Ketanji Brown-Jackson was always going to be installed in the supreme court as part of the overall Obama team’s use of Joe Biden. Merrick Garland was removed from his position specifically to create the path for KBJ to travel. Everything about this was planned well in advance of Biden’s installation. KBJ is to the judicial branch what BHO was/is to the executive branch.
The same motives and intentions were true for the Obama crew selecting Kamala Harris to be Joe Biden’s vice-president. Harris represents the least qualified person in office and her ineptitude is a specific reason she was selected. Harris’s inability is the shield that protects Biden from Republican efforts to remove him. This too is part of the design.
Today the least qualified person ever to hold the VP position, gives her opinion on the most radically qualified Alinsky ideologue ever to reach the Supreme Court. Eloquence is not her forte’. WATCH:
Folks, the need for control is a reaction to fear. The people in “fly over” country have joined with the coastal working class. People are furious right now, from the guy that guides hunters, to the truck drivers, hammer swingers, mayors of towns and cities, and even state senators, legislatures and newly awakened citizens who are demanding action against this leftist onslaught.
The political pendulum has never, in the history of humanity, stayed on one side of a swing. The back lash from overreach has always been proportionate to how far off center it went before coming back … and right now we’re staring at a whole hell of a lot of the country (about 80-90% of the land mass, as well as about 70% of the population) that is fed up. DC knows they are in a tenuous place, and they do not want that assembly deciding the only way to fix it is to burn it down and start over. They are doing everything in their power, and beyond, to control and avoid it.
This is an administration motivated to satisfy the agenda of its radical, anti-borders activist base. The best interests of the country and the majority of its citizens aren’t even on their radar.
While big government has long been derided as slow-moving, wasteful, and inefficient, there is a growing belief among American that what we are seeing right now is something more sinister. Yes, our government is still as wasteful and inefficient as ever, but those qualities alone do not bring the kind of fall-of-the-Roman-Empire news and images that have become commonplace today. The only possible conclusion is that a significant number of those in high places are deliberately wounding our nation for political gain, and the evidence for it mounts daily.
One need look no further than our current immigration crisis. For all the media hysteria at the time over the immigration policies of the Trump Administration, official data shows a border that was largely under control, with apprehensions of aliens at a manageable level. Tom Homan, former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement with over 30 years’ experience, has said the Trump-era immigration policies produced the most secure border in his lifetime.
Looking at the same metrics over the last 14 months, one will find a hockey stick-shaped spike that coincided with Joe Biden arrival in the White House. Some of the data, including a 1,121 percent increase inapprehensions in the Yuma Sector alone since last year, almost sound too outrageous to be true.
Did the circumstances south of the border change dramatically during that time? No, the change was due to a 180-degree reversal of the policies that demonstrably kept the border and the interior of the United States far safer from criminal elements among those entering the country illegally.
A chief executive committed to his oath of office, specifically the part about defending the country, simply would not do the things this administration has done.
The tone was set even before January 20, 2021. In Democratic primaries the year before, candidate Joe Biden openlyurged foreign nationals to “surge the border” if he were elected. This was followed by a blitz ofexecutive orders on his first day in office. Many of the Trump border policies were ended, including those opposing sanctuary policies, preventing illegal aliens from being counted in the census, and authorizing construction of the border wall.
Did any of those Biden executive orders make things better for Americans living in America? Of course not. They only helped foreign nationals and extremist anti-borders groups with an agenda to weaken the United States. You, the anonymous, hard-working, taxpaying American citizen or legal resident, get to suffer the consequences.
The noxious tentacles of these policies are so long and intricate, it would take volumes to document and untangle all of them. The outcomes include more violent crime in the United States interior, death and suffering among those making the dangerous journey through Mexico, and a seemingly endlessflow of people crossing our border about whom we know virtually nothing related to their backgrounds or intentions. What leader of a nation would allow this, much less intentionally cause it?
Now, just as the devastation from the COVID pandemic appears to ebb, the intentional damage being done to our country enters a new phase. The White House is preparing to end Title 42, a public health provision which has allowed border agents to control the spread of COVID as well as the illegal entry of foreign nationals across our border.
