When Billy Met Teddy

How the FBI failed to protect America 

against a real domestic terrorist.

by Lloyd Billingsley for American Greatness

The FBI recently classified American Contingency, an emergency prevention organization led by U.S. Army veteran Mike Glover, as associated with domestic terrorism. According to an unnamed FBI whistleblower, the designation came after the FBI somehow “cleared” the organization and its founder in 2020.  

In a response to the Epoch Times report on the case, the federal bureau claimed it “does not and cannot designate domestic terrorist organizations. The FBI can never open an investigation based solely on protected First Amendment activity.” In addition, “We cannot and do not investigate ideology. We focus on individuals who commit or intend to commit violence and criminal activity that constitutes a federal crime or poses a threat to national security. The FBI’s mission is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution. One does not come at the expense of the other.” 

Americans might wonder how the FBI protected the American people against Ted Kaczynski, the so-called “Unabomber,” now 80 years old. Last year Kaczynski was moved to a federal prison medical facility in North Carolina. Back in the 1970s, during the Carter era, this domestic terrorist began to commit violence that constituted a federal crime. 

“Theodore Kaczynski came to our attention in 1978 with the explosion of his first, primitive homemade bomb at a Chicago university,” explains the FBI, then led by William Webster, a federal judge who never served as an FBI agent. On May 25, 1978, a package intended for Northwestern University professor Buckley Crist exploded and injured a security officer.

On May 9, 1979, a bomb dressed up as a present injured Northwestern University graduate student John Harris. On June 10, 1980, a bomb encased in a book injured United Airlines president Percy Wood. The targeting of universities and airlines led to the “Unabomber” designation. The FBI task force grew to more than 150 full-time investigators and analysts, but their combined efforts with the ATF and postal inspectors “proved of little use.” 

On October 8, 1981, at the University of Utah, a bomb wrapped in brown paper was safely detonated without injury. The following year, on May 5, a bomb sent to Patrick Fischer, head of the computer science department at Vanderbilt University, injured secretary Janet Smith. 

On July 2, 1982, a package bomb left in Cory Hall at UC Berkeley exploded and injured electrical engineering professor Diogenes Angelakos. At the same hall on May 15, 1985,  a disguised bomb severely injured engineering student John Hauser. On June 13, 1985, a package sent to Boeing’s fabrication division was safely detonated but again rendered no clues as to the bomber. 

That same year, on November 15, a Unabomber package bomb injured University of Michigan professor James McConnell and his assistant Nicklaus Suino. On December 11, 1985, Hugh Scrutton perished in the blast from a bomb left in the parking lot of his computer store in Sacramento, California. Two years later, on February 20, 1987, an explosion at a Salt Lake City computer store severely injured store owner Gary Wright. 

An employee spotted Kaczynski leaving the package bomb in the parking lot, but the first composite sketch of the Unabomber led nowhere. Despite the massive FBI task force, domestic terrorist Ted Kaczynski remained undiscovered and undeterred. 

On June 23, 1993, a mail bomb exploded in the residence of University of California geneticist Charles Joseph Epstein, acclaimed for work on Down syndrome and Alzheimer’s. The blast severed fingers and inflicted severe internal injuries. The next day, Kaczynski struck again. 

His mail bomb targeted Yale computer scientist David Gelernter, who suffered severe wounds to his abdomen, chest, face, and hands. As the New York Times noted, authorities said the bombs “have become progressively more complex over the years and they tend to be meticulously constructed of common materials like fishing line, string, nails and wrapping paper.” 

By that time, director William Webster had given way to William Sessions. He urged caution with strange packages, but the FBI task force had no leads of any substance. On December 19, 1994, a package bomb killed New Jersey advertising executive Thomas Mosser. Kaczynski had chalked up another murder, but he wasn’t done. 

