Monday, December 12, 2022

Midterms, Moving, And Our Inevitable National Divorce

As anyone who reads this column regularly knows, I was a stanch member of Team Reality from the very beginning of the insane, inept response to the Covid-19 pandemic wrought by the powers that be. I decried lockdowns in March 2020. I declared my staunch opposition to mask-wearing in May/June 2020 when the first evil stench of mandates began wafting about. In column after column and tweet after tweet, I consistently challenged the prevailing narrative.

At the time (thankfully less so now), I was always a bit concerned with getting canceled and losing my platform, especially on social media, a cloud that I’ll admit worked to temper my written words to some degree. In real life, however, anyone who knows me personally will testify that I never held back in my human-to-human interactions when discussing these matters. 

Still, words - written and spoken - are easy. Living them out is a bit more difficult. Plenty of keyboard warriors will write a lot of ‘brave’ things, but if you examined their everyday life you’d find hypocrisy in every corner. For me, here in east Tennessee, bucking Covid restrictions wasn’t all that difficult. A mask mandate was in place for nearly a year, but there were no teeth behind it. I could walk maskless into a Walmart virtually unchallenged except for maybe a few glaring stares. Most restaurants, knowing the absurdity of the whole ‘walk masked to the table then remove it’ nonsense, never really even tried aside from being forced to post the silly sign.

If I lived in California, Oregon, or even Ohio where Republican leadership went wild with the Covid mania, things may have been different. Sure, I’d like to think I would have been as bold and cantankerous, consistently defying every sort of mask requirement those places could throw at me, but maybe the constant cloud of strict mandates, stringent enforcement, and near-universal compliance would have worn even me down eventually. In my defense, I do remember laughing at a masked Covidien who cussed me out on an elevator in Miami for not wearing one in early 2021, but whether I could have consistently maintained that stand day after day while living somewhere deep blue is unknowable.

This brings me to my larger point: It matters where you live. It matters A LOT. In Tennessee, we were able to live largely as we wanted, even during those few weeks when things were largely closed and even during the toothless county mask ‘mandate’ they put on the books. I mean don’t get me wrong, I’ll never forgive them for that, but I’ll at least give them credit for making it as benign as possible. And I wasn’t usually alone. Even during the height of the county mask mandate and the Delta surge, at least 10-20% of shoppers in any store were maskless also. We would often smile at each other knowingly, happy to see another sane person in a sea of sheeple.

But what if you are the ONLY sane person? At what point do you break down? And before you judge and sanctimoniously declare you would never relent, think about the times when you meekly stepped on board a plane wearing a useless face muzzle, because we all did if we wanted or needed to fly.

The point is, the power and peace that comes with living with and around other like-minded people cannot be measured. Power because people who think like you make the rules, rules you generally agree with and can easily abide by. Peace because there is less social unrest generated by crazed leftists, who in red areas are generally consigned to the occasional Pride parade or the corner of some college street where most everyone else ignores them as they go about their day.

No wonder hordes of people moved to Florida and other ‘free’ states during the pandemic. But what are the long-term ramifications of such natural migration? We saw some of it last month as Florida reelected Ron DeSantis by an overwhelming margin. But as freedom-loving people migrate away from places with less freedom, will they eventually cede what’s left of those places irrevocably to the left? What of those narrow House races did Republicans win in California and New York? If a few hundred of those voters jump ship for Texas, Florida, or Tennessee, will Republicans have a shot at keeping their already narrow majority in that chamber in coming election cycles?

Conservative commentators like Jesse Kelly and Steve Deace consistently urge like-minded people living in blue areas to pack up and leave for greener, er, redder pastures, and if I were among those people I would wholeheartedly agree and likely follow that advice if I could. So I don’t blame them at all. However, if enough conservatives leave ‘purple’ places like Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and even Georgia after Brian Kemp’s term ends, will any GOP candidate have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the presidency again?

The tea leaves aren’t difficult to read. While politically motivated migration does make red states redder, it also can make blue areas bluer and purple areas blue. This trend will eventually lead to Democrats obtaining a vice-grip on federal power under the current system. If and when this happens, the only recourse for freedom-loving people will be to push extreme federalism within their red states, and if that doesn’t work, push for eventual secession from the union entirely.

