Wednesday, June 29, 2022

America Is Not Immune from Brown Shirts

Corrupt institutions could do nothing if there were no members of law enforcement, from the local police to FBI agents, willing to act as the brute enforcers of state dictates.


In this moment of hope emerging from the almost unbelievable set of constitutionally informed Supreme Court rulings on freedom of religion, gun rights, and abortion, it’s easy to imagine the tide has turned. America is back! 

Alas, even rulings as monumental as those of the past week are no antidote to the generations of cultural poison that continues to be mainlined into American society. The best we can do is to call upon the words of Winston Churchill after England had survived the Nazi air blitz: “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” 

At best. Because the poisoning is extensive and follows the veins such poisons find most suitable. And so, we are forced to belabor the obvious for a moment in which too many mostly college-poisoned Americans have a slippery grasp on reality. 

Human nature is the same across races, ethnicities, and nationalities. There was nothing uniquely evil about the German human in 1939 or the French human during Napoleon’s reign or the Russian human under Stalin or the Chinese human under Mao or the Mongolian human riding with Ghengis Khan. 

What was different in these situations were the culture-supported systems, or lack of them, put in place that allowed all of the worst of human nature to flourish. America, acknowledging the essential depravity of human nature, had once put in place systems designed to check the worst impulses of our nature. But with those American institutions breaking down under relentless leftist, anti-American assaults over more than two generations, we are seeing what was always true: American human nature is like all others. 

And so in the past two years we have seen something many of us probably thought “can’t happen here”: The rise of the Brown Shirt within American law enforcement communities. This is particularly painful to acknowledge for those of us with beloved family members who are in law enforcement and are the opposite of Brown Shirts. But it nonetheless remains a truism that is denied at our own peril. 

As a recent example, we saw Trump White House advisor Peter Navarro arrested for not responding to a subpoena from the dubious House January 6 select committee. He was scooped up at the D.C. airport soon after arriving from his D.C. home, and cuffed by a full team of FBI agents. Navarro is 72 years old, 145 pounds soaking wet, and lives within three minutes of FBI headquarters. He has cooperated with federal investigators as far as executive privilege allowed him to do. But with Donald Trump claiming executive privilege, Navarro was ethically bound to not respond. 

FBI agents could have walked to his home, or asked him to turn himself in, which he says he would have done and his history suggests is the case. But they chose to make this a very public arrest, a strikingly unveiled threat to others who refuse to comply with state narratives. 

Coincidentally—by which I mean not coincidentally at all—Navarro had filed a civil lawsuit against the government days earlier for violating his civil rights. Their response was swift and humiliating. 

At the airport, Navarro, a smart lawyer, said he wanted to call his lawyer. He demanded to know the charges. But the lead agent took his phone and disallowed it and Navarro was taken into solitary and, he says, strip-searched. That’s multiple constitutional violations, which just don’t seem to matter to most American institutions, including the FBI. 

“They went with this shock-and-awe terrorist strategy,” Navarro told Tucker Carlson on Fox News. “They let me go to the airport and then take me with five agents, like an al-Qaeda terrorist, lock me into a car and the next thing I know I’m in leg irons, handcuffs, strip-searched.”

Abuses of Power

This has been going on for a while. And it’s not always simply partisan. Since COVID, it has been more and more clear that most of the response was on behalf of the power of the state and favor pharmaceutical firms, and little more. 

During the worthless lockdowns, we witnessed a mother arrested in Idaho for taking her child to the park, a lone individual surfing and another walking on the beach in California were also arrested, among endless other examples. We saw businesses raided for defying state orders to shut down seeing that their big chain competitors across the street were allowed to stay open. We saw people dragged out of public places for not wearing ineffectual face masks or not showing vaccination papers. Papers! 

On other fronts, we’ve seen parents targeted for speaking out against schools allowing young men to use the women’s bathrooms and shower facilities. Parents have been investigated and threatened for speaking up at public meetings. And parents who have spoken up have had those opinions included in their children’s educational reports. We saw a father at a Virginia school board meeting tackled and arrested for pointing out, rightly, that the district was hiding a trans rapist who had assaulted his daughter in the girl’s bathroom. 

