Let Them Eat Supreme Court Reform

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

It’s a major understatement to point out how the priorities of the Democratic Party are not really in line with the priorities of the American people. Democrats, for example, will take to the street and damn near riot over the idea that a women might carry a baby to term. Well, a biological woman, anyway. But normal people, even those who support abortion, are simply too busy or don’t care enough to march, chant and scream uncontrollably over it. It’s as though Democrats, on the issues and where they put their energy, are out of touch with the American people. But it only seems that way because, well, it’s true.

Honestly, when you think about the priorities of the Democratic Party heading into this election, what are they? Abortion, obviously, but what else? Continued genital mutilation and sterilization of children is another one, but not one they’ll actually campaign on. Open borders? It’s true, but they won’t admit it. Expanded welfare? Student loan balance transfers from people who took out those loans to people who didn’t? Again, it’s what they’re doing but they don’t really want to talk about it. 

The curious thing about Democrats in the 2024 election is they have to campaign like they weren’t even in town for the last 4 years, let alone running the Executive Branch of government. 

Just like the Obama administration, which spent all 8 years whining about who bad the economy they inherited was to explain why their economy was a flatlining dud, only to scream that they deserved credit for the Trump economy when it started rolling, the Biden/Harris team can’t shut up about who bad things were when they came into office. 

Inflation, they say, is Trump’s fault. How, they don’t explain because the very concept is stupid, but they claim it anyway. Trump didn’t make them spend trillions of unnecessary dollars that didn’t exist before on their friends and political donors pet projects, they did that all on their own. It’s it odd how they want credit for the economy relative to 2020, when they’d pretty much shut the whole thing down, but none of the responsibility for anything else? 

The economy was going to come back just like the water out of a hose comes back when you unkink it. That happening doesn’t mean you created wet, it just means things were allowed to get back to normal after abnormal interference by government. 

If Democrats had real accomplishments they’d run on them. Instead, they’re running on having a black lady as their nominee who happens to also be Asian, but only when it suits her political needs, otherwise she pretty much ignores it. 

You can call that whatever you like, and it is a lot of different things, but none of those things are accomplishments to normal people.

So, what did the powers that be in the Democratic Party come up with? Supreme Court “reform.”

Marie Antoinette is famously, and likely falsely, credited with saying, “Let them eat cake,” when told of the starving peasants in France who didn’t have bread to eat. The story illustrated just how out of touch she was with the reality of the average Frenchman – if they couldn’t afford bread, they sure as hell couldn’t afford cake.

The same out of touch mentality has taken over the Biden/Harris administration and what they’re making their “priority” through the election.

There are maybe a couple of hundred people who care about reforming the Supreme Court, and that’s about it. Everyone else recognizes this is just a temper tantrum for effect to placate the radical base conditioned to be outraged about everything. 

Ask the average American if they care more about being able to fill their gas tank to get to work, feed their family or pay their rent/mortgage or see Supreme Court Justices term-limited, that vote would be more lopsided than the fake results progressive dictator Nicolás Maduro made up in his latest “election.” 

Yet, this is the hill Democrats have chosen to fight on. Why? Because what else do they have?

When you have nothing else, you’ll try anything. 

It’s not that they’re out of touch, the way Antoinette is in the apocryphal story, it’s that they’re out of ideas, or at least ideas they can sell that the masses will buy.

Democrats can’t campaign on what they’ve done or what they’re doing because what they’ve done has failed and what they’re doing is evil. All they have is random other things, various boxes to check on progressive wish lists that stand less of a chance of becoming reality than Kamala Harris does winning a contest based on merit. Which is precisely why Democrats will happily yell, “Let them eat Supreme Court reform,” rather than allowing this election to be about anything resembling merit, and why Republicans need to make merit a major part of their focus. 

On the Fringe, Red Pill News, and more- August 1st

 

China clandestinely targeting First Nations leaders to procure Canada's natural resources: NSICOP

Is the US also at risk from China?

The Bureau's analysis of NSICOP's Top Secret 2019 report points to Chinese threat networks across Canada and politicians likely named in NSICOP's bombshell 2024 review:

(National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians)

Beijing is targeting Canada’s First Nations leaders with intelligence operations based on tourism that are aimed at securing Aboriginal-controlled natural resources, a Top Secret report from Ottawa’s intelligence-review watchdog NSICOP says.

