going to be the golden ticket to midterm success. It’s Congress not doing their jobs—and Liz being a willing participant in the Democrats’ painfully transparent political games. 

She's already lost her leadership post over her anti-Trump antics. Do we have martyrdom syndrome here?

Oh, and the other Republican to support this witch hunt was Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL).