Biden Falls Off Bicycle in Delaware

The installed occupant of the White House, Joe Biden (79), fell off his bicycle during ride near his Rehoboth Beach home in Delaware Saturday morning. Biden and his wife Jill are celebrating their 45th wedding anniversary this weekend as the U.S. economy collapses around us.

Joe Biden was not injured and did not need medical attention according to the White House. {Daily Mail Article Here} The fall of Biden is an ironic metaphor for the current state of politics. “I’m good,” the president told the onlookers who watched his slow-motion tumble. WATCH:

Democrats’ Selective Outrage Over ‘Insurrections’

For Democrats, what constitutes an actual “insurrection” is merely in the eye of the beholder.

by Josh Hammer for American Greatness

To listen to House Democrats’—and Liz Cheney’s and Adam Kinzinger’s, but I repeat myself—shrieks of hysteria from the opening nights of the January 6 House Select Committee dais is to hearken back to the Soviet-era show trials of yesteryear. Vladimir Lenin, as the veteran conservative commentator Roger Kimball reminds us, referred to them as “model trials,” wherein the “aim isn’t to discover the truth—which was supposedly already known—but to stage a propagandist exhibition.”

For Democrats, the aim of the January 6 committee’s “propagandist exhibition” is twofold: First, to attempt (in vain) to distract a besieged citizenry from the myriad problems now tearing asunder the country, under their leadership, in this midterm election year; and second, to lay the foundation for a Justice Department indictment against the 45th president that could hamstring his efforts to seek a second term come 2024.

To anyone paying even a modicum of attention—and I’d recommend no more than that—to the committee’s theatrics, it is obvious that the game is rigged. Consider as but one data point how Cheney, who will be looking for a new job come January, deliberately edited Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” exhortation from that fateful rally to omit the fact that he urged his supporters to make their way to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically.” 

Or how about the fact that the committee has thus far made no effort to subpoena the families of the roughly 800 people who have been arrested—and sometimes placed in solitary confinement, per columnist Julie Kelly’s exceptional reporting at American Greatness—for wandering in and traipsing around the Capitol, often shepherded right in by Capitol Police? Curious, that. A legitimate committee interested in investigation and arriving at the truth would surely want to call some of those families as witnesses. Perhaps that hypothetical legitimate committee would also be interested in hearing from the family of Ashli Babbitt, the Air Force veteran fatally shot on that day by a subsequently exonerated Capitol Police officer. Alas.

Instead, to take Democrats at their word—an always dubious endeavor—is to believe that January 6, 2021, represented the closest thing to an “insurrection” since the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861. To be sure, some—a very small minority—of the protesters who made their way into the Capitol on that day did so with malicious intent. And that very small minority should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But as a whole, January 6 looks something like a limper version of the Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, which amounts to no more than an asterisk in the high school history textbooks.

But the Democrats have found their “insurrection”—and they want to make the dreaded Orange Man, conductor of this benighted orchestra, pay for what he has wrought. Or so they tell us.

The Democrats’ obsession with the word “insurrection” raises an obvious additional question, though: How might we describe the recent attempt—thankfully aborted at the last moment—by a deranged California man to assassinate Trump-nominated Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, following last month’s seminal leak of the draft majority opinion in the Dobbs v.Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case?

Black’s Law Dictionary defines an “insurrection” as “a rebellion, or rising of citizens or subjects in resistance to their government.” Surely, any sober assessment of the trajectory of events pertaining to the Court’s possible overturning of Roe v. Wade—from Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) nakedly threatening Justices Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch from the Court’s steps to the unprecedented Dobbs leak to the now-six weeks of grueling (and illegal) “protests” outside the conservative justices’ homes to the closest thing to a high-profile politically motivated assassination in America since Robert F. Kennedy in 1968—would lead one to conclude that this intimidation campaign against the Court, culminating in a literal assassination plot, amounts to a soft “insurrection.”

And it is definitely more of an “insurrection”—more of a straightforward attempt to rebel and implement a coup against our constitutional edifices—than what happened on January 6, 2021.

Nonetheless, after the Senate last month unanimously passed a bill to increase security for the Supreme Court justices in the aftermath of the Dobbs leak, it languished on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s desk. That bill finally passed the House this week—against the repulsive dissenting votes of 27 House Democrats. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) even openly bragged about her efforts to block the bill’s passage. If she had any sense of shame, she’d hide her head in a bag.