Additionally, Beijing funded a British Columbia provincial candidate and its Consul General in Vancouver took actions to cover up the candidate’s “possible Chinese Communist Party membership,” NSICOP’s June 2019 draft report alleges.

The Bureau exclusively obtained NSICOP’s unredacted, 2019 report on foreign interference, which details China’s pervasive operations to bribe, coerce and co-opt Canadian leaders at all levels of government.

The national security and intelligence body made up of Parliamentarians was little known to most Canadians before it exploded into the spotlight in June, publishing a highly redacted report alleging unidentified MPs and Senators in Ottawa have been colluding with China.

NSICOP was tasked to review allegations on China’s election interference that only surfaced due to Canadian media reports based on intelligence leaks.

While The Bureau has previously reported on NSICOP’s 2019 report in a story tabled as evidence in Ottawa’s Foreign Interference Commission, a new analysis of the report’s unreported intelligence and most consequential allegations should shed light on the scope of NSICOP’s 2024 report, which is based on related CSIS investigations and intelligence holdings.

It’s also believed prominent cases from NSICOP’s 2019 report involve some of the elected officials and Chinese proxies implicated in NSICOP’s 2024 report.

Report from The Bureau tabled as evidence in Hogue Commission.

But Canada’s problems with politicians allegedly benefiting from China’s support and in turn secretly using their offices for Beijing go far beyond the federal officials that NSICOP 2024 deals with.

“Many of the same tactics used to target elected officials at the federal level are replicated with provincial, municipal, and indigenous officials,” the June 2019 NSICOP report obtained by The Bureau says.

“Provincial, municipal and indigenous governments wield important power in areas that are of interest to hostile foreign states. CSIS assesses that subnational orders of government are soft targets for foreign interference activities.”

Canada’s Aboriginal leaders — and the tension between federal and First Nations jurisdictions over natural resources in northern Canada — are an unexplored aspect of the Chinese interference story.

But the 2019 NSICOP report demonstrates crucial national security issues at stake.

It suggests Beijing is seeking clandestine relationships with First Nations leaders under false pretences in order to control Canada’s strategic resources in areas of increasing geopolitical importance.

“In late 2011, China invited a national-level group of Aboriginal leaders to travel to China. A CSIS assessment noted that the invitation was advertised as an opportunity to develop tourism for First Nations,” NSICOP’s report says.

“According to a Minister Counsellor at the PRC Embassy, the tourism opportunity was merely “beipian” (Mandarin for ‘to be fooled’) and that the true intention of the invitation was to pursue Aboriginal-controlled natural resources.”

The report continues, saying that Chinese intelligence conducted research into every First Nations leader that joined the junket before they arrived in China.

“The PRC conducted research on each delegate in part to identify their ‘potential usefulness’ to the PRC,” the report says. “The Minister Counsellor concluded that “Chiefs are ‘blind’ when dealing with the PRC and have no interest in knowing more.”

In an interview Charles Burton, a sinologist and former Canadian diplomat, said “the idea of making friends with Aboriginal people for Chinese strategic purposes, would be part and parcel of their overall agenda to get access to the Canadian north and the natural resources that are there.”

“China would be fully aware of the Aboriginal leaders that have permissions to give exploitation of resources,” Burton said. “But we don’t know to what extent gifts or benefits may have been given to the Aboriginal people from the Chinese regime.”

More generally, NSICOP’s 2019 report says China’s deep interference in Canada expanded significantly, “following Xi Jinping's election as general Secretary of the CCP in 2012.”

It says China’s party-state implements “a multifaceted approach to carry out its foreign interference activities in Canada by leveraging its numerous government and non-government actors who use overt and covert approaches, including bribery, censorship, coercion, and co-optation to exert influence.”

Some of NSICOP’s most stunning cases demonstrate that wealthy Chinese community leaders take direction from Chinese diplomats to fund Beijing’s favoured election candidates in municipal and provincial governments.