Notwithstanding the societal dangers posed by wave upon wave of uncontrolled outside immigration, wouldn’t it be ironic yet oddly predictable if masses of people searching for a better life within the United States is what ultimately leads to the end of the ‘United’ States? 




X22, Christian Patriot News, and more- December 12

 



Just a little food for thought: The upvote/downvote buttons are closer to each other then 1 may think. Clicking the wrong button by accident and never knowing about it until someone starts bellyaching about it happens more then 1 may know. (especially when 1 is in a hurry). So, getting really sensitive over whether or not someone you know is upvoting or downvoting you, or doing it to someone else, is kind of pointless.

Here's tonight's news:


Our Parasitic Generation ~ VDH

Yes, there is a lot of ruin in great nations. 
But even America is by now running low on it.


"Be assured young friend, that there is a great deal of ruin in a nation."
Adam Smith

Are we sure that there is all that much ruin left in the United States?

We are $31 trillion in collective debt. The new normal is $1.5 trillion budget deficits. The military is politicized and short of recruits. We trade lethal terrorists for woke celebrity athletes as if to confirm our enemies’ cynical stereotypes. 

Our FBI is corrupt and discredited, collaborating with Silicon Valley contractors to suppress free speech and warp elections. We practice segregation and racial discrimination and claim we do not because the right and good people support it and, anyway, the victims deserve it. The country has seen defeat before but never abject, deliberate humiliation as in Kabul, when we fled and abandoned to the terrorist Taliban a $1 billion embassy, a huge, remodeled air base, thousands of friends, and tens of billions of dollars in military hardware—and hard-earned deterrence.

We are witnessing the breakdown of basic norms essential for civilized life, from affordable food and fuel to available key antibiotics and baby formula. Old Cairo seems safer than an after-hours subway ride or stroll at dusk in many major American cities. Medieval London’s roadways were likely cleaner than Market Street in San Francisco. Speech was freer in 1920s America than it is now.

The Breakdown of Basic Society

Our California always is a preamble to America’s future. Our present is likely your tomorrow. 

Each summer here we impotently expect forest conflagrations. Millions of acres of flames pour more millions of tons of smoke and carbon and soot in the skies. Tens of millions of hated combustion engines cannot begin to match the natural blankets of aerial dirt. 

The state seems to shrug it off, saying wildfires are both inevitable and natural. Old-fashioned forest management and fire-fighting strategies, honed over centuries, are deemed obsolete by our green experts. So, we let fiery nature take its better course. What is the implicit message to those in the way of fires that devour homes and trees? Nature’s way? Natural wood mulch? Or that such fools should not build their cabins or homes where they are not wanted ?

What was bequeathed to us from a state of 15 million—magnificent aqueducts, once brilliantly designed freeways and airports, superb universities and schools, perfectly engineered reservoirs, and downtowns of majestic skyscrapers—in a California of 41 million are frozen in amber or in decay. They have few updates and even fewer replacements. The decrepitude recalls the weedy forums and choked fountains of Vandal-era Roman cities, which is what happens when a later parasitic generation mocks but still consumes what it inherits but cannot create. 

Our own generation’s pale contributions are multibillion-dollar, quarter-built, graffiti-defaced high-speed rail Stonehenge monoliths. We prefer to shut down rather than build nuclear plants. Our solar battery plants are as prone to combust as they are to store electricity. And our urban streets reek of feces. All seem testaments to our incompetence, arrogance, and ignorance. We fear the idea of homelessness, and so cede to the homeless our downtowns and avoid what follows.

Our great universities, once the most esteemed in the world from Berkeley and Stanford to UCLA and USC, grow burdened with commissars, too many of their outnumbered faculties are weaponized, and their students have never been more confident in their abilities, and with so little reason for that confidence.

A return to syllabi and grading standards of just 30 years ago would result in mass flunkings. Failure on tests apparently means the test, not the test taker, is found wanting.

What follows is the erosion of meritocracy and competence. And that reality is starting to explain the great unraveling: why our bridges take decades to build rather than a few years, why train tracks are not laid after a decade of “planning,”and why to drive down a once brilliantly engineered, but now crammed and dangerous road is to revisit the “Road Warrior” of film. Sam Bankman-Fried and Elizabeth Holmes are the apt characters of our age.

Institutions That Went Rogue

The FBI has imploded. It has all but become a Third World retrieval and investigatory service for the Democratic Party. Its last four directors either have lied, misled, or pleaded amnesia while under oath. 