On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) issued a statement that concluded with this admonition: “The same Democrats who want to make a national spectacle out of their supposed opposition to political violence will not even call out violence and intimidation from their own side. Let alone fulfill their oaths and put a stop to it.” 

No reasonable observer of our fractious politics can disagree with that bleak assessment. Because for Democrats, what constitutes an actual “insurrection” is merely in the eye of the beholder.

On the Fringe, Devolution Power Hour, and more- June 18

 

Evening. Here's tonight's news:

A Cretinous Beltway Reproduction of a Stalinist Show Trial

Are Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger accomplices after the fact?

by Thaddeus G. McCotter for American Greatness

If one watches episodic police and detective dramas, there often occurs a scene wherein a culprit is apprehended and charged as an accomplice “after the fact” for helping to cover up the crime. In the British equivalent of such shows, the police use the phrase “perverting the course of justice.” The bottom line is, if one aids in concealing, distracting, or diverting attention from the criminal act to prevent its detection, one is guilty of participating in a criminal enterprise, whether it be before or after the fact.

The House of Representatives’ January 6 committee has been called many things, such as a failed TV pilot, but sadly one knows what the committee is notand was never intended to be, courtesy of Victor Davis Hanson. As for the events of January 6 and its aftermath, the diligent and intrepid work of American Greatness’ Julie Kelly is essential reading.

Regarding the motivation behind the committee, one is to damage Donald Trump’s prospects in 2024, which the committee is in fact abetting by driving his base to rally around him. (Of course, this could well be the Democrats’ covert hope, as many of them, rightly or wrongly, consider him the most beatable GOP nominee.) Another motive is to deflect public attention from Joe Biden and the Democrats’ disastrous economy. (Good luck with that). 

Yet, in conjunction with current developments in an ongoing criminal investigation and upon further reflection following this cretinous Beltway reproduction of a Stalinist show trial, these Democrats’ hearings have a far more subversive motive: namely, concealing and preventing the detection of their own party’s weaponization of the federal government’s police and surveillance powers against its opponents, most notably in the instance of “Russiagate.”

Why? Because the truth is coming out. The New York Post’s editorial board nailed it:

The FBI knew the Trump-Russia collusion narrative was utter bunk even as it suggested otherwise to Congress, the courts and the public early in 2017. Evidence revealed by special counsel John Durham proves it beyond dispute . . .  It was a purely political hit job from the start, by top members of the highest law enforcement agency in the land, against a candidate-and-then-president they opposed. For all the justified anger at Trump over the Jan. 6 riot, this methodical and effective deception plot looks far more like an attempted coup.

Special Counsel John Durham’s critical investigatory work continues, unearthing more evidence of the Democrats’ corrupt and potentially criminal weaponization of the federal government against its opponents, such as Donald Trump, which at present persists and intensifies. 

As the editorial warns, the reason is both elementary and essential: “At this point, it’s up to Durham to keep exposing this unprecedented abuse of power for nakedly personal partisan ends, though Congress may help out once Democrats no longer run it.” (Emphasis mine.) 

Given her party’s fading chances to retain power in the midterm elections, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) launched her latest norm-shattering maneuver. Following her unprecedented refusal to seat Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) GOP caucus selections on the January 6 committee, Pelosi instead seated Representatives Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) and Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.). As ardent opponents of former President Trump, the GOP duo could be counted on to assiduously abet the Democrats’ narrative regarding the day’s events; and not stray off message into how the Pelosi and her caucus, like the notorious sieve Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), aided and abetted the weaponization of the federal government by pimping the Russia collusion lie.

As the initial hearing showed, Pelosi cannily chose her GOP pair. They provided the “bipartisan” façade Pelosi desired, mugging for the cameras and delivering their lines in this taxpayer-funded Democratic infomercial.

Yet, what of Russiagate’s abuse of power that, unlike the singular and ceased event of January 6, 2020, continues to this day—including the wholly biased January 6 committee itself? What of Special Counsel Durham’s investigation’s revelations into the insidious leftist cabal continuing to coercively impose political justice upon the equal and sovereign citizens of our free republic? 

Once again, the New York Post is spot on: “Until the plotters are held accountable, there actually is good reason to worry about the future of democracy in America.”

This, then, is the clear and present danger to everyone’s democracy. Unfortunately for Speaker Pelosi, Biden, and their partisans, it is also a clear and present danger to the Democrats’ political fortunes. Given the January 6 committee’s hearings, we know the latter danger is what the Democrats are most worried about. The question is, which danger do Cheney and Kinzinger most fear?