On April 24, his package mailed to the California Forestry Association in Sacramento claimed the life of lobbyist Gilbert B. Murray. This marked the third murder, and a full 17 years that Kaczynski had eluded the FBI, now headed by Louis Freeh. The domestic terrorist had claimed victims during the administrations of presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Doubtless feeling invincible, the Unabomber composed a 35,000 word essay about the ills of modern society, duly published in the Washington Post. 

Ted’s brother, David Kaczynski, spotted a phrase “cool-headed logicians” he had never heard anybody else use, and noted that the manifesto bore similarities to Ted’s angry letters to his parents. Months later, David contacted the FBI, and only then were agents able to track the the bomber to a cabin in Montana. He was arrested on April 3, 1996, tried and in 1998 sentenced to life with no possibility of parole.

Had domestic terrorist Ted Kaczynski not sent the manifesto, the bombings would surely have continued. As David Gelernter and the other Unabomber victims understand, the FBI does not protect the American people. The victims of terrorist attacks at Fort Hood (2009), the Boston Marathon (2013), San Bernardino (2015) and Orlando (2016), made the same discovery. 

In the case of Fort Hood, the FBI knew U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan was communicating with al Qaeda terrorist Anwar al Awlaki.  As Lessons from Fort Hood notes, the Washington office of the FBI did not assess Hasan “to be involved in terrorist activities.” As it turned out, the FBI was wrong. 

On November 5, 2009, Hasan murdered 13 unarmed American soldiers, including Private Francheska Velez, who was pregnant, and wounded more than 30 others. It was as though FBI bosses had known the plans of Ted Kaczynski and done nothing to prevent his deadly bomb attacks. 

The FBI now regards anyone less than worshipful of Joe Biden as a domestic terrorist, targeting patriots such as Mike Glover. The FBI investigated his military records, his veteran’s disability rating, and even his monthly disability benefit. As this case confirms, the FBI does investigate ideology. 

The bureau claims to stand for “fidelity, bravery and integrity,” but it didn’t take much bravery to slap 70-something Trump aide Peter Navarro into handcuffs as he boarded an airplane. In a similar style, FBI agents recently seized the cell phone of Trump supporter and My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, 61. Lindell’s lawyers claim the FBI violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights. As Lindell, Navarro, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, and the rest all understand, the FBI does not uphold the Constitution.

The bravest agents are now the FBI whistleblowers such as Steven Friend. The special agent, 37, objected to investigations that violate Sixth Amendment rights and charged that the FBI is opening domestic terrorism cases against people who were nowhere near the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2001. The FBI stripped Friend of his gun and badge and has retaliated against at least 20 other whistleblowers. 

FBI integrity left town a long time ago, but in a strange way the fidelity part still applies. For all but the willfully blind, the FBI is now the Gestapo and KGB of the Biden Junta, a repressive, partisan force incompatible with a constitutional republic.

X22, Christian Patriot News, NCIS franchise news, and more- Oct 3

 

Whole lot happened today, so I'm just going to group it all here:

For any fan of the NCIS franchise, hearing today's shocking news of that long rumored 3 way crossover is more then likely thrilling.

For me though, it's more like 'Juvenile Twitter freaks are actually getting their way?' (they are literally the only ones who have been asking for this kind of thing all year!), mixed in with 'Either include Hetty, or there's zero point of all this.'

And then there was the big NCIS LA news dump from CBS. 2 future press releases complete with photos from Episodes 2 and 3.

Not only do both press releases sound poorly written (they bring up 2 guest stars who aren't even going to be in the episodes!!), but the photos are too boring. And Hetty less.

The only parts of today's news dump that I liked:

Seeing this name is still included in the Series Regulars list:

And also seeing Callen was mysteriously missing from the photos for Episode 3. Which for the time being, fuels 1 of my Hetty related theories for how I think Episode 2 ends.

And there you have it. 1 long day with a lot of news. (Hopefully TV Line waits until tomorrow to release their NCIS LA preview of the first few episodes.).