Border agents arepredicting dire results from this move, with more deaths of foreign nationals, more illicit drugs entering the country, and a complete loss of operational control of the border. Even some of Biden’s allies are warning that the move could exponentially worsen the crisis at the border, not to mention the political damage of having to own a self-inflicted humanitarian crisis just months away from midterm elections.
Not surprisingly, the Biden White House dismisses all of these warnings and pushes on with its poisonous rhetoric. This is an administration motivated to satisfy the agenda of its radical, anti-borders activist base. The best interests of the country and the majority of its citizens aren’t even on their radar.
Yes, this administration has plenty of incompetence. One need only look at Biden’s painful public speeches or Kamala Harris’ cringeworthy overseas diplomatic missions to find that. Their broader policy strategies, however, are something different. They are the actions of people willing to cause damage to the country for their own self-interest.
Words matter, and accurate words need to be used. This is not incompetence; it is sabotage.
I'm really not looking forward to Sunday. Yes, I'm aware of what this Sunday marks in terms of being a Christian, I know. But that's not what's bugging me. It's because of what will be taking place that day:
Early evening: The NCIS franchise Paleyfest panel.
9:00: NCIS LA returns with another liberal hivemind political dumpster fire episode.
In other words, unless the panel actually surprises me in a good way, chances are very likely I'm gonna be in another rotten mood, just like 2 weeks ago. (heavy sigh).
I know I should be excited, because there hasn't been like, almost any interviews from the LA cast since like last October, which means that some info will be coming. Except guess what: I'm not.
Reasons why: Only 7 out of the 8 Series Regulars are listed to be going, even the stupid showrunner (who seriously needs to leave after this Season!) is going.
-I'm not about to enjoy listening to this cast chat about how 'proud' they are of the show and how 'stinking amazing' the new Regulars are (even though they are literally what is bringing this show down!).
-Will the info given out about what might be coming later this Season even be about Hetty? Will anyone there even mention her at all? Do they even talk to her at all now? Or is she just another afterthought to them now?
So yeah. Those are some pretty good reasons. I can always be wrong, except what have I even been proven wrong about during this betrayal of a Season?
Even a truncated Russian Federation has four times the pre-war population of Ukraine. It enjoys well over 10 times the Ukrainian gross domestic product. Russia covers almost 30 times Ukraine’s area.
And how does Ukraine expel Russian troops from its borders when its Western allies must put particular restrictions on their life-giving military and financial aid?
The interests of Europe and the United States are not quite the same as those of a beleaguered Ukraine. NATO also wants Vladimir Putin humiliated, but only ifthe war can be confined within the borders of Ukraine.
The West seeks a resounding reaffirmation for the supposed “rules-based international order” that prevents aggressive invasions across national borders—but not at the price of a nuclear exchange.
So to accomplish those grand agendas, the West restricts some of its generous supplies to Ukraine. It sends plenty of lethal weapons—as long as some of them will not provoke a losing Russia into doing something stupid, like resorting to tactical nuclear weapons to save face.
There are other complications. Time is fickle. In theory, it should favor a resilient Ukraine.
The longer the war goes on, the more sanctions will hurt the Russian economy and insidiously undermine Russian public support for the war.
On the other hand, the longer the war continues, the greater the Russian losses, and the fewer acceptable off-ramps for Putin, all the more likely he will grow desperate and escalate to Götterdӓmmerung levels.
Admittedly, Putin is no longer fighting to win over Ukraine and force it back intact into the Russian federation. He is no longer wary of eradicating infrastructure that he once felt would once again become valuable Russian assets.
Instead, Russia is going full Carthaginian peace in Eastern Ukraine—leveling cities, murdering civilians, and destroying an entire modern society for generations.
There is as yet still no deterrent force that can stop his bombs and missiles and disrupt Putin’s nihilist strategy. Again, Putin feels liberated by caring nothing about international opinion, and less than nothing about Western outrage over reported Russian war crimes.
Putin instead believes the stick, of an unpredictable Russia with 7,000 nuclear weapons, and its carrot, of becoming the world’s largest daily producer of oil, cut a lot of lofty talk about humanity.
So the war has become more complex precisely because Putin failed in his initial shock-and-awe effort to decapitate the Ukrainian government, storm the cities, and install a puppet government.
Putin’s strategy is now paradoxically much simpler—and harder to stop. He will claim victory by institutionalizing Vichy-like Russian states in the Donbass region and Crimea.