In her opening remarks at the hearing, Cheney gravely intoned:

In our country, we don’t swear an oath to an individual, or a political party. We take our oath to defend the United States Constitution. And that oath must mean something. Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.

Like Ahab chasing his white whale, their purblind animus toward Trump has led them to pledge and risk everything to destroy him. Like every vendetta, this constitutes an oath to an individual. In the process, they have abnegated their oath to defend the United States Constitution against those who weaponize the federal government against their opponents. In fact, they have rendered it worse than meaningless. They have rendered it rank hypocrisy by becoming part and parcel of that continuing weaponization of the federal government, in this instance against their sworn bete noire, Trump and his supporters.

Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger, my fellow Republicans: did you ever stop to ponder whether your useful idiocy on this committee makes you accomplices after the fact in covering up the Democrats’ attempted coup against President Trump; and of their continuing corrupt and potentially criminal use of the police and surveillance powers of the federal government against their political opponents and all dissenters to their radical diktats?

Or how, when comes the day Donald Trump is gone, your dishonor will remain?

In Starker Terms Than Ever, China Threatens War Over Taiwan

At a recent conference, China was defiant and confrontational and the Biden administration continued to be ambiguous and uninspiring.

by Helen Raleigh for The Federalist

China’s defense minister threatened to go to war over Taiwan at the Shangri-La Dialogue Conference in Singapore last weekend.  

The annual conference was organized by the United Kingdom-based International Institute of Strategic Studies and aims to bring Asian and Western defense ministers together to discuss security issues through friendly dialogue. But it was less a dialogue and more a war of words. China was defiant and confrontational and the Biden administration continued to be ambiguous and uninspiring, but Japan surprisingly stepped up its game.

The Chinese delegation was led by China’s Defense Minister General Wei Fenghe, who insisted that the “Development of the military of China is never intended to threaten others or to seek hegemony. China is never a threat and has never threatened any others.” Yet Wei quickly discredited his own talking point by repeatedly threatening war over Taiwan.

In his meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on the sideline of the Singapore conference, Wei declared, “If anyone dares to split Taiwan from China, the Chinese army will definitely not hesitate to start a war no matter the cost.” He further vowed that China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would “smash to smithereens any Taiwan independence plot and resolutely uphold the unification of the motherland.” International observers, including Taiwanese officials, pointed to Wei’s defiant language as evidence that China is in fact “the source of major unrest in the region.”

Unprecedented War Talk

Then Wei used his speech on the conference’s final day to reiterate that Taiwan “is a province of China … If anyone dares to secede Taiwan from China, we will not hesitate to fight. We will fight at all costs. And we will fight to the very end. This is the only choice for China.” Furthermore, Wei said Taiwan’s reunification with mainland China is an “historical trend that no one or no force can stop.”

Communist China drawing a red line on the Taiwan issue was nothing new. Beijing has long insisted that Taiwan is part of Communist China’s territory. But Chinese government officials usually deployed war-like language on the Taiwan issue only when addressing a domestic audience. To an international audience, Beijing’s official line on Taiwan had always been that China would seek a “peaceful” reunification with Taiwan, but wouldn’t rule out using force to make it happen. 

No other Chinese officials have made an explicit threat of war over Taiwan on the international stage, especially in front of American officials, like Wei did. That’s why Wei’s remarks became headline news around the world.

War Preparation

Wei’s belligerent war talk isn’t an empty threat. The Chinese government has stepped up its war preparations. The PLA has built the world’s largest navy, measured by fleet size. Since 2020, the PLA has sent thousands of military aircraft into Taiwan’s Air Defense Zone, including 30 such incursions in last month alone.

In addition to harassing and intimidating Taiwan’s air defense, China’s Air Force sent fighter jets from one of its militarized islands in the South China Sea to intercept Australian and Canadian military planes over international waters, resulting in dangerous encounters. The PLA has conducted several military exercises near Taiwan, with each exercise amounting to a full-scale rehearsal of an invasion of Taiwan. 

China has also expanded its nuclear weapons development program rapidly in recent years, including developing intercontinental ballistic missiles that can carry multiple nuclear warheads and hit the continental United States. China has kept its nuclear program in secrecy and refused to join the United States in nuclear arms-control talks. Wei claimed that China’s nuclear arsenal buildup was justified for self-defense, but The Wall Street Journal, quoting people familiar with Chinese leadership’s thinking, said China’s nuclear weapons buildup is driven by a possible clash with the United States over Taiwan.