Now on to the podcasts:

Pushing the Envelopes in Ukraine ~ VDH

So how does it all end, and Russian, Ukrainian, European and U.S. agendas become compatible? It doesn’t, and they won’t.

by Victor Davis Hanson for American Greatness

For all the dramatic late-summer Ukrainian success, we are witnessing yet another deadlock in the war—one that supposedly will be resolved by escalations on all sides.  

Mutually Exclusive Agendas 

A rebooted Ukraine is clamoring for more offensive arms. It claims it can win the war, with victory now giddily defined as sending every Russian back home in disgrace.  

Russia is screaming threats about using nuclear weapons—though how Vladimir Putin would use them remains in dispute. Putin is ominously no longer qualifying his Strangelovian threat with the adjective tactical, as he calls up 300,000 more troops.  

An addled and non-compos mentis Joe Biden only nominally remains the leader of the West. He initially refused to send offensive arms to Ukraine, and then offered to evacuate President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. But now Biden 2.0 has blasted Putin as a killer, someone equivalent to the domestic semi-fascists he blasted in his Phantom of the Opera hate speech.  

Biden has called for Putin’s removal. But until Putin’s demise, he wants still more sanctions against Russia. Yet it is hard to distinguish who is more detached from reality—Biden, suffering from cognitive decline as he talks to dead people and shakes the hands of ghosts, or a physically ailing and paranoid Putin. Meanwhile American Vice President Kamala Harris is rambling about a mythical American alliance with lunatic North Korea and the need to disperse federal help to storm-ravaged Florida on the basis of race. 

The United States is sinking knee-deep into recession. Once again it is hit with spiraling fuel prices. No matter: Biden promises to borrow still more billions of dollars for Ukrainian aid as he drains the last drops of the strategic petroleum reserve that he inherited almost full. 

Biden is on record that there will not be a negotiated end to the war. He instead believes, to paraphrase Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, that the proxy disaster must serve the permanent weakening of Russia, the deserved humiliation of Putin, and his removal from office.

So how does it all end, or will it all end, with so many mutually exclusive and escalating agendas? 

The Ukrainians survived the initial Russian effort to decapitate their government and absorb Western Ukraine. Months later they are still frantically trying to push Russians back to, and even well beyond, their areas of control prior to February 23.  

Ukraine’s ultimate hopes seem threefold: (1) reestablishing their pre-2014 borders, (2) finding permanent collective security within the West, formally through NATO to acquire future deterrence from the Russian war machine, and (3) weakening the economic and social fabric of Russia itself to the point that it is no longer a superpower capable of such aggression. Translated that means Ukraine wishes to be a permanent proxy of the West, which will pledge its own strategic security on behalf of Zelenskyy’s agendas. 

Russia Has Other Plans 

As for the Russians, their idea of dissecting Ukraine by incorporating its eastern half and then gradually wearing down, whether economically or militarily, Western Ukraine, for now has failed.  

But Vladimir Putin is not entirely foolish. He has pivoted by redefining victory as institutionalizing and declaring as “Russian” the disputed borderlands, and soon Crimea, that he grabbed in 2014. To fight there, he will allege, is to go on the offensive inside Russia. He believes his misadventure in a year or two will still be seen as worth the terrible costs to the Russian people and the thousands of Russian and Ukrainian dead—if he can brag that he still insidiously continues to reclaim lost lands of the Russian Empire.  

In the mind of Putin, Russians’ current popular furor at his meat-grinder, at the sanctions, and at their global cultural ostracism will all fade—once Putin achieves his newly defined victory and brags that he turned back the intrusive proxy efforts of a decadent West.  

Putin’s propaganda constantly escalates. Now it focuses on the idea that Mother Russia is threatened by Western Nazi-like aggressors. Like the duplicitous Stalin, Putin turns his own September 1939-like aggression into June 1941-like victimhood. 

So again, how do all these parties find pathways to their mutually incompatible versions of victory and thus see the war end?  

Ukrainian Dreams 

Ukraine would like to push the Russians out of its former territory before the winter sets in and an additional Russian 300,000 recruits, despite their poor quality, are streamed into the invasion forces. Russians are now de facto on the defensive. But they are also the beneficiaries of shorter interior lines and more effective propaganda that the soil of Mother Russia is now imperiled from the aggrandizing West.  