In the meantime his air attacks will render Eastern Ukraine an inert wasteland that will require decades to rebuild.
Even after an armistice, Putin can periodically threaten to expand his devastation to Western Ukraine, should he feel Kyiv is once again growing too close to Europe.
So can Ukraine ever win?
Ukraine must stop the airborne wreckage by gaining air supremacy through the use of more sophisticated and larger anti-aircraft batteries and far more SAMs and Stinger smaller systems. Some NATO nations may have to send Ukraine their Soviet-era fighters to replace losses—with conditions that they stay inside Ukrainian air space.
Second, the supply war must no longer be defined as a larger Russian economy versus tiny Ukraine.
Instead, Putin is now warring against the supply chain of all of Europe and the United States—and all out of his reach. The Ukrainian war machine will only grow—if fueled by allies that combined account for 70 percent of the world’s GDP.
Putin cannot stop the influx of Western help unless he threatens to use nuclear weapons.
Ukraine may reach a tipping point soon if it can both stop Russian air attacks and expel Putin’s ground troops from its cities.
But Kyiv cannot realistically invade Russia to hit its supply depots. It cannot go nuclear to deter future Russian invasions. It cannot shame a bloodthirsty Putin on the world’s humanitarian stage.
And it cannot join NATO to win the direct help of 30 other nations.
But what Ukraine can do is push Russian troops back to the border regions and let the Russian-speaking Ukrainian borderlands work out their own star-crossed relationships with a now blood-soaked and unreliable Putin.
It can inflict such death and destruction on the conventional Russian military that Putin will fear he will suffer even worse global humiliation that the United States faced after Afghanistan.
Ukraine can also seek an armistice along the Black Sea coast. It might agree to a plebiscite or some sort of demilitarized zone and small-scale population exchanges to ensure that Crimea does not become a permanent battleground.
All that is not outright victory, but it is something. And that something was not imaginable when Russia invaded in late February.
A couple of years back, a conservative friend told me that he sent a check to support Wikipedia every month. Why, I asked him, would you support a site that engages in anti-conservative smears and left-wing bias, and suppresses conservative views?
His was a common mistake. When Wikipedia was founded, it was based on open-source principles (though it was never technically an open-source project). Basically, anyone who had access to the internet could go in and add to or edit articles. The idea was to crowdsource the vast knowledge in the universe to come up with accurate articles that could be used by anyone anywhere, free of charge. It was a great idea in theory, but it hasn’t panned out that way. In recent years it has devolved into left-wing tyranny by moderators who have an agenda, many of whom apparently have an ax to grind.
That garbled postmodern mush-mouth word salad has no substantive meaning. Under these guidelines, any article can be manipulated or spun to say anything and everything, or nothing at all.
The truth is, conservative points of view are treated differently on Wikipedia than liberal opinions are. For example, Wikipedia opines on abortion:
Foes of abortion would never agree to such characterizations. Abortion is the intentional taking of human life, the murder of an innocent child. But to the Wikipedia editors who control the debate, it’s “one of the safest procedures in medicine … safer than childbirth.” Safer for whom? Certainly not the babies who end up dead and disposed of in a medical waste bag. The article spills more words on the topic of “anti-abortion violence” than it does on the legitimate opposition to abortion and largely parrots the talking points of Planned Parenthood. So much for neutrality.
In addition to biased reporting on controversial topics, articles about conservative media sources are singled out for fact-checks while left-wing sites are not. For example, PJ Media’s Wikipedia page consists mostly of a list of alleged “false claims” based on “fact” checks by left-wing activists who disagree with our views on issues like climate change, election integrity, and radical Islam. The silliest item on the list is an article I wrote several years ago describing my experience searching Google for stories about President Trump and finding that it was biased toward left-wing news sites. I was very clear in the article to say that my report was anecdotal rather than scientific, a fact that the Wikipedia activist and even the fact-checkers acknowledged, yet there it is in the list of “false claims” because “fact-checkers at PolitiFact rated it false.” [Side note: If you are a savvy Wikipedia user who knows how to get around the biased mods and you have some free time on your hands, maybe you can do us a solid and get our page straightened out?]