In these and in countless other situations, pundits critical of the actions tend to blame the policy-setting entities, from school boards to the Justice Department, all of which, in fact, are behaving like oppressors. But here is the blunt, painful truth: Those institutions could do nothing if there were no members of law enforcement, from the local police to FBI agents, willing to act as the brute enforcers of state dictates. 

They may be a minority, but they are more than enough. Some are on board with policy, some will say they are just doing their jobs—“following orders” if we carry out our analogy to Germany in the 1930s. Some I have talked to, including high-ranking law enforcement, say they would never follow such orders and in discussions with their colleagues agree there are lines they would not cross. 

That requires a great deal of fortitude. Some humans have it. Many do not. History bears this out. 

Crumbling Foundations

But until the mid-20th century, America had systems in place that provided checks on human nature running rampant. The balance of powers instituted between branches of the federal government and between the federal government and the states actually drew upon the inevitability of human nature turning toward rapaciousness to create a natural friction that kept all of the government entities in check. Human nature at each level and in the various branches would work in ways that kept checks on all the others. And ultimately an informed and moral people were to be relied upon to keep all of them in check. 

But none of that is in place like it was. 

It is painfully clear with the proliferation of things like drag queen story hours and shocking degradations of parents actually taking their young children to drag clubs with dollar bills; or allowing their very young children to transition; or public schools promoting and hiding such activities from parents. It is becoming systemic and it’s stomach-turning. It is also the most recent evidence of the collapse of a once religious and moral people. 

John Adams was absolutely prophetic when he said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” 

Too many of the American people are no longer religious or moral in any grounded, traditional way. They are too narcissistically preoccupied with TikTok and their phones, unable to think in any critical fashion, and as parents tend to accede all education to public schools that increasingly only teach our children what to think. College students are taught to shout down anyone who disagrees, a shocking transmogrification of the purpose of university. The checks and balances are failing and the power of the state is increasing. 

This religious and moral failing naturally trickles down through our institutions. Congress has ceded large swathes of power to the executive branch because for generations, the majority of the members of Congress chose the expediency of re-election over everything else. The current executive branch administration brazenly ignores court rulings—even by the Supreme Court—and does what it wants. It is not the first. 

The First Amendment provided for a highly protected freedom of the press. The founders knew well the importance of the Fourth Estate in holding the most powerful people—specifically, those in government—accountable to the people. Unfortunately, the media that once provided basic information, even if it was with a bias, that all sides could access, ceded this unifying territory to becoming little more than the communications arm of one party. 

Americans now are operating under two sets of information and “facts” that increasingly make it impossible to even have a conversation. And this makes it so much easier to demonize those from the other universe of information. 

The First Amendment also provided for freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Both of these were trampled and greatly weakened as pastors were arrested and churches closed down by armed law enforcement during COVID while the local Home Depot and Walmart remained open. But both were also ceded away by people who no longer are religious or even understand the rudiments of free speech. If Americans were the religious people they once were, this could never have happened. 

Considering this crumbling of these basic American institutions, along with the degradation of Americans themselves, it should come as no surprise that even law enforcement is being eroded. The more we turn away from foundational truths, the more this will be the case. 

Don’t think we could ever see actual Brown Shirts on American streets? Then you will be the most surprised, because we’re already seeing it.




X22, Christian Patriot News, and more- June 29

 



Evening. Here's tonight's news:


Won’t Get Fooled Again

We don’t need the new boss. We need a change. Self-government is something we have done before, and we can do it again.


Let’s explore the possibilities. This is America, after all. We have some experience with such explorations, even if most of us now sit for a living.

Let’s start with the macro view. In order to compete in this world today, we need enormous corporations able to manage huge amounts of capital and command large workforces, while influencing government priorities. Efficiency is gained by size and access to raw materials as well as the access to markets that is gained by using government mandates. This view of economics has been taught since World War II and there are millions of pages of text detailing the potentials, the patterns, and pitfalls. It is often labeled “capitalism” though, like China’s uses of markets, it is only that in passing.

What could go wrong?

There are those who think this arrangement is just swell. Look how big and powerful we have become using these methods. Look on our works, ye mighty, and despair! 

This view is usually promoted by individuals at the upper levels of the food chain, political insiders, and members of established families with sufficient wealth to see them through the ups and downs of an economy based on the myriad uses of power. It’s the way the world works, they say. The way it’s always been. True enough, it is really not so different from 15th-century Italy, is it? The internal combustion engine and the airfoil changed some of the uses of power, but not the big picture. 