The use of American intelligence to assassinate Russian generals, and raid into Russia, and of sophisticated weapons to blow up Russian conscripts, and sink billion-dollar Russian ships only feed into Putin’s narratives. 

Meanwhile Ukraine—waging mobile and encircling offensives on its borders against a country of 145 million and an economy 10 times larger—soon will punch too far beyond its weight. Millions of Ukrainians are leaving the country. The Ukrainian economy is in shambles. Putin has inflicted trillions of dollars in damage to Ukrainian infrastructure that is beginning to resemble 1918 occupied France and Belgium. And Zelenskyy’s appetite for far more, and more lethal, Western weapons is insatiable.  

Ukraine also needs a far greater stream of replacement parts and ammunition. It demands much more Western money and economic aid. And it harangues for greater political and military Western solidarity to ensure that Europe and the United States, via NATO, would be permanently willing to deter a humiliated and defanged Russia from opportunistically resuming its aggression a few years down the road.  

Strategically, Ukraine feels that it must bleed the Russian military by hitting supply and staging areas inside Russia, and on the Black Sea. It apparently assumes such risky retaliatory escalation is achievable by denying these very attacks—and, if undeniable, justifying them because “Russia, not us, started it and they, not us, invaded a neighbor.”  

Even before victory is achieved, Ukraine talks of multitrillion-dollar reparations for the horrific damage and death inflicted upon it by a criminal Russian war machine. That demand is certainly justified and understandable. But historically, reparations are the stuff of postwar haggling among the victors—and commence only after the enemy is first defeated and helpless. 

Western Reality Checks 

Will Ukraine then end up achieving all its long-term strategic goals? 

 Not likely and for a great number of reasons.  

A once haughty and sanctimonious green Europe is more terrified of returning to premodern winter cold and scarcity than ensuring it remains a loud model of postmodern energy sustainability. It is one thing to give Churchillian speeches in the Bundestag about new German solidarity with NATO, but quite another to send even a few multimillion-Euro Leopard tanks to Ukraine to blast away at Germany’s decade-long gas supplier. Remember, as the hated Donald Trump once warned, it was the diabolical Putin’s once dirt-cheap and reliable natural gas that gave German moralists the margins of error to push their suicidal green gospel upon the world. 

Critical Russian natural gas shipments to Europe are no longer guaranteed. It will take years for Europe to find comparable alternative new sources. Yet in these months before its impending 19th-century winter, the European Union still remains hostile to its own fracking and horizontal drilling, nuclear power, and coal generation.  

Under Joe Biden’s pressure, Europe passed on the win/win EastMed Israeli/Cypriot/Greek natural-gas pipeline. Some Americans talk grandly of saving Europe by shipping massive amounts of American liquified natural gas to new German terminals. But at home, Joe Biden has shut down pipelines as well as oil and gas fields. No president in the last 80 years has issued fewer new federal natural gas leases.  

Europe is still wounded by greens who, albeit more quietly, prefer unaffordable gas and oil prices. Bankrupting the fossil-fuel-guzzling middle class they believe will at least spur greater use of windmills, solar panels, and batteries.  

European leaders, however, who won over the American Left to their ritual cannibalistic green policies, now reverse course and beg the United States to drill all the hot-burning natural gas it can export. So, by next January, cold, broke, and immobile Europeans may resent even one more lecture from Volodymyr Zelenskyy about the need for more sacrifices on Ukraine’s behalf.  

American weapons are the best in the world—and apparently the most expensive and difficult to produce in massive numbers.  

Supplying Ukraine has squeezed America’s tactical and strategic weapon reserves down to dangerous levels—the military equivalent of Joe Biden’s draining the strategic petroleum reserve, even as global oil prices are once again spiraling, and the weather disrupts supply.  