Do left-wing sites get the same treatment? You know the answer to that. Here are some sites that list no fact checks or false claims, even though we all know they’re propagators of fake news:
Wikipedia also downplays major controversies that reflect poorly on the left. Here’s Wikipedia’s sole sentence about Disney promoting the grooming of young children with sex talk in schools, complete with the lie about the Florida Parental Rights in Education bill being called the “Don’t Say Gay” bill:
The “controversy,” according to Wikipedia, had nothing to do with outraged parents wanting to protect their children. Rather it was over crybaby Disney employees demanding that teachers be allowed to talk about sexually explicit topics to kindergarteners.
Larry Sanger, one of the cofounders of Wikipedia, told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson that the site is definitely not neutral. “There isn’t an open system anymore and therefore, the kinds of people that are allowed to have any influence on Wikipedia have been narrowed down greatly to essentially people who agree with the establishment left.”
Yet millions of people go to Wikipedia every month believing it’s a source for unbiased information, unfiltered by the gatekeepers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
“The left, frankly, is relentless when it comes to stating their point of view and using the organs of mass media — and Wikipedia is part of their mass media, I think — to shape the world,” Sanger added. “And so it became another one of the institutions that they had to capture.”
Once again, Joe Biden is going to extend the moratorium on seven million student loans, and many conservatives are asking if the president is just going to cancel the entire $1.6 trillion in student debt altogether.
The radical left has been pushing student loan debt cancellation since Joe Biden entered office, insisting the president can cancel the entire amount “with the stroke of a pen.”
But it was never going to be that easy.
Wisdom Cole, the N.A.A.C.P.’s national director of youth and college, told the New York Times that student loan debt is a “racial and economic justice issue that stains the soul of America.”
“With each and every repayment extension, you make a stronger case for canceling it,” Mr. Cole said. “At this point, just cancel it.”
Did you hear that, all of you former students? If you paid off your student loan debt or worked your way through college, you’re a miserable chump for doing things the right way.
“Joe Biden, right now, is the only president in history where no one’s paid on their student loans for the entirety of his presidency,” Ron Klain, Mr. Biden’s chief of staff, said last month on a “Pod Save America” podcast. “The question of whether or not there’s some executive action on student debt forgiveness, when the payments resume, is a decision we’re going to take before the payments resume.”
Such comments have left debt-cancellation advocates torn between optimism and frustration. “If they’re not going to do it, that gives false hope to borrowers,” said Natalia Abrams, the founder of the Student Debt Crisis Center, a nonprofit advocacy group.
The costs of forgiving $1.6 trillion on student loans are high. The moral hazard of taking on financial responsibility and reneging on that promise should not be lightly dismissed. Columnist Matthew Noyes took out $27,000 in college loans.
“Taking out a loan is a choice, and personal responsibility shouldn’t be supplanted by taxpayer bailouts. ‘Canceling’ student loans means penalizing people like me for honoring my word and repaying the debt I chose to accept.”
The Biden administration is planning on extending the moratorium until August 31. Would he dare force one of his key constituencies to start paying up right before they vote in the midterms?
“There’s obviously a huge amount of pressure, including from the Senate majority leader, to just cancel student loans,” Ms. Erickson said. “The payment pause has just become inextricably linked with the canceling student loan conversation and makes it all the more politically dicey for the administration.”
With inflation running at its fastest pace in 40 years, the extension could add fuel to the hot economy by keeping money in the hands of consumers who can spend it. That poses a further challenge, as strong consumer demand has collided with constrained supply chains, labor shortages and a limited supply of housing to push prices higher.
The other major objection to canceling student loan debt is that the act of debt cancelation would benefit only the richest Americans.
As journalist Emma Ayers adds, “Students from families earning more than $114,000 a year borrow at the same rate as the lowest-income students — and they take out loans nearly twice as large. Students with advanced degrees — lawyers, doctors and others — account for 40% of all student debt [according to estimates by American Progress]. And the top 25% of income-earning households hold almost half of student loan debt… Student forgiveness would largely be a hand up to the better off.”
Moreover, student loan debt forgiveness only benefits those who went to college.
“More than 90 percent of children from the highest-income families have attended college by age 22 versus 35 percent from the lowest-income families. Workers with bachelor’s degrees earn about $500,000 more over the course of their careers than individuals with high school diplomas That’s why about 34 percent of all student debt is owed by borrowers in the top quartile of the income distribution and only 12 percent owed by the bottom 25 percent. Indeed, the majority of all student debt is owed by borrowers with graduate degrees.”