But since the time of Lorenzo dé Medici, we have had a few other additions to the cosmology of human life. The European discovery of America. The American Revolution. The atomic bomb . . . The list is really quite extensive. And not least of those accomplishments is the furious rise of American business. As Eric Hoffer says, “America is a business civilization.” 

Well, almost.

After the fact, it might be argued that Lorenzo had a greater interest in promoting individual creativity than do the chairmen of any of the Fortune 500 that currently control our lives. The key error in macroeconomics is its willful ignorance of human beings except as consumers—as mere units. The cost-benefit analysis never takes into account the genius of a Michelangelo. The fact that such regimented thinking fits well with the purpose of government, which is, after all, to gain and maintain power, makes the system work in spite of the human grease necessary to keep its wheels turning. 

Now, this neo-Hobbesian view of man has been augmented by the innovative use of addictive algorithms that imprison the user in a comfortable bubble of his own making, a captive of his likes and dislikes, avoiding the unpleasantness of any other contact with reality. Unable to cope with what is disagreeable, when confronted, the primitive emotion of hate quickly replaces thought. This Pandora’s package is a bit more than can be detailed here, but it is important to be aware of it when considering the power of the tech companies now governing our lives

“The attribute which is at the root of human uniqueness is freedom,” Eric Hoffer said in a 1963 interview with public television host James Day, “The essence of absolute power is the power to dehumanize . . . to turn man into a thing. To turn him into a puppet. To turn him into an animal. To turn him into a robot. To turn him into a machine.”

The textbook alternative, microeconomics, ostensibly takes greater care of the creatures it supposes to manipulate by focusing on the individual choices being made and the incentives that produce the best result. But it too is flawed by the use of math to determine the worth of product and outcome. Math is certainly necessary, but the value of what is being added or subtracted must be determined elsewise. We are not beans in a bag, though the algorithms say we are. 

Moreover, this form of economic game-playing also depends on making prior decisions about what is important in the first place. Who makes those decisions? Given its use and abuse of government, that actually would be the province of politics, would it not?

Given the various tragedies besetting us, and depending on your political point of view, the alternatives to these systems are infinite. But for the purposes of brevity, I will skip all of those possibilities that require more government. My assumption here is simply that though some government is needed, using government to control an economy is a guarantee of corruption, creating a system that feeds itself rather than serving the human beings it was theoretically intended for. That’s what we’ve got now. We don’t need a new boss who’s the same as the old boss.

Some of those tragedies cry out for government solutions. Atomic power, for instance. Or biological weapons research. Others are not necessarily tragedies at all and are well beyond human control. Climate change is an example. Let the arguments begin. But even those on opposite political sides of these issues can appreciate the dangers inherent in the ready solutions—whether those be Russian management at Chernobyl, or North Korean nuclear missiles, or Chinese virus research at Wuhan. And who, might we ask, determines what the ideal climate is? 

Some argue that big government is necessary for just those reasons and that there must be something to mitigate the tragedies that await us. But doesn’t politics immediately make the use of that power the bigger problem? God help those who disagree with the politically correct solutions. I will resist any political philosophy that promotes dealing with human beings en masse instead of individually. But if I were foolish enough to give the government the power to make disagreeable politics illegal, that government would then have the power to take my freedom as well—and eventually it would.

The new paradigm needed is one that allows for the maximum of individual freedom without jeopardizing the society as a whole. I don’t want to meet the new boss who’s the same as the old boss. And, not surprisingly, this idea is not really new. It is the very conundrum dealt with by the founders and discussed at length in print and in debate over 200 years ago. 

What is important now is that we have their work to build upon. That Thomas Jefferson knew little about viruses, or atomic energy, or wouldn’t even have supposed that mankind could control the power of the sun on the earth is not the problem. The problem is, as we have learned over and over again, that solutions involving enhanced government power only magnify rather than mitigate the tragedy. The additional self-interest of Big Tech and their abuse of the economy to gain power totally beyond national borders makes a difficult problem seem unsolvable without total revolution. But you know who will lose in such a fight. 

If individuals do something stupid, as they inevitably will, the spill is manageable. When a government screws up, the result is a disaster for all. A government is only an aggregate of individuals given license to play with matches and prone to human error times the number of those in power. 