In 2016, the bureau with the Democratic National Committee sought to destroy the integrity of an election by fabricating a Russian collusion hoax. Its continuance and coverup ultimately required FBI agents and lawyers to alter legal documents, to lie under oath, to destroy subpoenaed phone data, and to outsource illegal suppression of First Amendment rights to Silicon Valley contractors. The nation now fears there isn’t anything the FBI might not do.

As we became hyper-legal with Trump, we are more sublegal with the entire Biden family. For a decade, with impunity, it gorged multimillion profits from selling the “Big Guy”/Mr. “10 Percent” Joe Biden’s name and access—sums for the most part hidden and likely not completely taxed. We all know it is true, and we all know the FBI and Department of Justice know it is true, and we know further that the truth means nothing.

This self-satisfied generation constantly brags of transforming elections. But it will be known more as the destroyer of a once hallowed Election Day. Not so long ago 70-80 percent of the electorate took the trouble of voting under transparent protocols. We replaced it in most states with 60-70 percent of the votes without audit and the product of vote harvesting and curing. Our generation, in just a couple of years, destroyed Election Day voting and Election Night counting.

The New Medievalism

Despite different calibrations, various data reveal what is self-evident to the naked eye. The American middle class is shrinking, if not insidiously sliding into indebted peasantry. Westerners are regressing and by design, now deciding daily whether to top up the tank, turn up the heat, or buy beef. 

Society is also bifurcating. A tiny powerful minority has more leverage than any other elite in the history of civilization. And a large underclass of subsidized poor shares with the wealthy a disdain for the struggling middle class, the old bulwark of democracy.

In place of knightly penances and chivalric oaths, our elite takes Bankman-Fried-like vows to “fight climate change,” support “transitioning,” and ensure “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” But like their Medieval brethren, they do so only by first enhancing, not endangering, their own careers. 

For the ruling class, prep schools, alphabetic certifications from tony universities, and revolving-door résumés are modern versions of having an abbey on site, a stately coat-of-arms, or taking vows from the correct religious orders. Otherwise, it is the same medievalism masked by pretension.

Our Rhine and Danube

America is rapidly resembling something like wide-open fifth-century A.D. Rome, when its traditional inviolable northern borders on the Rhine and Danube rivers vanished. Thousands of unassimilated tribes crisscrossed as they pleased on the premise that no one among their overripe, soft hosts could or would dare stop them. 

Joe Biden just remarked that he is too busy to visit the southern border. And why not? There may have been roughly 5 million illegal aliens who have crossed it since his inauguration. He earns contempt both from those who try to enforce the border and those who cross illegally over it.

Biden surrealistically trashes Trump’s supposed archaic idea of a wall—always without noting self-evident truths about it: anywhere Biden stopped the wall or has not replaced prior rickety fencing, there are the most porous and trafficked entry points. 

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ various mendacities that the border is “secure” translate to allowing as many million aliens as possible to break the law to enter the United States in the four years of the Biden experiment. The administration sees itself in a race to create a one-off window of historic laxity through which millions can pour in—before a comatose nation wakes up and shuts it down.

We are approaching an historic 50 million residents who were not born in the United States, and of various legal and illegal statuses. In a sane world, we might survive the challenge—if newcomers had all come legally, learned the customs and language of their desired new home, were audited and queued by some logical meritocratic process, and were quickly assimilated and integrated by a confident host population that assumed any who wished to live in America surely desired help in becoming an American and felt gratitude to their hosts. 

Instead, there is only chaos—and it is by design. 

The legal immigrant waiting in line to enter the United States is considered a fool, while illegal aliens and residents instead quickly absorb three messages from their hosts. First, illegal residents will often be treated better than American citizens, at least in terms of lax law enforcement, various legal exemptions and amnesties, and unaudited entitlements. 

Second, many will soon learn they can assume immediate moral claims against the majority population of their new home, who can be seen as racist oppressors and obligated to offer reparatory concessions in terms of hiring, admissions, and entitlements. 

Third, too many will quickly learn, Ilhan Omar-style, to harbor a quiet derision for their benefactors. Their contempt is not due to Americans’ dearth of magnanimity and generosity, much less to “systemic racism.” Instead, their American hosts are silently assumed to be naïve, timid, overly solicitous, malleable, easily manipulated, rolled, and conned—especially when it is understood that if the roles were reversed and the entrants were the hosts, they would have a different notion of borders.