There are certainly low and middle-income people who were snookered into taking out massive loans at exorbitant rates and should have that debt forgiven — especially if they attended some of the fly-by-night, for-profit schools that made exaggerated or false claims about job placement after graduation. But these are separate law enforcement issues and shouldn’t be piggybacked on top of student loan repaying issues.
Biden may not be able to hold off his radical base after August 31 and may be forced to cancel a lot of the $1.6 trillion in debt. If he does, he’ll have an argument from Republicans who may end up suing the administration in federal court to prevent it.
WHEN HE WAS first
elected president of France in 2017, Emmanuel Macron immediately became a
standard-bearer for radical centrism. He was young, clever and
eminently reasonable. Also, it was a time of panic for liberals.
Britain had voted the previous year to
leave the European Union. America had just elected Donald Trump. Across
Europe populists were climbing in the polls, even in sober places like
Sweden, Denmark and Germany. The far left were in power in Greece.
Italy’s Northern League would soon enter government as half of an
all-populist coalition that flirted with leaving the euro and rebuffed
migrants rescued in the Mediterranean. All around the rich world
politicians who promised to raise walls, ignore experts and turn back
the clock to an imaginary golden age were in the ascendant. No wonder Mr
Macron’s triumph in one of Europe’s most pivotal countries brought
sighs of relief.
On April 10th Mr
Macron will face voters once again. This time he is running not so much
on his aspirations for the radical centre, but on his record as a
nuts-and-bolts reformer, on his vision for world affairs, and as a
leader who has reinvigorated French politics. In one sense, Mr Macron
looks as if he will soon be able to say his record has been vindicated.
Our election model gives him a 98% chance of making the second round on
April 24th and a 78% chance of winning re-election
(albeit a number that has recently been shrinking). Victory would be a
remarkable achievement. Not since Charles de Gaulle in 1965 have the
French re-elected a president who has a majority in the assembly.
However, the closer you look, the more liberals around the world should
see Mr Macron as a cautionary tale.
It is in economic policy that his centrism
has been most successful. Before taking office in 2017, he argued that
France should be open to globalisation, but try harder to equip its
citizens with the skills they needed to adapt to change. His pro-market
labour and regulatory reforms embodied this philosophy and they have led
to an impressive rebound in employment and new-business creation.
Rather than trying to preserve redundant jobs, he has boosted training
and early education. At the European level, he was a driving force
behind the establishment of the NGEU, a €750bn ($818bn)
jointly guaranteed fund to help Europe’s weaker economies dig themselves
out of the hole into which covid-19 had cast them.
He
has, however, left plenty to do in a second term. Mr Macron has been
too eager to reach for the levers of state control, whether capping
electricity prices or meddling in the management of hypermarkets. For
all his ENA-honed competence, he has failed to restore
hope to France’s left-behind. Though his supporters would be quick to
point out that covid got in the way, he has failed to overhaul the
labyrinthine pensions system.
As an international statesman, Mr Macron
correctly identified the threat to the Western order from a rising China
and an irascible Russia. His solution was to attempt to boost the
European Union—a forum where France’s voice counts—even if that undercut
the institutions that bind the West together. Rather than confront
Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, he argued for building bridges. He
wanted to downplay NATO, which he accused of suffering
“brain death”, by building up a European counterpart. Yet, as the war in
Ukraine has shown, America’s role in defending Europe is indispensable.
Although his efforts to defeat jihadists in the Sahel were courageous
and laudable, they have yielded few results and are now unravelling. His
dealings with a puerile post-Brexit Britain were petulant—and just what
Britain’s unserious prime minister wanted.
It
is in reinvigorating French politics that Mr Macron has most fallen
short. In the election in 2017 he trounced Marine Le Pen, a nostalgic
nationalist, by 66% to 34%. If she makes it to the second round, which
is likely, the polls today say Mr Macron would win only narrowly, by 53%
to 47%. The proportion of French who tell pollsters that they will vote
for a candidate of the nationalist right or the anti-capitalist left in
the first round is 51%, slightly more than voted that way in 2017.
