Joe Biden’s Hateful Attack on Half the Country

To have normal politics there must be some agreement on who constitutes 

“the people” and what the society’s organizing principles are.

by Christopher Roach for American Greatness

It’s a good thing Joe Biden is such a mediocre public speaker, because his political beliefs are positively dangerous. 

In a primetime address Thursday in front of Independence Hall—complete withominous red mood lighting and the occasional blaring of police sirens and hecklers—Biden effectively declared war on half the country. 

“MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution,” he said. “They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election . . . They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies.”

While he qualified his remarks by saying “not every Republican is a MAGA Republican,” he does not mean it. He knows that a strong majority of Republicans have a favorable view of Trump and will support him if he runs again.

Something like 70 percent of Republicans are skeptical of the 2020 election, not least because in real life practically no one has a kind word for Joe Biden. Moreover, as time goes on, we learn more and more about the FBI and the tech monopolies’ role in rigging the 2020 election. 

A belief in the Constitution or democracy does not require one to accept fishy results from a fishy election, characterized by the unprecedented use of mail-in voting, late night counts, and numerous other irregularities. As I argued earlier, “One of the problems with all the democracy talk is that both sides think they are upholding democracy . . . [The] chief objection of Trump and his supporters, whether they were present on January 6 or not, is that something really fishy happened in the 2020 election, and that the result was the opposite of democracy.” 

Biden is not an interesting thinker. He is also not a clear-thinking one. His speeches, with their meandering contradictions, have a whiff of focus-group testing. Thus, every word out of his mouth sounds like a cliché or an attempt to flatter his audience. But this speech’s dark turn and Biden’s willingness to attack not just his political opponents but the other party’s voters—in other words, fellow citizens—was truly remarkable and unsettling.

Biden had the same problem to a lesser degree with his inauguration speech. While it was superficially moderate and appeared to extend an olive branch to those who didn’t vote for him, the broad stroke condemnation of “political extremism” and “domestic terrorism” left millions of Americans out of the fold. Then and today, Biden does nothing to distinguish passionate and aggrieved Trump supporters—who donated, rallied, held signs, and voted—from the very small number who broke the law on January 6.

Biden’s proposed unity is entirely conditional and self-serving. Either get behind him, and accept his and the establishment’s legitimacy, or be harassed, exposed, and possibly imprisoned. This “with us or against us” kind of talk used to be reserved for al-Qaeda and ISIS.    

Biden is nostalgic for the America of his young adulthood, a time of fairly limited political disagreement, bipartisan dealmaking, and mutual restraint by both parties; in other words, he is nostalgic for a time where elections did not matter very much. 

In addition to his nostalgia, he refuses to confront recent history. The speech contained very little soul-searching for his and his party’s role in declining domestic tranquility. His condemnations of extremism and political violence would be more convincing if he and his fellow Democrats heartily condemned Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters in the summer of 2020. Instead, they treated those thugs as the conscience of the nation.  

As in other conflicted relationships, playing the victim and taking no responsibility for one’s own role in the conflict is not a formula to keep the peace or to maintain the relationship. In fact, it is infuriating and only inspires contempt. 

Extreme political disagreement is unavoidable now because the two camps have entirely different values, priorities, conceptions of history, distinct economic interests, and basically do not like each other. In other words, to have normal politics there must be some agreement on who constitutes “the people” and what the society’s organizing principles are. While there may have been such a consensus for most of American history, it has recently frayed beyond recognition.

These challenges are not uncharted waters. One way to resolve disagreement is to separate. In other nations and epochs, this has happened many times. Such a solution means we each live the way we want among people with whom we are willing to accept common rules and rulers. Separations can be peaceful or they can be bloody, and, for obvious reasons, the former is preferable. 

Another solution that emerged from Europe’s wars of religion is to have the scope of politics retreat, radically. A century of violence led to the first liberals, who advocated for a minimalist state that did not try to use politics to resolve questions of fundamental value, but rather focused on the basics and left a large swath of life up to individual conscience. 