The idea of 330 million American citizens of different incidental races and ethnicities united by a common American identity of shared values, customs, and traditions is all but mocked. In its place is arising something like the former Yugoslavia—an undefined mishmash of competing and increasingly hostile tribal interests, with residents sorting themselves out into red and blue states that eventually will lead to two antithetical Americas. 

So once assumed services, customs, institutions, and expectations are eroding—from a safe walk to a government office in a large city’s downtown, to a visit to the local public emergency room in extremis for humane, rapid, and competent care, to a clean, safe subway ride in a major city, or watching election returns conclude on Election Night.

A Nation of Thieves?

In a nearby Home Depot the other day, there were two long lines to check out. The other six were closed, as was the largest exit with several self-check-out counters. 

Why? When asked the clerk whispered that the theft rate is high in the store and that from time to time it shuts down various exits to limit stealing or perhaps to confuse calculating thieves. I added that I had learned that almost any large item in a box purchased at Home Depot had to be first opened to ensure that key parts like knobs, wires, and screws had not been ripped off. 

A local Walmart stopped its 24-hour service; again, the clerk said it was due to unsustainable looting during the early morning hours. 

I also went to Walgreens and Rite-Aid recently. Much of what anyone wanted, from razors to antihistamines, was under lock-and-key. None of this was true just a decade ago. I live in a rural area among small towns—a world away from Los Angeles and San Francisco where smash-and-grab robberies and unapologetic looting have caused the mass closures of pharmacies and all-service stores. 

Exemptions given thefts under $950 in some states may be the culprit. Others cite the post-George Floyd riots and the climate of unpunished street criminality. Maybe years of mask-wearing made us forget who normally had used masks and for what reasons.

Weaponized activist district attorneys and virtue-signaling mayors also signal to criminals that property crimes don’t warrant arrest, much less conviction, much less incarceration. 

But whatever the cause, a once famously lawful America has become a veritable land of thieves. The criminal is all but exempt. And the middle class and poor suffer as a result from poor services, higher prices, reduced hours, and fewer stores. 

We know the solution is to deter crime by assured punishment for the guilty. But the majority of Americans either cannot or will not demand a return to sanity for fear of some sort of undefined pushback from their elites. Pick your charge: “racism,” “privilege,” “bias,” “discrimination.” Any will do.

We have seen lots of cultural revolutions in this country, but never one that was so singularly focused on razing the foundations of America—until now. Yes, there is a lot of ruin in great nations. But even America is by now running low on it.




McCarthy Is Not the Right Leader for the Moment

In order to avoid chaos on January 3, 
Republicans need to embrace reality.


The administration is aiding and abetting an invasion of the Southern border. Our rights are being stripped away. We are at war and the enemy is within.

In response to this existential threat, we’re told that we need to entrust a congressman previously recognized as the “tech industry’s best friend” as our leader.

That’s boneheaded. Kevin McCarthy is not the right leader for the moment. Fortunately, enough Republicans recognize that and mean to stop him from being the next Speaker of the House. Five House Republicans, including myself, have announced that we will not vote for McCarthy during the January 3 speaker election. Many have privately also informed McCarthy of their plans to vote for someone else.

McCarthy’s allies are fretting and are pushing out a false narrative that opposition to the Paul Ryan endorsed McCarthy will embolden Democrats to elect a squish Republican as Speaker. It turns out that spin is right, just not the way the McCarthy camp sold it.

Semafor is reporting that “Leader-designate Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. waved off the suggestion Democrats would help elect an alternative for speaker, while Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C. all but volunteered Democrats’ support to help get McCarthy over the threshold of votes needed for speaker.”

This is the uniparty in action and should let you know that McCarthy is not a threat to the system destroying America. How could he be? His closest adviser has represented Pfizer, Amazon, and a firm dedicated to giving out a path to American citizenship to wealthy Chinese. His roommate counts Google among his clients.

This is the moment for a fight and McCarthy’s instinct is flight. In the days after January 6, McCarthy asked in a call with Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) whether Twitter can take away conservative Congressman Barry Moore’s (R-Ala.) Twitter account because Rep. Moore pointed out that the shooting of Ashli Babbitt did not fit the Left’s narrative of January 6.