In other words, five years of government
by the world’s centrist standard-bearer has eroded support for the
centre. There are many reasons for this. War and the pandemic have
polarised politics, and not only in France. Mr Macron also sometimes
repels voters with his aloof Jupiterian manner. Critics dub him “le
président des riches”. The label sticks, partly because he cut France’s
unworkable wealth tax, but mostly because his manner is that of the
high-flying banker he once was. Mr Macron also faces a problem that
responsible politicians always face when running against populists. He offers policies boringly grounded in reality. They say whatever will stir up voters, whether or not it is true.
The
last reason is that Mr Macron has shown an illiberal neglect of
institutions. Although the old politics had too many time-serving
deputies, the parties of the centre-left and centre-right have become
sideshows in presidential politics. True, responsibility for renewal lay
with them, but he made their job harder by poaching their best talent.
What is left is a contest between Mr Macron and a cacophony of
extremists on the left and the right. As a result, the nearest thing
France has to an opposition leader is Ms Le Pen—a historic admirer of Mr
Putin who would flout EU rules by favouring French
citizens for everything from housing to jobs. Her 21% chance of becoming
president is alarmingly high.
In 2016 Mr Macron wrote: “If we don’t pull
ourselves together in five years or ten years, [Ms Le Pen] will be in
power.” What should centrists make of the worrying fact that, despite
all he has done, his words are as true today as they were then?
One
lesson is that complex trade-offs struggle to defeat slogans. Politics
is so much about tribes and identity that material gains in terms of
jobs and economic growth are necessary but not sufficient for
re-election. Another is that one person cannot sustain the radical
centre. That is not only because too much is riding on each re-election
and on a successor turning up, but also because, as centrists know,
individuals are flawed. French centrism and its Anglo-American liberal
cousins are systems. They require constant renewal, through argument and
competition. Mr Macron still has our vote, but he needs company.
A trio of House Republicans is investigating whether the Biden administration improperly steered funds destined to compensate victims of terrorism to a former Biden official’s own post-employment coffers.
In February, President Joe Biden issued an executive order allocating $3.5 billion in seized assets from the Afghanistan Central Bank be held within the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as opposed to the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund (VSST Fund) where such funds might typically be held. The fund, established by Congress in 2015, sets money aside to compensate victims who suffered from entities designated by the United States as state sponsors of terrorism, such as the Taliban.
“To the extent that this plan is legal,” lawmakers wrote of Biden’s directive in a letter to the White House, “it deliberately avoids Congressionally-established mechanisms for the compensation of victims of terrorism to benefit a set of politically-connected plaintiffs and trial lawyers at the expense of other victims of terrorism.”
One lawyer who stands to “reap a windfall in attorney’s fees” by representing clients with claims against the Taliban known as the “Havlish Plaintiffs” was intimately involved in White House policy on Afghanistan after the botched American withdrawal in August.
Lee Wolosky, who also represented Russia hoaxer Fiona Hill, was hired by the West Wing in September and worked “with the National Security Council (NSC) and other administration officials on resettlement, as well as other issues related to the U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan,” according to Axios. The NSC also led the way on how to handle the $3.5 billion worth of Afghanistan assets circumventing the compensatory process created by Congress. Wolosky now works at Jenner & Block representing the Havlish Plaintiffs to a handsome payout.
“The White House has denied that Wolosky was involved in the Afghanistan Central Bank assets deliberations,” acknowledged Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, Mike Johnson, R-La., and Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., in their joint letter sent Tuesday. “However, the White House’s apparent desire to avoid the established VSST Fund process, the steering of assets to plaintiffs represented by a recently-departed White House official, and the sheer amount of money at issue raise considerable questions.”
The trio of lawmakers gave White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain an April 19 deadline to provide “all documents and communications” related to deliberations surrounding the distribution of the bank’s seized assets and Wolosky’s tenure.
The letter comes as the administration remains embroiled in conflicts stemming from the president’s familial business dealings with overseas actors which openly predated Biden’s 2020 election but only recently captured legitimacy among Beltway media.
On Monday, the New York Post reported on a Hunter Biden grand jury honing in on the identity of “the big guy” in a bombshell email published in October 2020 wherein the anonymous individual was slated to receive 10 percent from a lucrative cash and equity deal. “The big guy” has long been assumed to refer to President Biden after a former family business partner, Tony Bobulinski, went on record to claim so shortly after the email discussing “remuneration packages” surfaced.