Joe Biden has a bad habit of exploiting the petroleum and weapons bounty that he inherited from Trump, depleting and not replenishing it, and then covering his tracks by blaming Trump. 

The more our Ukraine proxy advances to the border, the more it sinks Russian capital ships and the more it conducts raids into Mother Russia, so all the more it relies, de facto, on the American or NATO nuclear umbrella in the face of Putin’s contrived threats.  

But are these ultimata completely empty intimidations?  

An aged and ailing Putin now cites America’s first use of a bomb over Hiroshima (that saved millions of lives by ending the Pacific war abruptly against Soviet Russia’s erstwhile four-year, non-aggression partner Japan.) To justify a nuclear strike, Putin weirdly insists U.S. World War II-area bombing was inhuman, forgetting that it served as a second front until June 1944 and thus forced the Wehrmacht to redirect homeward thousands of flak guns, fighter aircraft, and troops away from the Russian front.   

Surveillance photos show Russian transference of strategic bombers nearer to the Ukraine border. All the while Putin seeks ever more diabolical ways to decouple Ukraine’s sponsors.  

In sum, are the strapped American people now willing to up their nearly $100 billion supply pipeline to Ukraine, with assurance that its own cities are to risk Armageddon to deter Russian missiles over Kyiv? 

As for Russia, a wounded Putin knows even empty nuclear threats must be taken seriously. But they are just one tool in his apparent ample kit to frighten off Ukraine’s suppliers. Meanwhile, Russia keeps selling oil to its new, anti-American partners China and India—40 percent of the global population. He mobilizes more manpower. He transforms his stale propaganda from posing as a reluctant, legitimate oppressor to a noble oppressed victim. He watches the West slide into recession and mutual bickering, Biden slide into utter incoherence, and America slide into dangerous pre-midterm factionalism.

No End in Sight? 

So how does it all end and all these agendas become compatible? 

It doesn’t and they won’t. 

The once American, isolationist, and antiwar Left is now mimicking the old, interventionist, neocon Right. After the failure of the Russian collusion hoax and the various impeachments, it wishes to construct the war as proof that it was right all along about demonic Vladimir Putin—as if anyone ever doubted that he was a dangerous adversary who should never have been appeased by the embarrassing “resets” of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama—and Joe Biden.

Hillary Clinton’s own stealthy hiring of Igor Danchenko and Christopher Steele’s use of eager Russian sources to find dirt on her political opponent Donald Trump are ironic ways to warn about the dangers of Russian election interference. 

America, then, no matter its economic and fuel woes, no matter the dangerous loose mouth of a grumpy and fading Joe Biden, and no matter the loss of American strategic deterrence in 2021-22, apparently will supply Ukraine until the last Russian leaves the borderlands.  

As for Russia, it cannot fulfill even its limited goals, even with more oil money, more manpower, and more weapons—unless it can sever the supply of Western arms. So far nuclear threats, blown-up pipelines, fuel cutoffs, and Chinese, Iranian, and Indian help haven’t ended the Western-Russia proxy war.  

So, Putin will still try to peel off individual NATO members with hyped threats of attack. He will hope he can sell his fuel to new customers and cut off, for good, his old dependent Western buyers. And he will search for new targets and areas for leverage, be it through cyberattacks, satellite interference, terrorism, fresh proxies, or Chinese help. 

The mere idea of a negotiated ceasefire or settlement that allows plebiscites overseen by third parties in the disputed territories between 2014 and 2022 is an anathema to all sides. So, the battlefield alone will apparently be the final arbiter—as it is so often in history.

Apparently, Ukraine, Russia, NATO, Europe, and the United States all believe their own war aims can be achieved and the unfortunate losers will accept the verdict and crawl away to lick their wounds.  

Good luck with that in the age of nuclear contestants, transcontinental cyberattacks, continental-sized energy dependencies, gain-of-function plagues, and globalized markets and interdependence.  

Or to put it another way, everyone is signing up for a very long, very cold winter.