Muted U.S. Response

In contrast to Wei’s unmistakable threat, U.S. Defense Secretary Austin offered a rather muted response. He reiterated that Washington remains committed to the “one-China policy.” Furthermore, he stressed that the United States stands “firmly behind the principle that cross-strait differences must be resolved by peaceful means,” but would continue to fulfill its commitments to Taiwan. He didn’t explain what those commitments are.

While Austin’s words were technically correct, they sounded weak and uninspiring. He missed a great opportunity to forcefully push back China’s war threat and clarify U.S. policy on Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion. His lack of clarity failed to reassure U.S. allies in Asia.

It also didn’t help that three times, President Biden publicly declared that the United States would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion, only to have his aides walk back his statements, suggesting he didn’t mean what he said each time. In the Wall Street Journal, Walter Russell Mead wrote that America’s traditional allies such as Indonesia are “tuning the Americans out” because they perceive the Biden administration has a credibility issue.

Japan’s Strong Response

Surprisingly, Japan demonstrated how to inspire confidence in allies and stand up to China convincingly. Given the geographical proximity of Taiwan and Japan, Japan regards a Chinese invasion of Taiwan as a direct threat to Japan’s security. Influential Japanese politicians such as former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe have been vocal about defending Taiwan.

One of the Singapore conference’s highlights was Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s announcement that Japan would “fundamentally reinforce its defense capabilities within the next five years.” Citing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine early this year as a wake-up call for Japan, Kishida warned that “Ukraine today may be the East Asia [of] tomorrow.” Without naming China directly, he said, “We must be prepared for the emergence of an entity that tramples on the peace and security of other countries by force or threat without honoring the rules.”

Kishida promised to dramatically increase Japan’s defense budget,  referring to the defense target of NATO members, 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), as Japan’s new goal. Currently, Japan’s defense spending is close to 1 percent of its GDP. Kishida also pledged to provide aid to Indo-Pacific countries, spending “at least $2 billion over the next three years for maritime security equipment, including patrol vessels, and to support maritime transportation infrastructure.”

One important lesson the world should learn from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is that we must take war threats from autocracies seriously. Putin had warned the West for years that he intended to invade Ukraine. He was emboldened after Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014 met a muted response from the West.

Last year, Putin released a manifesto to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But few governments, including the Biden administration, took Putin’s threat seriously. A few months later, Putin did exactly what he vowed to do, and the West was still caught unprepared and scrambled to respond.

China has always been very transparent about its intentions toward Taiwan. Wei’s war threat in Singapore offered further clarification of what Beijing plans to do. Ignoring China’s repeated warnings would be a grave mistake.

Jordan Peterson Hilariously Causes Fury Among the Left Again, This Time by Calling Someone 'Beautiful'

Brandon Morse reporting for RedState 

Jordan Peterson can’t release a tweet without causing the left to fly into some sort of rage, but that’s what happens when you don’t toe the politically correct line set by the outrage mob. Peterson seems to be having fun saying and doing the things that make the left furious, but when you have as much hate coming at you as he does, you might as well do what you can to make it fun.

One of the things Peterson is doing to make it fun is turning his Twitter account into an unofficial “smash or pass” game. Previously, the good doctor set the internet on fire when he commented that Sports Illustrated’s new swimsuit model, Yumi Nu, wasn’t beautiful due to her very obvious obesity and that authoritarians attempting to force the “big is beautiful” concept on people won’t change that.

(READ: About That New Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Model That Sparked a Fight About What We See as ‘Beautiful’)

Fast forward to last Thursday and it was announced that golfer and Instagram model Paige Spiranac was named Maxim magazine’s “sexiest woman alive.” Naturally, Peterson decided to add his commentary.

“Ok,” tweeted Peterson. ” She might be beautiful.”

I’m not going to post the reactions to Peterson’s tweet, but you can bet that the backlash for it isn’t pretty, so to speak. Peterson attracts a special kind of anger not experienced by others who speak out against mainstream culture.

The thing is, as I detailed in my article about Peterson’s first dust-up, Spiranac is objectively very beautiful. Peterson isn’t at all wrong, but being a blond-haired woman with a healthy body, asymmetrical face, and large…tracts of land is likely to make those who adhere to woke culture angry, or at the very least, angry with the people who find someone like her beautiful.