Combining these two principles was, in fact, a major component of the American constitutional system. Partial separation was permitted through federalism. Limited government was secured through the Constitution’s limits on state powers. Rather than Biden’s Disneyfied view of American history, channeling conflict to avoid domestic political violence was a major purpose of our constitutional structure. 

But American federalist and limited government principles have been degraded by a combination of the 20th-century administrative state, the assault on state sovereignty under the rubric of civil rights, widespread ignorance about the theory and history of American political life, and hostility to local customs under the Procrustean demands of modern leftism. Thus, the Constitution is doing little to restrain the storm clouds of brewing conflict. 

There is one more alternative: One of the camps may thoroughly defeat and disempower its opponents. Judging by Biden’s Manichean talk of Our Democracy™, the recent harassment of former President Trump, and the demonization of huge swaths of the American people, this appears to be what is really driving Biden’s recent partisan call to action. 

Something is coming.

On the Fringe and Devolution Power Hour- Sept 3rd

 

Enjoy tonight's rally in PA! Here's tonight's news while you're waiting (and my birthday is 10 days away!)

The Biden Regime Collapses the ‘Public’-‘Private’ Distinction

Merging the state and the corporate sphere into one disfigured blob, historically speaking, is a hallmark of actual fascism.

by Josh Hammer at American Greatness

On Thursday, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who is also the Show Me State’s candidate for U.S. Senate this November, unveiled some very interesting documents that his office, along with the office of Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, have received since the two states jointly filed a potentially pathbreaking lawsuit in May. Their lawsuit alleges that various high-ranking Biden administration officials have been colluding, in censorious fashion, with the purportedly “private” oligarchs of Big Tech. The straightforward aim of this collusion is the suppression of the dissident “wrongthink”—viz., conservative speech—that threatens the Biden regime’s tenuous grasp on power.

The documents Schmitt and Landry have received, pursuant to their serving of discovery requests and issuing of third-party subpoenas, shine a spotlight on the depths to which the Biden regime has fallen to collapse any putative distinction between the “public” sector and the “private” sector. Their findings thus far in this still-pending litigation reveal to all, as if we needed more evidence but a week after Mark Zuckerberg’s podcast confession heard ’round the world with popular host Joe Rogan, the extent to which Big Tech platforms such as Facebook and Twitter no longer qualify as meaningfully “private” and have instead simply become appendages of the state.

According to Schmitt, the Biden Department of Justice has, since Missouri and Louisiana’s lawsuit was filed, identified 45 federal officials who have “interacted with social media companies on misinformation.” What’s more, Meta (Facebook’s parent company) pinpointed 32 additional Biden functionaries with whom it communicated, and YouTube (a Google product) identified 11 such flunkies with whom it communicated

Overall, the emails obtained evince, as Schmitt says, “a vast censorship enterprise.” The findings unveiled include the revelation that Facebook and the Biden Administration arranged weekly and monthly phone calls to discuss what Facebook should be censoring. Those emails, from late July 2021, happen to be dated just a couple of weeks after then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki criticized social media platforms for not doing enough to stifle “misinformation,” and Joe Biden criticized them for “killing people.” What curious timing!

Other emails confirm that Biden Administration actors and agencies as wide-ranging as the surgeon general, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency were all in communication with some combination of Google, Facebook and Twitter. In every instance, the goal was the same: to censor “misinformation,” and to constrain the regime’s Overton window of permissible civilian opinion formation so as to penalize the citizenry’s (well-earned) suspicion of the regime’s proffered narratives. As Saul Alinsky said, after all, “he who controls the language controls the masses.”

Schmitt’s revelations come just two weeks after Vivek Ramaswamy and Jed Rubenfeld, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, compellingly demonstrated the extent to which the Biden Administration directed Twitter to ban Alex Berenson, a notable skeptic of regime orthodoxy when it came to the COVID-era biomedical security state. And in the interim, in the brief time between that recent Journal op-ed and Schmitt’s unveiled love letters between Zuckerberg’s hucksters and Biden’s nomenklatura, came perhaps the biggest revelation of all.