By Every Benchmark, The World Feminism Created Is The Opposite Of What Makes Women Happy

If women are achieving more equality at work and at home, then why are their levels of happiness on the decline?

by Zachary Porcu for The Federalist

When Blake Masters, the Republican nominee for Arizona’s U.S. Senate seat, declared that Americans “ought to be able to raise a family on one single income,” he turned a few heads. “Most families,” he added, “would prefer to have one breadwinner and one parent stay at home with the kids,” a phrase that strongly invokes the image of traditional gender roles in the minds of most listeners.

While it might be tempting to dismiss this as nothing more than misguided nostalgia for the 1950s, Masters’ popularity suggests these concerns strike a chord with Americans — many of whom are calling for a return to traditional gender roles — a surprising development in the supposedly progressive political landscape of the 21st century.

While it’s easy for critics of Masters to condemn him and his constituents as backward, misogynist, neo-fascist, and what have you, these criticisms fail to take seriously an important reality: the increasing unhappiness of women in modern life.

Objective data for this predicament began to surface in 2009, when Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers published a study titled, “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness.” In it, these University of Pennsylvania researchers presented compelling data indicating that women’s sense of happiness has been declining in industrialized countries for the last 35 years, a conclusion shared by six other major studies across 35 developed countries totaling more than 1.3 million participants.

For comparison, the 1970s saw women as a group reporting a higher sense of happiness than men. But in the last three decades, that sense of well-being has steadily declined, both in absolute terms and relative to male happiness.

This drop in happiness is still present when other factors are controlled for: with children or without, married or unmarried, single or divorced, young or old, across all ethnicities, job types, and income levels. Women are unhappy and they’re getting unhappier.

This data clashes with one of the basic narratives of the 21st century: women’s liberation. While it’s true that women today are more educated, have access to more opportunities, and enjoy more freedoms, happiness hasn’t followed. Quite the opposite. But why?

Some have suggested that women’s liberation simply hasn’t gone far enough, citing statistics that although men now do more housework than ever before, men still aren’t doing quite enough. Others have suggested that liberation is making women unhappy because being involved in the workforce has only made them more conscious of the gap between their privileges and those of men.

But the problem with these explanations is that they don’t make sense of the data. The data shows that the world has been steadily trending toward the equality (or outright superiority) of women. Hours spent on housework have progressively equalized. There has been a steady increase in the number of women in positions of power, from corporations to countries, and women now earn more college and graduate degrees than men. If these things were all good for women, we would expect some correlation between the steady progress of equality and women’s happiness. Instead, we see the opposite.

From a purely objective standpoint, the data says that increased gender equality correlates with female unhappiness.

How do we interpret this data?

First is the obvious question: Which women are happy? A number of studies suggest that married women in traditional gender roles tend to report a higher sense of fulfillment than those who aren’t and that women are happier working part-time rather than pursuing careers. Couples with traditional gender roles also appear to have more sex, according to several studies, while equalitarian relationships tend toward “roommate-like behavior” or a “‘sibling-like’ tonality to the relationship that undermines sexual desire.”

Why might this be the case? Book sales give us some indication. The last 20 years saw the debut of two fiction series that feature demure, passive females involved in romantic relationships with powerful, domineering males: “Twilight” by Stephenie Meyer and “Fifty Shades of Grey” by E.L. James.

You would think that such stories would be unappealing to the sensibilities of modern, liberated women and that their only appeal would be as male power fantasies. But men were neither the authors nor the primary readers of these books; women were. And the two series have respectively sold 160 and 150 million copies worldwide, making them the 16th and 20th best-selling series of all time.

The incredible success of these stories suggests that a fundamental asymmetry in romantic relationships (especially in terms of power) is what women find attractive. This conclusion is also supported by a prominent study of internet browsing habits, in which women’s pornographic fantasies were shown to revolve primarily around physically powerful or otherwise high-status men. No wonder egalitarian relationships result in less sex.