McCarthy, likewise, said I was endangering the safety of Rep. Cheney by criticizing her.

The defense of McCarthy is that he isn’t an ideologue. He just wants to get along, they say, and moves with the times.

Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.), one of the five Republicans standing athwart McCarthy, put it well when he said, “We don’t need a weatherman, we need a leader.” A leader would stand up to the Biden Administration’s demands to send tens of billions of dollars to protect Ukraine’s border instead of ours.

A leader wouldn’t wait until thousands of military service members have been kicked out due to a mandate to end it. That’s the problem with living with Frank Luntz and making all of your decisions based on polling data. You will always be late.

But enough about McCarthy, now is the time for conservatives to come to terms with the fact that the speakership is up for grabs. Five Republicans are enough to stop Kevin McCarthy from becoming speaker.

In order to avoid chaos on January 3, Republicans need to embrace reality.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) has thrown his hat into the ring. He is a true conservative and would be a much better choice than McCarthy. I recognize, though, that five House Republicans might step up and say that they won’t vote for Biggs under any circumstances.

There are likely dozens or even hundreds of House Republicans who I would love to support as speaker. It’s time for them to prove their case. McCarthy has lost his.




Is The Abortion Escort Who Went After Pro-Lifer Mark Houck The Real FACE Act Violator? Court Filing Suggests Yes

The Biden administration’s selective use of the FACE Act to prosecute pro-lifers compels the dismissal of the charges against Houck, his attorneys argue.



Some 20 law enforcement officers, including many with ballistic shields, long guns, and a battering ram, swarmed outside the home of Mark Houck in late September 2022 to arrest, at gunpoint, the father of seven on an indictment charging him with violating the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances or “FACE” Act. But it was the purported escort for Planned Parenthood whom Houck allegedly pushed, and not Houck, who violated the FACE Act, according to a recent court filing. And the Biden administration’s selective use of the FACE Act to prosecute pro-lifers compels the dismissal of the charges against Houck, his attorneys argued earlier this week.

On Sept. 20, 2022, the Department of Justice charged Houck in a two-count federal indictment with alleged violations of the FACE Act related to two encounters Houck had with Bruce Love. First, according to the indictment, on Oct. 13, 2021, Houck shoved Love to the ground as the latter “attempted to escort two [Planned Parenthood patients.]” (The indictment referred to Love as “B.L.” throughout, but his name appears in a search of the Philadelphia court records.) The second count alleged that on Oct. 13, 2021, Houck “verbally confronted” B.L. and then “forcefully shoved B.L. to the ground in front of the [Planned Parenthood facility], causing injuries to B.L. that required medical attention.”

However, as I previously reported, these allegations conflicted with the private criminal complaint Love filed against Houck shortly after the encounter. That criminal complaint, obtained in October by The Federalist, revealed that Love described only one incident with Houck and made no mention of attempting to escort Planned Parenthood clients. According to his state criminal complaint, Houck “was standing on the corner and [Love] was standing a few feet away from [Houck] waiting for clients. [Houck] stated to [Love] to stay away from him and that he will push [Love] into the street. As [Love] was walking away from [Houck], [Love] states [Houck] pushed [Love] causing him to fall to the ground.” The complaint then notes that Love notified the police and sought medical treatment a few days later.

The state criminal complaint was later dismissed, only to have the Biden administration obtain a federal FACE Act indictment in October, with charges still pending in a Philadelphia federal court.

But now, Houck seeks dismissal of the federal charges. And in a motion to dismiss filed earlier this week, attorneys for the pro-life father explain the disparity between Love’s state criminal complaint and the federal indictment and in doing so expose the Department of Justice’s duplicity.

Facts of the Case

Count one of the indictment, the motion to dismiss notes, alleges Houck “shoved” Love as Love “attempted to escort two [Planned Parenthood] patients.” “But the Indictment blatantly omits that, indisputably, any physical contact occurred outside a pregnancy resource center across the street from the abortion facility approximately 100 feet away, and only once Mr. Love had overtaken and obstructed Mr. Houck,” the motion to dismiss continues. The two woman had already left the abortion facility, and it was after then that they spoke with Houck, who then, as Houck’s motion explains, proceeded “to direct the two women into the pregnancy center.” 