On August 25, Zuckerberg himself confided to Rogan on-air that America’s Stasi—sorry, FBI—warned Facebook in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election about the threat of “Russian misinformation,” thus effectively commandeering Facebook to algorithmically penalize, and generally conceal, the New York Post‘s bombshell October 2020 story pertaining to prodigal son Hunter Biden’s infamous “laptop from hell.” Some polls have indicated that as many as one in six Biden voters would have changed their vote, in 2020, if they had known the full extent of the Post‘s reporting on Hunter’s cursed laptop. Given how narrow Biden’s winning statewide margins of victory were in the states that gave him his Electoral College majority, Big Tech’s censorship was all but assuredly dispositive.

Big Tech, then, is responsible for Biden’s presidency. And it is demonstrably also responsible for the continuing suppression and subjugation of all those “misinformation”-peddling “wrongthink”-ers who refuse to bend the knee to the Biden regime. Big Tech gave Biden the election, and Big Tech now does Biden’s dirty work for him.

These technology platforms, in short, have proven themselves to not be “private” actors in any meaningful sense of the term. They are now direct appendages of the state, and they must be constitutionally treated and regulated as such.

At the state level, that means directly requiring Big Tech to embrace viewpoint-neutrality and to not censor conservative or otherwise-dissenting viewpoints, similar to Texas’ recently enacted law that is currently winding its way through the federal courts. Applying a First Amendment speech standard to Big Tech is manifestly fair—and simply bespeaks the reality of what these platforms have become.

At the federal level, that means amending our byzantine corpus of civil rights law to add political viewpoint as an additional protected class, as well as independent action to either statutorily clarify that platforms such as Facebook are, or have the FCC unilaterally regulate these platforms under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 as, common carriers. There is absolutely no reason why Facebook, for example, should now be regulated any differently than how the phone companies and internet service providers are regulated.

It is bitterly ironic that the Biden regime, which has recently taken to denouncing so-called MAGA Republicans as “semi-fascists,” has so accelerated the collapse of any distinction between the “public” and the “private,” resulting in a singular regime blob. Such a merging of the state and the corporate sphere into such a disfigured blob, historically speaking, was a hallmark of actual fascism. In the year 2022, such naked “public”-“private” collusion, and such a “public”-“private” merger, represents the single biggest threat facing the American way of life. We must respond to that threat accordingly.

The West Can’t Even Understand Why Russia Sees It As A Threat

The now-secular ‘just war’ tradition of the West and

 the ‘necessary war’ tradition of still overtly Christian

 polities of the East are colliding in the Ukraine war.

by Paul Siewers for The Federalist

The eruption of war in Ukraine this year disrupted what President George Bush Sr. once called the “new world order” of the post-Soviet world, potentially realigning the globe’s geopolitical tectonic plates.

The conflict, in tandem with heightened stress about Taiwan, has aligned Russia and China more closely and highlights the so-called BRICS axis (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) as a potential alternative to the “global West” of the European Union, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Japan, and ANZUS. This not only probably reflects resentment against alleged Western hubris and neocolonialism, but also highlights a deep fault line between two civilizational zones that cut across Ukraine.

That fault line becomes visible in comparing the now-secular “just war” tradition of the West and the “necessary war” tradition of still-overtly Christian polities of the East.

The ‘Necessary War’ Doctrine

The exiled Russian philosopher Ivan Ilyin, the prime 20th-century articulator of the “necessary war” tradition, is sometimes called Russian President Vladimir Putin’s favorite philosopher. Putin has distributed copies of Ilyin’s books to officials across the Russian Federation.

A renowned Hegelian scholar and pioneer of Russian philosophy of law from before the Revolution, Ilyin in the 1920s became the unofficial philosopher of General Wrangel’s White Army movement against Communist totalitarianism and genocide. Ilyin has been unfairly labeled fascist by some “Antifa” historians, a claim that has been refuted by scholarship, his clear disavowal of Nazism, and the Gestapo targeting him in exile.

But the doctrine of the “necessary war” goes back all the way back to Byzantine times in Orthodox Christian social teaching. It involved a denial of any war being just.