But will we be fooled again? The answer is yes. People can always be fooled some of the time. That’s why we must always limit the power of government—so that we might survive our own poor choices.

Eric Hoffer was an individual with many odd ideas because he came at his subject from outside the academic box. He was self-taught. He is easy to disagree with on one point or another. For instance, in the 1960s he said that Ronald Reagan was just a “B” movie actor who wanted to make California into a “B” movie state. Twenty years later he was accepting the Presidential Medal of Freedom from the man. At least he was willing to learn. Are we willing to learn now in our turn? 

At the end of The Ordeal of Change , Hoffer said, “We in this country have a deeply ingrained faith in human regeneration. We believe that, given a chance, even the degraded and apparently worthless are capable of constructive work and great deeds.”

Indeed, we will need such faith given the numbers among us who have sold our souls to the government for supposed comfort and safety. Now that these bribes are evaporating, how will we respond? It will not be easy.

The lawyers who make a “good” living interpreting the arcane clauses of corporate law will not be pleased at the prospect of such change—but they should be. They might find they have better lives to live by putting cynicism aside. The agribusiness (much of it foreign) that milks the system producing ethanol from corn might be unhappy about losing their hold on the federal teat, but the farmers who now work for wages might find a new lease on their lives. Farming is still an ideal to many. The accountants who navigate the twists and turns of IRS mandates each year would not like it if the income tax was made the same for all, say, 10 percent—for everyone, no deductions. But then they might find time to play town-league baseball or write poetry. The public-school administrators, now paid with our taxes, who force national mandates on local schools might find that actually teaching a student is a more rewarding thing to do.

As Mr. Townshend said, “The parting on the left is now the parting on the right.” If we keep the old boss, things will not get better and the getting worse will only increase.

We don’t need the new boss. We need a change. Self-government is something we have done before, and we can do it again. 

It is time to peacefully assemble as best we can and make good on the fifth clause of the First Amendment: the prohibition on government religion and the guarantee to citizens the free exercise thereof, the proclamation of freedom of speech and of the press, that is followed by the right to peacefully assemble. This placement is no accident and was fully anticipated to be at the heart of American life.   

Start the debate. The whole internet is our Philadelphia. And listen. Don’t ask for permission. Let’s discuss it amongst ourselves. It is time for a new constitution, not to fly the same banners flown in the last war.  Then get on our knees and pray, we don’t get fooled again.




How Democrats Made Themselves Miserable And Want You To Be Too

An excerpt from ‘Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks Joy Out of Everything and Everyone,’ by Federalist D.C. Columnist Eddie Scarry.



It made some sense that liberal Democrats would be bitter immediately after the 2016 election. The country had just denied Hillary Clinton—yes, Empress Hillary Clinton—as heir to her throne and instead chose to elevate a foul-mouthed barbarian named Donald Trump to the presidency.

A true outsider who represented all the things liberals hate— masculinity, optimism, independence—ruined the illusion that America was now exclusively their domain, a place they had hoped to use for their racial fixations, “green energy” projects, and weird gender-bender social experiments.

They lost. And losing hurts. But it’s not supposed to be permanent. The next critical election is always within arm’s reach and there are more productive ways to spend time than holding on to the pain of the last one.

As of 2016, though, liberals and Democrats no longer saw things that way, if they ever truly did at all. After that election, they believed there was no reason to pretend that they understood differences of political opinion, nor that they could tolerate them. They no longer viewed Republicans, conservatives, or even just open-minded independents as the opposition in an honest democracy. They saw them all as an existential enemy that needed to be extinguished.

And thus began our long journey through hell. Pussy hats. Public crying. Fake hate crimes perpetrated by nonexistent Trump supporters. Safe spaces. Angry, vulgar protests broadcast on network television under the guise of being Hollywood award ceremonies. The tragic rise of liberal “civil rights attorney” Ben Crump. On and on.

And if you thought the four years under Donald Trump were bad, those were a piece of cake compared with what would come. A presidential election was approaching in 2020 and the economy was booming. What were Democrats and their reliable friends in the news media left to do other than turn up the dial to a breaking point, generate mass race rioting and covid hysteria, then promise the public that it would only go away if they were put in charge?

It was fraudulent but enough voters found it persuasive. The bigger problem, however, was that by validating the tactic and voting for Joe Biden, Americans effectively encouraged the Left’s worst impulse, which is to spread its own bitter, joyless misery.