According to a witness of the incident, “Love saw the three conversing and left his post at the abortion facility entrance to ‘intercept’ them.” Then, according to the brief, “near the pregnancy center, Mr. Love overtook the three and positioned himself to obstruct Mr. Houck from proceeding, with Mr. Love alleging that Mr. Houck ‘told Love to get out of the way.’” It was at this point that Love and Houck came into contact and Love fell to the ground. 

While there is a disagreement about the type of contact involved — the indictment alleged Houck pushed Love, Love said Houck pulled his arm, and a witness claimed Houck “hip checked” Love — for purposes of the FACE Act, what matters is that the two women were, according to the motion to dismiss, heading to the pregnancy center and not the abortion facility.

That fact matters because the FACE Act criminalizes “the use of physical force” or “physical obstruction” to “intimidate[]” or “interfere[] with” any person “obtaining or providing reproductive health services,” and that includes both life-affirming pregnancy services and life-ending abortions. Thus, under the facts detailed in Houck’s motion to dismiss, it was Love’s conduct that fell within the FACE Act since he allegedly physically obstructed their attempts to obtain reproductive health services at the pregnancy resource center.

The second half of the equation, then, is that Houck could not have violated the FACE Act when he made contact with Love outside the pregnancy resource center because Love was not at the time assisting the women to obtain reproductive health services. 

Likewise, the FACE Act charge set forth in the second count of the federal indictment omitted any reference to Love attempting to assist any Planned Parenthood clients in obtaining “reproductive health services.” And it was similarly deceptive by alleging that Houck “verbally confronted Mr. Love and forcefully shoved” him to the ground “in front of the” abortion facility,” but ignoring, what the motion to dismiss claimed was indisputable, that “it was Mr. Love who approached and verbally confronted Mr. Houck and his then-12-year-old son approximately 50 feet away from the abortion facility’s entrance, and who turned directly into Mr. Houck after Mr. Houck directed him to get away.” 

Because the FACE Act requires the government to establish that Houck acted “because” Love was providing “reproductive health services,” and because the evidence fails to establish any nexus between the physical encounters and Love escorting women, Houck argues the government cannot establish the elements of the crimes and says the case against him should be dismissed. Case law supports Houck’s position and alone justifies the dismissal of the criminal charges.

Motion to Dismiss

But in this case, Houck presents a strong secondary basis for dismissal of the indictment: the Biden administration’s selective prosecution of the FACE Act. Here, Houck first argues that the undisputed facts indicate it was Love who violated the FACT Act by interfering with his pro-life counseling and escort services, yet the Biden administration failed to indict Love. Houck then highlights the Biden administration’s failure “to prosecute any of the more than 150 incidents of violence against pro-life pregnancy centers and churches nationwide in the wake of the leak and publishing of Dobbs.”

“The Government’s refusal to apply FACE to pro-choice/abortion individuals like Mr. Love,” Houck argues, “while simultaneously and aggressively applying it to pro-life individuals like Mr. Houck — and more than 20 other pro-life individuals in 2022 — is unconstitutionally selective and viewpoint discriminatory.”

While it is rare for a court to dismiss a case based on selective prosecution, Houck’s attorneys present a strong argument for dismissal on that basis, which would be a damning indictment of the Biden administration. The court may never reach that question, though, because the FACE Act claims appear to be doomed given the lack of a connection between Houck’s push and any provision of so-called “reproductive health services.” 

Dismissal of the charges against Houck, however, is not nearly enough. Rather, the Biden administration and the DOJ deserve censure not merely for the excessive use of force in arresting Houck, but for presenting the grand jury with partial and deceptive evidence to secure an indictment against Houck based on his pro-life stance, while ignoring the violent targeting of pregnancy resource centers — proving once again that the left is not pro-choice but pro-abortion.




Sinema Explains Why She's Gone Independent; Bernie Sanders Is Not Thrilled


Becca Lower reporting for RedState 

Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, as we reported Friday, has left the Democrat Party and officially registered as an Independent. Much like Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine, she is expected to continue to caucus with Democrats in the Senate.

That’s something Sinema confirmed when she sat down in an exclusive interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, which began airing Friday on “The Lead.”

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: For the Democrats in the Senate, having 51 votes versus 50 votes means the committees, they have more control over their committees. It means they have subpoena power. It means they’ll have an easier time getting judges through and other federal nominations.