St. Basil the Great, for example, wrote that it was best for a soldier who killed an enemy to be excommunicated for three years, even if he had killed legally in a right cause defending Christendom. The Byzantine princess Anna Comnena wrote in amazement of Latin-Norman ecclesiastical leaders arriving in the Near East armed as Crusaders when Byzantine bishops and clergy were forbidden from wielding arms.

Indeed, the Crusader war culture of the West left deeply negative memories in Orthodox Christian historiography. Western Crusaders were seen as having pillaged Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade, dealing a long-term fatal blow to the Christian Empire. Northern Crusades wreaked havoc on Slavic Christian realms. 

What Is a ‘Necessary War’?

In a 2003 study of Ilyin’s “necessary war” doctrine, University of Ottawa Prof. Paul Robinson contrasted the “just war” doctrine of the West with key aspects of “necessary war,” as found in Ilyin’s 1925 book “On the Resistance to Evil by Force.” Ilyin argued against Tolstoyan pacifism, which he said among pre-revolutionary Russian elites helped pave the way for the Communist takeover with its ensuing mass murders and cultural genocides.

For a war to be “necessary,” according to Ilyin: There must be “real evil,” not only suffering, but evil human will expressed in external deeds; such externalized evil human will must be recognized on a deep level as a prerequisite for fighting it; those fighting it need a “genuine love of good” and a repentant attitude in realizing the sinfulness of war on all sides; and its fighters need a “strong will” that is not indifferent to evil.

Force also becomes necessary only when other measures such as psychological coercion fail. (The latter point doesn’t mean that force is a last resort, as in Western “just war” doctrine, only that it becomes needed after any alternative deemed practical is exhausted.)

Russian “necessary war” doctrine parallels Dostoevsky’s philosophy of a common guilt for sin, which needs to be claimed through repentance and cannot be resolved simply through abstract legal views and processes. In that sense, there is larger complicity for the parricide of Fyodor Karamazov, for example.

To Ilyin, likewise, the spiritual causes of evil must be recognized within human souls. Fighting the external manifestations while leaving the roots intact will not lead to success, and there are unintended consequences and collateral damage in addressing merely the external. God and faith are integral factors in calculating a necessary war and repenting for it.

All of this paradoxically makes for an approach to war that is perhaps both more extremely skeptical and more likely in select cases. In any case, it literally leaves no justification for the Ukraine war from the standpoint of justice, even if deemed necessary.

The Rainbow Flag as a National Security Threat?

To Russian leaders, necessity in Ukraine seemed driven by an urgency to prevent or defuse the embedding of anti-Russian ideology militarily and culturally in what they see as a historic heartland of Russian community, ancient Kievan-Rus. But that necessity is illegible to Western elites because it involves no justification in Western intellectual terms, and because the West’s secular perspective today is fundamentally different from what Ilyin saw as the essential element of faith in addressing necessary war.

That Western pan-sexualism, for example, would be seen as effectively a national security threat due to its perceived impact on family structure and faith is inconceivable to Western leaders. For most of them, its promotion has become an explicit national security goal. In turn, this is inconceivable to Russian leaders.

The allegedly anti-Christian bias of the European Union and NATO’s “woke-ism,” the West pressing into the Russian sphere of influence after its support for overturning the Ukrainian government in 2014, a melding of secularized state and business interests in globalization that Russian leaders perceive as akin to the neopagan corporate statism of Nazism — these all describe for Kremlin leaders a claimed necessity to intervene militarily.

Psychologist Jordan Peterson pointed out there is no basis for psychological trust between Russia and the West today, because of what he terms the “civil war” culturally fragmenting the West and making it an impossible partner in negotiating a crisis. How, Peterson asked, could someone in another culture more traditional in view of sex and “ethno-nationalism” feel he could trust a United States where it is not clear that there is currently any coherent national identity nor normative cultural ethics?

Peterson gave as an example the spectacle this spring of congressional hearings in which the fractious question “What is a woman?” was unanswerable for a U.S. Supreme Court nominee, to the applause of many American elites. Given American elites’ overthrow of Founding Fathers, ideals, and documents, as well as family life and faith, where is the ethical North Star guiding American policy and trustworthiness abroad? It seems merely to be an assertion of a will to power in the name of a culturally revolutionary ideology.