It’s going to take strong men and sane women to fully engage the American revival. The more that is revealed about our culture and politics, and those who are shaping it, the more dire things appear to be.
The people in power in this country want desperately to thin the ranks of strong men and sane women. And they’re starting with your kids.
Not their kids. So many of these people don’t have any. Those who do seem almost pathological in their need to rob them of their childhood.
So imagine what they’ll do to yours.
You don’t have to, as it happens. The evidence of the Left’s designs on America’s children is everywhere. You just have to be willing to see it, and to be called names for pointing it out.
The White House is having a complete meltdown about this week’s array of new pro-family laws. According to the Administration, it is “disturbing and dangerous” to keep teachers from sexualizing kindergarten classrooms, it is “extreme” to give women a level playing field in sports, and it is “wrong” to protect children from irreversible and mutilating surgeries such as double mastectomies. In a nutshell, the Administration is distressed because states are protecting women and children.
It’s not everyday Americans who are extreme — it’s the White House. Polls show that Americans support fair sports for women and commonsense child safety protections for children. And even Democratic primary voters support the new Florida Parental Rights in Education law.
Instead of listening to Americans’ voices and supporting commonsense measures, the Biden Administration is doubling down with an authoritarian support for extreme ideology. It’s Biden versus America. And if Americans keep pushing back, we know our side will win.
The release went on to document the Biden administration’s reaction to the entirely unremarkable (at least in Realville) Florida anti-grooming bill:
President Biden called the “onslaught” of laws “simply wrong” (echoing his statements in the State of the Union address)
Press Secretary Jen Psaki tweeted about the laws, calling them “extreme and harmful”
Education Secretary Cardona responded to the Florida law by encouraging students to file discrimination complaints with the Department of Education, and calling the law part of a “disturbing and dangerous trend”
The Department of Justice sent a memo to state attorneys general “reminding them” of “provisions that protect transgender youth against discrimination, including when those youth seek gender-affirming care”
The Biden Administration referenced a Department of Health and Human Services document which refers to transgender interventions as “crucial” for youth who identify as transgender
Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced an “X” sex marker on U.S. passport applications
The Department of Health and Human Services raised a pride flag outside its headquarters
And this led to an utterly bizarre exchange between future MSNBC presenter Jen Psaki and Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy:
The Florida bill forbids teaching five-year-olds about sex. There is nothing harsh about that. And there are no gay or trans five-year-olds, no matter what anyone tries to tell you – those kids haven’t the faintest idea what any of that is. They don’t know anything about straight sex, either, and that’s also a good thing. (READ MORE from Scott McKay: DeSantis Signs the Anti-Grooming Bill)
In our political class, though, no one on the left seems to be willing to recognize these things. The meltdown among Democrats over the idea that education of kindergartners and third-graders should be mostly limited to reading, writing, arithmetic, and perhaps very basic citizenship, and that sexual social engineering is inappropriate for kids so young, is striking.
It shows they’re dangerously out of touch with the rest of America and even their own party’s voters. Some 53 percent of Florida Democrats support that state’s anti-grooming bill. But Charlie Crist, the turncoat Republican of questionable sexuality in his own right now running against GOP incumbent Gov. Ron DeSantis, sputtered so loudly and badly over the bill’s passage that comedy ensued:
Your author has no comment whatsoever on the size of DeSantis’s toes — or those of the legislation he signs.
But the place where such outrage emanates from is not fit for mirth. It’s a dark, oozy cave in which societal horrors live. At the Federalist, Carina Benton tells the uncomfortable truth:
The obscene obsession with hypersexualizing children that exploded about two years ago needs to be understood in the context of the left’s wider agenda to promote moral relativism and sexual deviance, a campaign they have been gaslighting Americans into accepting as “progressive.” Decades ago, Marxists ditched class warfare and economics in favor of sexual politics and culture as a vehicle for executing revolution. Ever since, they have been shrewdly redefining marriage, family, sexuality, and gender, to the point where “tolerance” and “diversity” now means foisting porn, perversion, and predators on our families. Those who won’t stand for it are cunningly condemned as bigots….