Liberal Misery book cover

Even when Democrats emerged victorious from the suffocating bonfire of 2020, having control of the White House and all of Congress for two years, has their mood change? No. It’s only gotten worse.

They may have traded their pussy hats for Fauci prayer candles, but the attitude has never been angrier or more spiteful. Vengeance has animated them each and every day.

There are scores of studies, surveys, reports and data to back up that truism. But like others, I also know it so well firsthand.

As just one (perfect) example, in November of last year I was sitting with two friends at the bar of All Purpose, a popular pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C. One friend, a white woman in her early 30s, had exchanged niceties with the bar server, also a white woman who appeared to be in her 30s, and with dyed hair that made it look like a mix between silver and very light purple.

My friends and I at one point were discussing the not-guilty verdict that had just been rendered in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. I mentioned that it was amazing how many people were under the impression that Rittenhouse was prosecuted for shooting blacks, when in fact all parties involved with his case were white. My friend said that nonetheless, she believed that racism colored the outcome of the trial.

“What makes it racist?” I asked.

Immediately, the bartender with the dye job looked up from the drink she was preparing to declare, “WHAT MAKES IT RACIST IS—”

But just as quick as she was to insert herself, I held up the palm of my hand and said, “We were just talking among ourselves.”

“Okay, no problem,” she said. And then I watched her for the duration of our time sitting there as she walked around, alerting every other member of staff about the belligerent racist who wouldn’t let her speak.

I mean, I don’t know for certain that’s what she was telling her coworkers, but is there any doubt? That’s precisely what an obnoxious liberal would do anywhere.

This isn’t normal behavior. Normal people don’t assume it’s their place to butt in on the discussions of strangers, let alone when those strangers will be deciding how much of a tip to leave. The level of discomfort that these monsters are willing to instill on well-meaning, unassuming people has no boundaries. It can be minor, say a cold shoulder at a social gathering, and it can be extreme to the point of obscenity.

Their thoughts and feelings about politics are no longer a piece of their lives, but all-consuming. It’s not without consequence. When half the country chooses to exist in a perpetual state of irritability, vindictiveness, and intolerance, we’re all forced to share in the misery.




2015 Paris attacks: Islamic State fanatic found guilty of mass murder

 Terrorists detonated bombs outside the Stade de France, which was hosting an international friendly between France and Germany; the Bataclan concert hall, where the American band Eagles of Death Metal were playing; and opened fire on diners at restaurants across the French capital.  

The only surviving member of the group of Islamic State fanatics that terrorised Paris with a series of bombings and shootings has been found guilty of carrying out one of the deadliest attacks ever seen in peacetime France.

Salah Abdeslam is one of 19 IS terrorists convicted of killing 130 people and injuring hundreds more in the coordinated attacks across Paris on the night of 13 November 2015.  


The 32-year-old has been in jail since his arrest in Belgium in 2016.

The rest helped plot the attacks - their crimes ranging from providing the attackers with weapons and cars to planning to take part in the massacre themselves.

All defendants but one were found guilty of all charges.

Farid Kharkhach was found not guilty of terrorism but guilty of association with criminals.

The sentencing marked the end of the longest criminal trial in post-war French history, which has been held since September in a specially designed courtroom at Paris' Palace of Justice with over 2,000 plaintiffs and more than 300 lawyers involved.  

Islamic State had claimed responsibility for the attacks and had urged followers to attack France over its involvement in the fight against the militant group in Iraq and Syria.

The assailants detonated bombs outside the Stade de France stadium, which was hosting an international friendly between France and Germany; the Bataclan concert hall, where the American band Eagles of Death Metal were playing; and opened fire on diners at restaurants across the French capital.

Wednesday's verdicts conclude a 10-month trial for which a special court was built to try 14 of the men in person and another six in-absentia, presumed either dead or missing whilst fighting for IS in Syria.

Abdeslam is now facing up to life in prison without parole on murder and other counts - the toughest sentence possible under France's justice system.  


His brother, Brahim, was also involved in the attacks, but blew himself up the night after shooting dead young Parisians drinking and eating in cafes.  

Five judges heard evidence from more than 2,000 witnesses, including more than a million pages of evidence, 300 lawyers and testimony from European counter-terrorism personnel during the largest trial in modern French history.