China and Russia Believe the West Is Collapsing

Many suggest that if Donald Trump had been president, the Ukraine invasion would not have occurred. That’s not because he is a paragon of virtue, but because the power drive for expansion of the West in Ukraine would have been lessened in his realpolitik, and the nature of American leadership more legible to Putin.

In all this, cancel culture in American elite institutions has not served the United States well abroad. China’s recent analogy between U.S. policy on Taiwan and the strangling of George Floyd marked Beijing weaponizing American ideological rhetoric against itself. It was in line with how Chinese and Russian leaders (and many average people around the world) view American culture as collapsing in weakness. This is also signified by the derogatory Chinese term baizuo, for “crazy left white people.”

Of course, China’s use of Floyd was tactical at best, given Beijing’s atrocious record of dealing with minorities, let alone its lack of purging Mao as arguably the uber-mass murderer of the last century. Regardless, however, the concept of “just war” in a postmodern West must navigate the deconstruction of terms amid the loss of religious underpinning.

The West Is Still on a Crusade

Robinson notes that, by contrast with the Russian view of “necessary war,” the Western “just war” theory requires:

• A just cause.
• A just cause fought by legal authority.
• A just cause having a reasonable sense of success.
• Fighting should be a last resort after all alternatives (however impractical) are exhausted.
• Violence must be proportional to the goals, and civilians should not be targeted.

Does the seemingly arbitrary Western tendency toward labeling some wars as just crusades enable both self-righteousness and a more impersonal and abstract sense of war (“fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian” through technological and financial aid)? Does it lead to hubris in intervening in Russia’s home neighborhood and risking huge casualties for others and nuclear confrontation?

Going back to the roots of theological difference between the West and East in old Christendom, the West tends to blame alleged “Caesaro-Papism” in the East for Russian brutal bellicosity. But the West has had its own problems with weaponizing a meld of ideology and culture historically.

The way the West obliviously pushed out the boundaries of NATO physically, and of its global consumer “Metaverse” culturally and economically, can easily hide righteous disdain for other civilizational zones, at the West’s peril. As Henry Kissinger suggested in a recent Wall Street Journal interview (paraphrased by the reporter), Americans “tend to view negotiations … in missionary rather than psychological terms, seeking to convert or condemn their interlocutors rather than to penetrate their thinking.”

Educational psychologist Jean Piaget wrote that appreciating others’ differing views is basic to healthy cognitive development. But the West at large today seems to do better in the rhetoric of diversity than at engaging with actual diverse perspectives.

The Melding of Church and State

Protestant states during the Reformation placed their churches under the control of state leaders as a precursor to the heyday of European imperialism. The melding of secular transcendent and corporate ideologies in modern globalization is viewed as neocolonialism in many countries still.

Peter the Great’s Westernizing reforms included using Protestant state models for church-state relations, which placed the Russian Orthodox Church’s organization administratively under the monarch. But the Orthodox ideal remained a Byzantine “symphonia” of church and state, a balance but not a merger of the two, in which an influential monastic presence played a key balancing role. This was symbolized by the double-headed eagle rather than the single-headed eagle of the American state.

Ironically given the Ukraine war, the “necessary war” doctrine seemed formed to deflect the kind of self-righteous crusades that bedeviled Western colonial and neocolonial powers. If no war is just, then all wars demand penitence.

All of this is not in any way to justify the war in Ukraine. In fact, as noted, “necessary war” doctrine on its own terms doesn’t seek to justify war in any sense of justice, given the cost to even one innocent human being, let alone the many being killed in Ukraine.

But from the Russian perspective of necessity, however much that can be disputed, this war seems perceived as just that: a “Hail Mary” pass against a neocolonial West messing with a historical heartland, militarily and culturally. The West sees its contravening intervention as a just war, today an extension of the role of social justice warriors at home, part of an ongoing campaign against a culturally repressive remnant of a different civilizational zone, which Mitt Romney famously termed our greatest geopolitical enemy (despite China).