“A candidate in British Columbia's 2013 provincial election reportedly received funding from the PRC. The PRC Consul General in Vancouver was reportedly ‘actively coordinating attendance of community leaders/potential donors at a campaign event,’” the 2019 NSICOP report says.

“Additionally, the Consul General tried to protect the PRC from public controversy related to the candidate's possible Chinese Communist Party membership,” it continues, attributing the case to a May 2016 report from CSIS.

While the candidate in question isn’t named, more than one elected official in British Columbia is believed to have familial ties to Chinese Communist Party officials. And the concern could extend across Canada, Charles Burton believes.

“This is shocking,” the former diplomat said in an interview.

“I’m not aware of this case, but I think a lot of people that have come to Canada and have been successful in the Chinese regime, are party members. And Beijing can leverage them, because I think it’s difficult to end your membership.”

“So the idea that there could be candidates for provincial office that are members of the CCP, is very likely,” he continued. “The idea they would be used by the United Front as sleeper agents, even if they wanted to become part of Canada’s mainstream political life, that is very difficult to escape.”

Most NSICOP 2019 cases appear to relate to areas around Toronto and Vancouver, population centres of Canada with many municipal and regional councils in addition to provincial legislatures that are targeted by Chinese influence operations.

In another case, “several PRC businessmen contributed to a mayoralty campaign instead of planned donations to a hospital, given that the ‘investment return on such a donation would be greater,’” NSICOP’s 2019 report says.

The Democrats and Racism in History

posted by Ben Voth at American Thinker 

On July 29, President Biden spoke at the LBJ Presidential Library to stress his party’s commitment to equal rights of black Americans.  This summer is the 60th anniversary of Freedom Summer 1964 and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts.  It is an important occasion to correct and better understand the pivotal history of that era and how it informs political argument today.  Journalists, academics, and Hollywood continue to falsely reify the Democrat party as heroically saving black people from the throes of anti-black racism.  One of the significant moments of this alleged rescue is the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on July 2, 1964. 

The Democrat party under the Senate leadership of Robert Byrd fought the passage of the bill in the Senate for 14 hours of filibuster.  President Biden eulogized former Klan member Byrd in 2010.  In the speech, Biden described Byrd as “dean of the Senate” and a “dear friend and mentor.”

Six Republican senators and 20 Democrat senators voted to deny cloture alongside Byrd in 1964 — an attempt to prevent the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  At the time, the Senate was composed of 67 Democrats and 33 Republicans.  Eighty-two percent of the Republican Senate caucus voted for passage of the Civil Rights Act.  Two thirds of Democrats supported passage, and one third opposed.  The House vote was 289-176 in favor of the legislation.  Ninety-one Democrats voted against (37%) the bill in the House, and 35 Republicans voted against it (20%).

The final passage of the bill on June 19 in the Senate may have been a factor in the abduction of James Chaney, Mickey Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman.  These three CORE workers, after helping with training in Oxford, Ohio, traveled to Mississippi to help with black voter registration and educational activities.  These efforts were known as Freedom Summer 1964, and hundreds of college students volunteered to help James Farmer, Jr.’s organization — The Congress of Racial Equality — enact the practical necessities of racial equality.

The abduction of Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman in Mississippi on June 20, 1964 galvanized the nation and ensured the final signing of the law by LBJ on June 2 as a national and even federal search for the bodies of the civil rights workers continued until August 4.  On that date, based on information from FBI informants inside the KKK, the bodies were located beneath an earthen dam.  The killings were among the most atrocious in the long struggle for equal rights among blacks in the South. 

A sincere and honest history of the struggle for black equality would acknowledge the essential and pivotal role of Republicans, stretching from Lincoln to Grant to Harding and Coolidge to Eisenhower and more.  In the aftermath of the Tulsa massacre of a vibrant black community on June 1, 1921, Oklahoma Democrat partisans told reporters the next morning, “Yes, you Republicans made quite a muss of things.”  Harding and Coolidge campaignedin Oklahoma in the fall of 1920 in favor of political equality between blacks and whites.  They broke the Democrat party’s hold upon the state in November of 1920.

The term “Republican” was used throughout the early 20th century by Democrat partisans as a political slur against those who were either black or black sympathizers.  This was common because in the aftermath of emancipation, blacks voted so consistently for the Republican Party.  It was an essential component of the argument that the non-white presidential candidate of Warren Harding was unfit to be President in 1920 — since he was alleged by Democrat partisans to have a black grandmother in his genealogy.