Relatives of the dead, and witnesses to the attacks, have sat through months of harrowing evidence in hope of finally finding truth and justice.

"It has been a long 10 months, but I think we can be proud of what we achieved," said Arthur Denouveaux, a survivor of the Bataclan attack, in which 90 people died, and the president of Life for Paris, a victims association.

"Victims, myself included, we had very low expectations for the trial.

"The trial overcame anything we would have wished for, because terrorists spoke, terrorists in a way answered to our testimonies, that was so unexpected, that never happens in terrorist trials."

 

'I changed my mind', terrorist claimed

At the start of the trial in November 2021, Abdeslam defiantly gave his profession as an "Islamic State fighter". But in recent weeks, as the trial has wound up, he asked for forgiveness and claimed he deliberately dumped his suicide vest to prevent more people dying.

"I go into the cafe, I order a drink, I look at the people around me and I say to myself 'no, I'm not going to do it'," he told the court. "I changed my mind out of humanity, not fear."  

On Monday, as the trial wrapped up, he tried to apologise to the victims, claiming he was not a murderer.

However, French police and prosecution lawyers said his suicide belt was found to be defective and this provides a more likely reason why he did not detonate it.  

Abdeslam, a French national, raised in Belgium and with Moroccan roots, went on the run for four months but was eventually found hiding in the Brussels district of Molenbeek, close to his family home.

"I feel relieved that the trial is over," Mr Denouveaux added, "because it means justice has done what it has to do and because it means this trial is behind me and I can move on with my life."  

https://news.sky.com/story/2015-paris-attacks-islamic-state-fanatic-found-guilty-of-mass-murder-12642303   




NY Times: Biden ‘Irritated’ by Lack of Respect From Dems, Media


Bob Hoge reporting for RedState 

aid he plans to run for re-election in 2024, but apparently, not everyone on his own side believes him—or wants him to. The New York Times reported Monday that Biden is “confounded” that other Democrats and a usually compliant media have the gall to question the narrative, or even bring up his age. The paper writes:

Facing intensifying skepticism about his capacity to run for re-election when he will be nearly 82, the president and his top aides have been stung by the questions about his plans, irritated at what they see as a lack of respect from their party and the press, and determined to tamp down suggestions that he’s effectively a lame duck a year and a half into his administration.

Biden is already the oldest president in history and would be 86 at the end of a second term. Combine that with soaring inflation, insane gas prices, and historically low approval numbers, and you can see why many don’t want him to run again.

“I have been surprised at the number of people who are openly expressing concerns about 2024 and whether or not Biden should run,” admits Decomcrat Representative Adam Smith of Washington.

Former Representative Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, who’s running for Governor in that state, was more succinct, arguing in a CNN appearance that Joe should leave the nomination to someone else:

Said Cunningham:

If President Biden were here with me right now and he were asking my opinion whether or not he should run for another term, or whether he should step aside and allow a new generation of leadership to emerge, I would tell him the latter.

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

The Times admits that Biden has brought on a lot of this himself by running as “a bridge, not as anything else” in the 2020 Democratic primary, essentially arguing that he would restore normalcy after Trump–and then step aside.

Voters seem to think he should: a June Yahoo poll indicates that a whopping 64 percent of respondents did not think he should run for re-election.

“Mr. Biden has been eager for signs of loyalty,” the Times writes, “and they have been few and far between.”

As RedState’s Bonchie reported in his piece, “Democrats Are Scrambling to Find an Alternative to Joe Biden in 2024,” which Joe can’t take as a good sign. Among those potential alternatives is California Governor Gavin Newsom who just bought ad space in… Florida? That certainly seems like he wants to get into the national conversation, including on the topic of abortion. Of course, no election would be complete without rumors of Hillary Clinton jumping in the race, and those rumors have indeed been picked up again lately.

CNN political analyst and Axios editor Margaret Talev argues that the all this chatter hurts Biden’s ability to do his job:

It weakens Biden’s ability to govern, which is already weakened.  I think two things are true. Number one, if gas wasn’t $5 a gallon and inflation wasn’t 8.5 percent, people would be still talking about whether Biden was the strongest person to pit against Trump, which is what this has always been about.