Unlike Islamic civilization, Russia seems too familiar and too close to ignore. Unfortunately, that apparent familiarity bred a misunderstanding of civilizational differences. Meanwhile, the big practical problem that Kissinger has pointed out remains: This “other” is locked and loaded with nuclear weapons. Lord, have mercy!

Jonathan Turley Blasts the Most 'Glaring Element' of Biden's Unhinged Attack Against Trump and MAGA

Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

And there it was. The most divisive political speech by a sitting president in at least modern history. Joe Biden, arms waving and fists clenched, standing in front of a creepy red background, replete with two United States Marines in dress uniform “standing guard,” as their commander in chief blasted “semi-fascist” Donald Trump and the MAGA crowd as the top threat to America’s democracy.

Among the sea of political pundits continuing on Friday to beat to death Biden’s incendiary speech from every conceivable angle — and then some — Georgetown University Law professor and frequent Fox News guest, Jonathan Turley opted for less hyperbole and more substantive, specific criticism of Biden’s militaristic Thursday night speech — and he needed just four tweets to do it.

The optics of Biden’s speech instantly became a source of Internet chatter with the weird red background that made the President look like he was giving a stump speech from Dante’s Inferno. However, it was the use of the Marine guards that were the most glaring element…

Dante’s Inferno. Nicely played — I hadn’t thought of that comparison.

Turley not only focused on what he called the most “glaring element” of Biden’s divisive diatribe; he also pointed to specific language in a Department of Defense Directive that prohibits active members of the Armed Forces from engaging in partisan political activities.

Under Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 (“Political Activities for Members of the Armed Forces”) members of the Armed Forces may not engage in political activities…

Um, Joe?

The DoD’s Directive 1344.10 states, in part:

In keeping with the traditional concept that members on active duty should not engage in partisan political activity, and that members not on active duty should avoid inferences that their political activities imply or appear to imply official aponsorship, approval, or endorsement, the following policy shall apply:

[…]

4.1.2. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:

Let’s go to Turley for a few of the “shall nots.”

The long list of prohibited acts include: “Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces, except as a member of a joint Armed Forces color guard at the opening ceremonies of the national conventions of the Republican, Democratic, or other political parties recognized by the Federal Elections Committee or as otherwise authorized by the Secretary concerned.”

Hmm. I missed the part where it says: “as otherwise authorized by the president.”

Symbolism over substance has long been a staple of the Democrat Party. Who can forget Nancy Pelosi, Chucky Schumer, and other Congressional Democrats ridiculously kneeling in honor of George Floyd, with African Kente cloth patronizingly draped around their necks?

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

And who can forget Barack Obama after the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting — which left 26 victims dead; 20 of them children, ages 6-7 — surrounded by children for a photo-op as he signed 23 executive orders on “gun violence”?

But using United States Marines as a backdrop for the most divisive political speech by an American president in modern history? A president whose White House recently announced a unity summit, of all things? Laughable, hypocritical, inexcusable, disgusting, — take your pick.

AP Photo/Matt Slocum

Uniformed White House guards is one thing. Trotting out U.S. Marines as props behind a hypocritical partisan-hack president delivering an angry partisan-hack speech in which he called half of America “semi-fascists” is another. It is unacceptable, and it is disgusting — but par for Biden’s course.

Incidentally, as reported by my colleague Nick Arama on Friday, Biden appears to be uncharacteristically attempting to backtrack by doing a double-backflip on his incendiary speech.

Right, Joe. Say it ain’t so. Nonsense, “Jack” — you said what you said. Own it.

Cue the White House crickets.

John Kennedy Delivers Brilliant Response to Biden in Defense of Defamed Americans

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

There have been a lot of reactions to Joe Biden’s despicable and divisive speech that he sullied Independence Hall with on Thursday.

We reported a lot of the hot takes including from President Donald Trump. Even Biden himself this morning tried to backpedal from what he had said in his prepared speech. But it was too late, he’d already stepped into it big time by attacking millions of Americans in an unprecedented way.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) delivered a great response, as only he can, noting what a failure this was in a primetime address to use it to attack Americans.

“After listening to the president’s speech, I really understand why it’s an unassailable fact that age does not guarantee wisdom,” Kennedy quipped. [….]