What you’re doing today will not change that, because that is an important part of governance and the Senate?

SINEMA: Nothing about my decision to registration as an independent will change the way that I show up to committees or the way that I show up to the Senate.

The host asked in the final part that aired on Sunday’s “State of the Union,” about the other Independents, and whether her change of party affiliation was inspired by anyone else:

TAPPER: There are two independents who already caucus with the Democrats, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine.

Lisa Murkowski, who is a Republican, but ran in a previous election as an independent, is also somebody who whose independence is noted.

Are those three models at all for what you’re doing? Are there other independents, Teddy Roosevelt in the Bull Moose Party? Is there anyone you look to as a — as a guide, as a mentor, as a role model when it comes to what you’re doing?

SINEMA: You know, Jake, it probably won’t surprise you when I tell you I’m not trying to be like anyone else.

What I’m trying to do is be true to my values and the values of my state. So, I think everyone should make their own decisions about where they fit or where they don’t fit. I’m going to keep doing exactly what I do, which is just stay focused on the work and ignore all the noise.

She expanded on the “noise” in an answer to another question, in which Tapper dutifully listed all of the most progressive issues Sinema supports, including “expanding health care access, abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, path for dreamers, and on and on, environmentalism, green energy.”

Sinema said “what’s important to [her] is to not be — to not be tethered by the partisanship that dominates politics today.”

She continued:

I think Americans are tired of it. I think Arizonans are tired of it. What I’m interested in is working on all those issues that you just mentioned that I care deeply about, and that I believe my constituents care deeply about.

Some readers may remember a couple, very important reasons Sinema chose to leave the Dems. Not only did wacko progressive activists harass her inside a public bathroom in Phoenix, but the Arizona Democratic Party later censured Sinema for her down-voting the party’s prized filibuster bill.

Despite all of the complaints from Sinema about partisanship and gridlock by both parties, one of her goals in the next Congress appears to be a wrongheaded push for a dead-on-arrival bill, with a lethal combo of border security and amnesty for DREAMers. Sinema began: (emphasis mine)

Well, as a native Arizonan who was born and raised near the Southern border, I can tell you unequivocally that the federal government has failed its duty in the last 40 years.

TAPPER: Not just Democrats.

SINEMA: Not — it’s just everyone. The federal government has failed here.

And places like Arizona, front lines of this crisis, have been paying the price every single day since then. So, for us, this isn’t just a talking point of team A vs. team B. This is our life every day.

The reality is, is that, when folks say we have got to just provide a legal path to citizenship for dreamers, which I support wholeheartedly — these kids are Americans in all but name. So, when folks say, we have got to do that, I agree. And when folks say we have got to secure the border, of course, I agree.

My state is suffering from the failure to do so for 40 years. So, this is a perfect example of why I’m so frustrated with partisanship that has gripped our nation, and the parties are pulling folks away. It’s not either/or. It’s and.

Both of those concerns are real and valid. And we, as a government, have a duty to solve both of those concerns.

On Sunday’s “State of the Union” program, Sen. Sanders was asked by host Dana Bash about what he thinks of Sinema dropping the Democrats.

He began by insisting “he [doesn’t] want to spend a whole lot of time” addressing the topic, and that “[Sinema] has her reasons,” hinting that he means electoral realities in the Grand Canyon state. My colleague Cameron Arcand analyzed some potential scenarios on that, after Sinema’s announcement Friday. 

But Bernie found much more to say about Sinema and the Senate seat:

I think the Democrats there [in Arizona] are not all that enthusiastic about somebody who helped sabotage some of the most important legislation that protects the interests of working families and voting rights and so forth. So, I think it really has to do with her political aspirations for the future in Arizona.

He also refused to say he wouldn’t support a Democrat challenger to the left of Sinema, whom he called “a corporate Democrat,” while managing to wedge in an attack on West Virginia Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin:

I don’t — I support progressive candidates all over this country, people who have the guts to take on powerful special interests.

I don’t know what’s going to be happening in Arizona. We will see who they nominate. But, certainly, that’s something I will take a hard look at.

BASH: Does she have the guts to take on powerful special interests?

SANDERS: No, she doesn’t. She is a corporate Democrat who has, in fact, along with Senator Manchin, sabotaged enormously important legislation.