The thing is, we’re biologically wired to find someone like Spiranac beautiful, and by “we” I mean both men and women. Allow me to quote some science by SQonline:

After a lifetime of being told that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” it may seem strange that beauty has an objective quality. However, even science supports the idea that there is some objectivity to the contributions of beauty to evolution. One meta-analysis of 919 studies revealed that our beauty standards are relatively fixed both across and within different cultures, proving that there are some universally preferred characteristics (3). Some important factors that predispose us to perceiving a face as attractive include health, symmetry of the face and body, specific ratios (between eye distance for example), and facial color. Attractive faces are also defined as familiar because they tend to match the average features of what is in the population around us, especially when it comes to proportions (5).

Meaning that men want to be with beauty and women want to be beautiful in this biological sense.

Peterson, ever the logical and scientific man, is speaking the truth. Spiranac is beautiful and thousands of years of this being confirmed by our race isn’t going to suddenly stop because the leftist mob said it should. This isn’t to say that women who don’t look like Spiranac can’t be considered beautiful. Body types vary and the vast majority of women aren’t going to achieve the sculpted and toned body of Spiranac. Some may not prefer the tall blond, but the shorter brunette or the quirky redhead. Some may even prefer a less toned body than many models display.

I know I do.

However, in the end, beauty does have a standard that it all revolves around, and modern anger isn’t going to cause instinct to disappear.

SpaceX Fires Woke Worker Activists Who Attacked SpaceX Boss, Elon Musk

A bunch of SpaceX workers previously penned the open letter criticizing CEO Elon Musk and the company while identify themselves as “employees across the spectra of gender, ethnicity, seniority, and technical roles.”

SpaceX fired them, lol.

New York Post – […] SpaceX president and Musk ally Gwynne Shotwell said in a memo that the firm had “terminated a number of employees involved” in crafting the letter – noting the workers in question had “upset many” with an “unsolicited request” to add their signatures.

“The letter, solicitations and general process made employees feel uncomfortable, intimidated and bullied, and/or angry because the letter pressured them to sign onto something that did not reflect their views,” Shotwell said in the memo, which was obtained by The Verge.

Shotwell referred to the open letter campaign within the company as “unacceptable” and said the workers were fired after an investigation into their actions. The number of employees terminated wasn’t immediately clear.  “We have too much critical work to accomplish and no need for this kind of overreaching activism,” Shotwell added. (read more)

We need more of this.

Outrage Flows After an Unexpected Defense of Clarence Thomas by Most Liberal Justice

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been under heavy assault recently, and not for any ruling he signed onto. Instead, it’s his wife, Ginni Thomas, that is causing people to scream at clouds across the nation. What did Ginni Thomas do? Apparently, believing there was widespread voter fraud, she spoke to several people following the 2020 election about ways to oppose the certification of the results.

Now, you might be asking yourself what that has to do with Clarence Thomas given that he wasn’t a part of those discussions. After all, we’ve all been assured that family members doing things should have zero impact on those who hold positions of power. How many times have you heard “Hunter Biden isn’t an elected official” as a defense of Joe Biden’s degenerate son? And in that case, the elder Biden was actually intimately involved and knowledgable of Hunter Biden’s corrupt, likely illegal business dealings.

Regardless, the onslaught has been steady, with a stream of high-profile left-wingers, on cable news, in print, and on social media, demanding that Clarence Thomas resign. Yet, on Thursday, he received an unexpected endorsement from none other than radically liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke highly of colleague Justice Clarence Thomas during an event on Thursday, saying, “He is a man who cares deeply about the court as an institution.”

Sotomayor, who is liberal, acknowledged during remarks at the American Constitution Society that while she often disagrees with the conservative justice, she believes that “we share a common understanding about people and kindness towards them”

“Justice Thomas is the one justice in the building that literally knows every employee’s name, every one of them. And not only does he know their names, he remembers their families’ names and histories,” she said.

It’s not often in politics (and unfortunately, the Supreme Court is obviously a political tool and long has been), that you see something that provides hope and not impending doom. I think Sotomayor is a terrible justice who often counters the plain interpretation of the law in order to push leftwing causes. We saw that during the fight over the vaccine mandate and with her comments during the Dobbs oral arguments over abortion.

Still, she clearly is a human being who isn’t willing to destroy a person she works with just because they disagree politically. Further, she’s not willing to burn him down over his wife’s views on the 2020 election. It’s rare to find that kind of tolerance in today’s political environment.

Of course, that tolerance went no further than Sotomayor’s lips. The outrage flowed like milk and honey following her comments.