Brainwashing school-aged children as young as five into becoming transgender-affirming disruptors of the nuclear family is not just a thing happening out west in crazy California, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington State. In Virginia, Michigan, and Texas, parents have expressed disgust and outrage over sexually explicit materials in school libraries.
In Connecticut, eighth graders were given a foul school assignment asking them to share their sexual desires in the form of pizza toppings. A couple in Florida accused their 12-year-old daughter’s elementary school of covertly coaching her in gender confusion, which they believe led to her suicide attempt.
After last year’s gubernatorial election in Virginia, Democrat Terry McAuliffe learned the hard way that parents don’t want this trash for their kids. It turns out white suburban women don’t take kindly to school boards covering up the brutal rape of a 14-year-old girl by a “gender-fluid” student.
Then there’s the Wisconsin teacher who apparently used a link in her email signature block to redirect students to an LGBT resource site and sex toy shop, and the Missouri teacher charged with sending dozens of nude photos and videos of himself to students, including a girl under 15.
Against this stunning backdrop, the U.S. Senate is poised to confirm the catastrophic Biden administration’s Supreme Court nominee, a radical judge with a 25-year career history of leniency toward individuals convicted of possessing or distributing child pornography. The left-wing media was quick to normalize and defend this disturbing trend, while endeavoring to humanize the depraved pedophiles in question.
You may not read this anywhere else, but that makes it no less true: the only real value to be derived by teaching 5-year-olds about sexual practices and predilections, exotic or otherwise, is desensitizing them against sexual advances by others. Kids that young don’t profit from having their heads filled with the ways they could lose their innocence, but predators who might use those kids in ways most of America believes should result in the death penalty (and often does when their perpetrators end up in a prison’s general population) can profit quite well. If the victim knows all about what might happen and has been taught there’s nothing wrong with it, and if the victim has been further taught his or her parents are bigots and mouth-breathing hicks out of touch with modern America, then it gets a lot easier to abuse that victim and get away with it.
This is not an accusation that our public schools are engaged in a vast conspiracy to sexually abuse our children. It is a recognition that America is awash in pedophiles and predators and that the political party in power is very much part of the problem — and constitutes the opposition to doing something about it. If you listen, they will tell you who they are.
And shouldn’t we remember that the current President of the United States has an open history of wildly inappropriate and highly suggestive behavior toward children?
Not to mention what’s in Ashley Biden’s diary — an unmistakable accusation of unacceptable behavior by the president toward his own daughter.
It’s not fire. It’s nonetheless rather heavy smoke. And all of this was known by the Democrats’ insiders long before they nominated this man as their 2020 candidate. He and his behavior are acceptable to them. They want it to be acceptable to you. That’s obvious.
And then there are the Democrat pols, donors, and activists who keep turning up in child sex and porn investigations. Terry Bean. Larry Brinkin. Eliot Cutler. Sam Adams. Bruce Hensel. Neil Goldschmidt. Bryan Singer and Marc Collins-Rector. The CNN and Disney staffs. The list goes on and on. To be sure there are Republicans who get busted for bad behavior with the kinder (Denny Hastert forever being the poster child for it, may he burn in hell), but the GOP isn’t running a political movement to normalize this horror.
There weren’t a lot of Republicans on Jeffrey Epstein’s flight manifests, you know. And the GOP wasn’t all that well-represented on the NXIVM client lists. We don’t even need to get into the thicket that is Pizzagate, other than that nobody ever answered the questions about John and Tony Podesta and what the hell was in those emails. And thanks to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal now finally receiving a 20-months-overdue airing, no one is obligated to trust the corporate press when it claims that a “conspiracy theory” is “debunked.” Especially not when the pattern is so unmistakable.
David French aside, it isn’t Republicans promoting Drag Queen Story Hour, you know.
When the Left isn’t denying that they’re on the side of the child predators they’re trying to sell this grooming of kids as sex objects as liberation. It isn’t. It’s abuse of the most despicable kind. And the same pseudo–civil rights, cultural Marxist agitation engine the Left used to wedge open the door for somewhat-defensible societal departures like gay marriage is now rumbling away at the grooming of children.
At a time when a staggering number of teachers are being arrested for sex crimes with kids. Much more than the Catholic Church was ever accused of.
It’s going to take strong men and sane women to beat back the pedocrats. The outrage of both must be channeled into this fall’s elections, but it can’t stop there.