Back to Sinema’s interview. During the Friday segment of the Tapper interview, he asked her whether she’s committed to supporting Joe Biden for a reelection bid. Here’s how that went–and could be a taste of what’s to come between my state’s senior senator and the Democrats:

TAPPER: Looking forward to 2024, will you support Joe Biden for president if he runs?

SINEMA: Folks know this about me, I don’t talk much about partisan politics and I don’t talk much about elections —

TAPPER: He ran in 2020 and you supported him.

SINEMA: Yes, I did. I felt at the time he was the best candidate running for president.


CA Dem Ro Khanna Discusses Twitter-Govt Censorship, Future Hearings and TikTok


When various doctors and professionals in the healthcare industry were kicked off Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and social media platforms for holding a contrary view of the COVID-19 mitigation efforts, their voices found a way to alternate platforms including TikTok.  At the heart of the government argument about TikTock as a national security threat, you will find this dynamic.

The claims of data insecurity as a reason for government action against TikTok is a false justification.  The reason the U.S. govt is defining TikTok as a national security threat is not because a Chinese firm controls it, the threat is because the U.S. government does not control it.  Thus, DHS involvement in Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, Apple, Microsoft and more takes on a more accurate perspective.  TikTok is not under DHS control, therefore TikTok’s ability to transmit information without DHS filter controls is a threat.

Bread and circuses.  In this interview with California Congressman Ro Khanna, Maria Bartiromo notes he was one of the only Democrats in congress who wrote a warning to Twitter about the censorship issue.  However, even then, a key sentence in the letter from Khanna to Yoel Roth is ignored.  He’s no hero. WATCH:


The DHS Portal – […] discussions have ranged from the scale and scope of government intervention in online discourse to the mechanics of streamlining takedown requests for false or intentionally misleading information.

Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov’tIt’s really interesting how hesitant they remain,” Microsoft executive Matt Masterson, a former DHS official, texted Jen Easterly, a DHS director, in February. (link)

It’s not just the First amendment being compromised by this collaboration, it’s also the Fourth Amendment against unwarranted searches of private papers (communication).


Yoel Roth's Past Tweets Go From Bad to Worse, and He Gains Some Interesting Defenders


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

The former head of Twitter’s “Trust and Safety” division, Yoel Roth, has managed to make headlines recently due to a resurfaced dissertation he wrote discussing children and their use of the gay hook-up site Grindr. Roth has also been at the center of many of the revelations in the “Twitter Files,” having run the site’s censorship regime by the seat of his very partisan, leftwing pants.

The more we learn about Roth, the worse things look. A collection of his past tweets have been dredged up, and they are disturbing, to say the least. Remember, this was the guy in charge of regulating speech on the nation’s most politically important social media site.

Here are a few examples with a touch of commentary added.

There’s a lot to unpack here, but it’s pretty clear why Twitter had such a grotesque culture under Roth’s leadership, and I’m obviously not talking about the existence of differing political opinions and rhetoric. This guy seems to be absolutely obsessed with pornography, and his multiple mentions of children and sex are concerning at best. Maybe he was just playing through hypotheticals for academic reasons, but I don’t think that’s something most people ponder.

Are there no standards in the corporate world anymore? Was no one who vetted and hired him given pause by his history? Call me old-fashioned, but if I’m looking for someone to provide mature, effective leadership at a major company, people who publicly brag about their porn addictions and write dissertations on Grindr are gonna be disqualified. Does emotional intelligence not even factor in anymore?

It’s surreal to look at the things society brushes aside these days compared to what is considered “controversial.” Public proclamations about looking for porn on Craigslist? No one bats an eye. Mention that you believe in traditional marriage or are against transitioned children, though, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth commence.

Regardless, what I’ve found just as interesting are those choosing to defend Roth. Naturally, some on the left are accusing Elon Musk of inciting violence against the former Twitter official by exposing him. But then there’s David French, who I’m assured is a conservative that indiscriminately holds others to high moral standards.

French has long chastised figures on the right for their moral failings, with Donald Trump being first and foremost among his targets. If we give him the benefit of the doubt on his sincerity in those cases, it seems rather odd that he’d go to bat for Roth, right? We are not just talking about a guy who appears to have an unhealthy addiction to porn and gay hook-up culture, but also a guy who wholeheartedly pushes the transgender agenda, including its targeting of children.

French apparently believes that makes Roth a “good person” and Musk a villain. Go figure.