We can’t know Biden’s mental capacity these days, but he certainly seems unable or unwilling to accept the fact that almost nobody likes his performance in office or the terrible results of his policies. He continues to talk as if he’s a great president, yet whines about not getting enough credit for all the wonderful things he’s accomplished.

My prediction: the sharks smell blood in the water, and the attacks from his own side are only going to get worse as 2024 approaches.




Biden’s Point-Person on Abortion

What could go wrong?

Look out, folks, the woman in charge of the crisis at the border is now the Biden administration’s point-person on abortion!

What could possibly go wrong?

I know. Roe v. Wade gets overturned after nearly fifty years and since I’m laid up with a Lupus flare, I haven’t written a damn word about it until today. Sorry. Couldn’t be helped.

The best part about Biden making Kammy his point-person on abortion is that means we’re going to have loads of new interviews featuring Kamala’s trademark word salad answers.

Rush Limbaugh often said of Hillary Clinton that the more we see her, the less we like her. That holds true for Kamala Harris as well.

Sure, many pundits, even some on the right, are claiming the SCOTUS decision will boost Democrats’ chances in November. But the decision to make Kamala the point-person on abortion is going to counteract any perceived benefit Democrats may have hoped for.

She’s just that awful.

Kamala is Political Kryptonite. This is why the Democrats couldn’t even get wealthy donors to cough up $15,000 to get their picture taken with her.

Last night I caught a few clips from Point-Person Kamala’s interview with CNN’s Dana Bash that simply tickled me.

In a clumsy attempt to portray the end of Roe as something that impacts everyone and not just women who want to kill their unborn babies, Kamala offered this unbelievably startling comment:

Ah, yes.

Parents, think of how your sons won’t be able to get a girl pregnant and push her into an abortion to avoid being an adult and taking responsibility.

As Jesse Kelly conceded this morning on Twitter, at least Kamala is being honest. She’s admitting that young men will be deprived of the “choice” to kill their offspring.

Admittedly, Kamala has never given birth to a child. Sure, she has grown step-children, but she’s never raised a baby to adulthood. What she knows about raising responsible young men is exactly nothing. Sure, this line of defense might play well among the motherless cat ladies who already support abortion on demand. But I can’t imagine it will sway many parents of sons.

Then there was this incomprehensible remark:

As an aside, did you catch the appearance of Kamala’s favorite phrase?

This rambling answer makes zero sense.

Last Friday, the SCOTUS ceded the authority to determine abortion law back to the voters in the states. That, you dimwitted idiot, is the definition of the democratic process.

And do you think for one microsecond that Kamala Harris thought about it “in terms of” anything other than “Must protect abortion?” Does she think anyone buys her “I thought about my two step-children and my nieces and godchildren” baloney?

When she heard that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, I guarantee you, the first thing that popped into her head was something closer to “Oh, goodie! We can totally use this to our advantage!”

But the whole “as a woman myself, and the daughter of a woman, and a granddaughter of a woman” part made me laugh out loud.

Did Point-Person Kamala forget that she also has a father and grandfather?

Like every other female on the planet, I too am a daughter of a woman. That isn’t especially unique.

But I’m also a daughter of a man and a granddaughter of two men.

Despite putting on her “I’m so deep” face, there is not a single thing Kamala said here that is profound or thought-provoking.

She sounds like what she is, a vapid poser desperately hoping she comes off as thoughtful and informed.

Yeah well, it didn’t work.

Old Joe’s point-person also gave a preview of the White House’s scheme to use taxpayer funds to help women travel out of state to get an abortion.

Again, this kind of lunacy will be a big hit with the angry, shrieking lunatics on Twitter. But most Americans who are already struggling to pay for groceries and gas will probably not like the idea of the federal government footing the bill for all-expenses-paid Abortion Getaways.

Speaking of inflation and rising consumer prices, Point-Person Kamala was also asked if she was concerned about a possible recession.

This was her non-answer:

“I think that there can be no higher priority than what we have been clear is our highest priority which is bringing down the costs? and the prices? as much as we possibly can and we will stay focused on that.”

That answer is a lot like her “It is time for us to do what we have been doing and that time is every day” answer back in January:

When I think about this in terms of being a woman and the daughter of a woman, I can safely say in terms of those clips that Point-Person Kamala is going to make a hot mess of the White House’s abortion messaging strategy.

And that just tickles me to no end.