There’s essentially no one the left won’t turn on in order to confirm their political priors. Sotomayor actually knows Thomas (I assume she also knows his wife). Who better to comment on his respect for the bench than someone who works with him throughout the year? But too-online Democrats know better because they read an article in The Guardian.

In the end, Thomas isn’t going anywhere. He’s not going to resign, and he’s going to keep triggering the libs for a long time yet.

UK Agrees to Extradite Julian Assange to U.S. After Assurances He Will Be Imprisoned in Australia

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse

Apparently, the U.K. courts were sympathetic to the claims by Julian Assange lawyers that U.S. government assassins would kill him.  However, after the DOJ assured the Brits that Assange would be imprisoned in Australia, not the U.S. after trial, the U.K. are ok with extraditing him.   However, Assange still has six appeals and three courts left who will hear his appeals, so don’t expect anything to actually happen soon.

LONDON, June 17 (Reuters) – The wife of Julian Assange vowed to fight using every possible legal avenue after British Home Secretary Priti Patel on Friday approved the WikiLeaks’ founder’s extradition to the United States to face criminal charges.

Assange is wanted by U.S. authorities on 18 counts, including a spying charge, relating to WikiLeaks’ release of vast troves of confidential U.S. military records and diplomatic cables which Washington said had put lives in danger.

His wife Stella said Assange would appeal after the Home Office said his extradition had been approved as British courts had concluded it would not be unjust or an abuse of process.

[…]  Originally, a British judge ruled Assange, 50, should not be deported, saying his mental health meant he would be at risk of suicide if convicted and held in a maximum security prison.

But this was overturned on an appeal after the United States gave a package of assurances, including a pledge he could be transferred to Australia to serve any sentence. (read more)

Footage of Nato jet encounter with Russian plane

 Rare footage from the cockpit of Nato planes has revealed extremely close encounters with Russian military aircraft over European skies. The daily occurrences have added to the tension between Russia and Nato. Relations have deteriorated since Moscow invaded Ukraine in February, and there are fears that one mistake in the air could lead to a dangerous escalation.  

Van Jones Leaves CNN Anchors Stunned After Spitting Truth About the Democrat Party

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Van Jones may be a liberal, but when he’s right, he’s right. On Friday, he was right as he delivered a concise and effective critique of the current state of the Democrat Party.

While making one of his regular appearances on CNN, the former Obama administration official explained how Democrats are completely out of touch with the working class, creating a party comprised of tone-deaf elites. But it’s the way he explained things that eventually left the anchors sitting in stunned silence.

Really, the looks on the faces of Brianna Keilar and John Berman are just priceless.

As Jones says, the modern Democrat Party is just “weird.” He brings up the idea of calling Hispanics “Latinx,” noting that normal, middle class people have never met a “Latinx.” Nor have they met anyone who identifies with the acronym “BIPOC,” which I had to google in order to find out what it means. Apparently, “black, indigenous, people of color” didn’t have enough identifiers already and needed more. The left has so fractured the country that it’s impossible to keep up with all the various groups they’ve created.

Further, those pushing such nonsense are, as Jones points out, predominantly over-educated and wealthy. They are in no way connected to the normal struggles of everyday life, and their lack of religious observance has left them with no feeling of purpose. In order to make themselves feel better, they’ve decided to create victim groups to “help.” That’s how you get the stupidity that is “Latinx,” a name with which essentially no Hispanic people identify.

But what makes the clip of Jones so good is seeing Brianna Keilar sit there awkwardly, crossing her arms at one point, doing her best to not interject. Why is that funny? Because she is exactly the type of person that Jones is talking about, i.e. a wealthy, out-of-touch, white liberal who thinks she needs to be the savior of the world. There’s no doubt in my mind that Keilar uses the term “Latinx.” That Jones crushed her worldview to her face is just great. And to be clear, John Berman is no better, if slightly more tolerable at times.

Democrats do not want to hear what Jones is saying, but they should listen if they want any hope of a political rebound. The current left-wing coalition is unsustainable. It’s made up of different groups of radicals that often come into conflict with one another. Along the way, regular Americans are alienated by the insanity of those who are stuck so deep in their blue, too-online bubble that they can’t imagine people might not want to be called “BIPOC.”

Luckily for Republicans, Van Jones is spitting into the wind while ramming his head into a brick wall. The Democrat Party is too far gone, and there will be no change in direction, not even after they get clocked in November. The Democrat bench, whether we are talking about Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, will only double down. The days of political maneuvering by those on the left are gone. There are only true believers left, and Jones is on the outside looking in.