These psychological differences also explain the curious data on women in STEM fields. While popular opinion holds that the cause of female underrepresentation in STEM is due to socially constructed gender roles, the data suggests the opposite. The more egalitarian a culture is toward men and women, the fewer women choose careers in STEM. In the Scandinavian countries, which boast the highest vocational freedom for women, women more frequently choose traditionally female jobs. It’s only in countries with much less economic freedom that women are more likely to choose a STEM career, which suggests that most women go into STEM out of survival, not preference.

Many have acknowledged these statistical realities but view them as a problem to be solved. A recent article from the American Psychological Association — responding to the trend of women leaving the workforce during the Covid-19 pandemic — outlines a number of psychological tactics for keeping women in the workplace despite their tendency to prioritize their families over their careers.

“If we can understand their motivations,” another writer remarked, “then interventions can be designed to help them change their minds.” But creating strategies to change women’s minds instead of allowing them to freely choose suggests that those pushing for women’s liberation have ulterior motives.

This suggestion is nothing new. As Arthur Gordian has argued, feminism’s push to get women out of the home and into male jobs does many things at once: It doubles the labor force, creates more competition for jobs, drives down wages, creates a new demand for jobs to replace the jobs women used to do at home, and removes the competition that female-led cottage industries used to pose big business. All of these outcomes align with corporate interests — besides creating more income streams that the government can tax.

If this world of intensifying corporatization and wage-slavery was good for women we’d expect to see any amount of increase in female happiness, but we don’t. 

And that makes sense. If women really are happier in traditional gender roles, if what they actually find attractive in men is power and status, and if they only choose traditional male jobs when forced by economic necessity, then the world feminism has created is exactly the opposite of one that can make them happy. The only paradox here is the irony of feminism’s inability — or unwillingness — to listen to the actual needs and desires of women.

Whiny Biden Complains at Awards Event About Republicans Picking on Him

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

Joe Biden spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus’ Annual Legislative Conference Phoenix Awards Dinner in Washington, D.C. on Saturday night.

Biden came walking out to speak and said “Whoa” as though he was being greeted by great applause but there hadn’t been any. Looks like either the audience wasn’t feeling it and/or Joe got his cue wrong.

Biden then went on to spread a lot of nonsense about the things that he’d supposedly “achieved.”

Biden claimed the Inflation Reduction Act that he got passed was “the most aggressive action to confront our climate crisis ever in all of human history ever.” Translation: We managed to get this boondoggle that’s going to spend a ton and make inflation worse. What the Inflation Act doesn’t do is confront the real inflation crisis– as they originally claimed it would and which now they aren’t talking about. The Act is the “Green New Deal Lite,” with a phony name to make it sound acceptable.

Then he tried to justify his student debt bailout by attacking members of Congress who criticized it and who had families who might have benefited from the Paycheck Protection Program.

But the PPP program was legal, whether you like it or not. It was passed by Congress. Biden’s bailout is an illegal, naked attempt to buy votes with taxpayer money — just something he pulled out of his posterior — and hasn’t been passed by anyone. He doesn’t have the Constitutional right just to transfer taxpayer dollars and put that debt on all the rest of us who don’t owe it. Moreover, the PPP was full of fraud, so maybe it’s not the justification he wants to use. But as we’ve indicated, this may be boomeranging on him because a lot of people are disturbed that he’s done this. That is not making voters happy, as we’ve noted, and may be helping the movement that we’ve seen toward GOP congressional candidates.

Then Biden whined about Republicans picking on him and tried to act tough, “Know I’m being banged up by the Republicans, but uh, come bring it on”

Um, Joe? It’s your delusional comments and bad policies that are doing you in, we’re just pointing out what a mess you are. Few people have managed to so harm America in such a short period. You’re the one attacking millions of Republican voters trying to appear tough, but burning your bridges and costing votes for the Democrats in the process. You’re the one seeing dead people or wandering off as your handlers have to chase your down. You’re the one whose wife is shoving you off the stage. Americans see all this — they’re not blind. And Americans will be “bringing it on” and letting you know exactly what we think of you and the Democrats in November.