“His speech was a very cynical attempt to fill our heads with stupid,” Kennedy added. “I thought to myself, what a missed opportunity to talk to the American people — straight up — about the reasons when they lie down to sleep at night they can’t. He could have talked about crime, inflation, learning loss by our children, the mountains of fentanyl coming across the border killing our teenagers,” Kennedy noted.

“Instead, he chose to say to the American people: ‘If you don’t agree with me about higher taxes, more government, if you don’t agree with me that moms are ‘birthing people,’ if you don’t agree with me that government has a constitutional right to talk to your five-year-old about sexuality — you’re a bad person and you’re not even an American,'” Kennedy said.

“After it was over I said to myself, you know it’s really true — I’ve said this before — the water’s not gonna clear up in Washington until we get the pigs out of the creek,” Kennedy explained. “And no one is coming to save us but ourselves.”

Exactly, and there are a ton of “pigs” in that creek who need to be cleaned out. Biden showed what his priorities were when given the opportunity to speak to the American people — not any of the issues that were concerning them, but attacking not only his political opponents but their voters as well. He isn’t interested in “Making America Great Again”; he wants to attack those who are, which shows you just where his head is. Because all he and the Democrats care about is holding onto power and doing anything they can — no matter who it hurts — to do that.

Kennedy said that it sounded a lot like Hillary Clinton’s “deplorable” comment. But it was even worse since Biden has been saying things like this for a week and this was a prepared speech, so it was a very prepared statement. Plus Biden was also inciting people against millions of Americans, trying to dehumanize them. “Deplorable” was bad but this was far worse.

“The people that president Biden is talking about — some of whom supported President Trump, some didn’t — are the people who get up every day, go to work, obey the law, pay their taxes, try to teach their kids morals,” Kennedy explained. “They are proud of America. They do want to make America great again.

They just don’t agree with Biden, Kennedy said. That’s their “crime” in a Biden Administration, that’s their “extremism.”

“I think he’s made a political mistake,” Kennedy said. “But it says something about his administration.” Indeed, that’s why Biden was so desperate to backpedal this morning — his handlers finally got that this tactic went too far. But how clueless and messed up are they to not understand that they shouldn’t be attacking Americans? Very.

In Speech Walkback, Biden Now Admits He’s The Real Threat To Democracy

Tristan Justice reporting for The Federalist

President Joe Biden attempted to walk back his divisive rhetoric delivered Thursday night, when the commander-in-chief stood before Independence Hall flanked by Marines illuminated by blood-red lights like stormtroopers.

Two months before the November midterms, Biden went on a 25-minute tirade in which he branded his political opposition as an existential threat to democracy and the “soul of this nation.”

“Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic,” Biden said. “There’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country.”

Following rare criticism from even CNN, Biden on Friday sought to back away from the divisive message he delivered in a scene some viewers compared to hell.

“I don’t consider any Trump supporter to be a threat,” the president told reporters on Friday.

Just one day earlier, however, Biden even tweeted that Trump supporters were a “threat to the very soul of this country.”

“I do think anyone who calls for the use of violence and fails to condemn violence when it’s used, refuse to acknowledge an election has been won — that is a threat to democracy,” Biden added in his attempted Friday walkback.

Under the president’s definition, however, 2016 Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the Democrats who objected to President Donald Trump’s electoral certification in 2017 are extremist threats to democracy. So is Biden himself for his refusal to forcefully condemn the violent terrorism targeting conservatives, whether directed at conservative Supreme Court justices or pro-life pregnancy centers. Biden’s Justice Department even refused to prosecute the illegal targeting of conservative justices by left-wing activists, which then escalated to the point of an attempted assassination on Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Hours before the president’s dark, dystopian address in prime time, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declared Americans extreme by virtue of being in the political minority.

“When you are not with what majority of Americans are, then you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking,” Jean-Pierre said.

Such a definition would also apply to support for Biden, for whom only a minority of Americans hold a favorable approval rating. According to RealClearPolitics’ latest aggregate of surveys, only 42 percent of Americans approve of the president’s job performance compared to nearly 55 percent who disapprove.