The Republican stand against anti-black racism was evident in Eisenhower deploying troops to Little Rock to end anti-black segregation of schoolchildren.

In 1968, the architect of many of the nation’s most important reforms against anti-black segregation — James Farmer, Jr. — ran for Congress as a Republican.  Farmer reported in his 1985 biography that the poll worker in New York City conceded that vote fraud was part of how that election was conducted.  Despite more than 25 years of sacrifice for American Civil Rights, Farmer lost his election to the first black woman to serve in Congress — Democrat Shirley Chisholm.  Republican President Richard Nixon asked Farmer to work in his administration on issues of urban renewal.  After working for more than a year under Nixon, his black friends insisted that he resign, believing that Republicans were not on the side of the black community.  Farmer was rarely called upon to exert public leadership compared to those black leaders such as Jesse Jackson, who solidified the alliance between the black community and the Democrat party.

Farmer always believed that the black community should not be exclusively controlled by either the Democrats or the Republicans.  James Meredith, who singlehandedly desegregated the University of Mississippi remains relatively uncalled upon in current racial controversies because of his profound Christian convictions running counter to current political norms.  In more recent history, one of the nation’s most significant black historians, Carol Swain, retired from Vanderbilt University due to public pressure about her political statements against this type of reactionary ideological history.  Swain academically deconstructed the sacrosanct “Southern switch strategy,” venerated as the modern verification of Republican anti-blackness.

Kamala Harris correctly observed in the Democrat primary debates of 2020 that Joseph Biden was a defender of anti-black school segregation in the 1970s.  Biden said prior to winning the South Carolina primary in 2020 that black voters were not black if they did not vote for him.  This call rallied black voters to save the relatively weak Biden campaign of 2020.  South Carolina is now the official first stop in Democrat presidential primaries as arranged by the DNC.  Biden’s 2020 win in South Carolina with strong help from the black community came at the expense of Bernie Sanders, who actually did work as a leader of CORE at the University of Chicago in the early 1960s.  In 2016, CNN elevated Richard Spencer from ignominy to spectacle by arguing that he was a white supremacist supporting Donald Trump.  When Spencer announced that he was endorsing Joe Biden for president in 2020, he was summarily dropped by CNN and others as a rhetorical marker for “white supremacy.”

Harris and Biden have an opportunity to lower the temperature in American politics by acknowledging the profound positive role Republicans play in reducing anti-blackness.  Trump’s role in reducing black incarceration and his support of HBCUs are two important examples that could be acknowledged.  The refusal to delineate this more accurate racial history of America serves the narrow partisan interests of the Democrat party and its socially powerful affiliates.  It does not well serve the American public or the black community.  It harms the soul of America.

White Dudes For Having Some Personal Dignity And Self-Respect

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

In one of the least surprising developments of all time, this week’s White Dudes for Kamala Zoom call was a festival of estrogen where a bunch of weirdos, losers, mutations, sissies, whiners, dorks, geeks, and other key sub-sections of the Democrat Party gathered in the electronic ether to humiliate themselves at the feet of their mediocre candidate. That was no surprise. I didn’t check out enough of it to see if they started with a land acknowledgment or if they reassured some of the men participating that it was understood that some of them menstruate because every second I watched, I felt the testosterone draining from my body. Fortunately, being a conservative, I’ve got it to spare.

It was good for a laugh, at least for a moment. When you see a man debase himself so thoroughly, especially someone you despise, your first reaction is to point and laugh. But then, after you watch this grisly tableau for a while, your emotions morph into mortification. It’s painful to watch someone make himself look like such a complete zero. You want to cry out, “For the love of all that’s holy, have some self-respect. There’s a thing called dignity! Try it out!” But then again, if you purport to be a man and you support Kamala Harris, that’s what you are—a complete zero.

The Democrat Party hates dudes and particularly white ones, but it loves their money, so we got this abomination. Notice how it’s “Dudes” and not “Men?” They are really, really uncomfortable using the word because the term “man” either offends or scares them, or both. It’s not that they’re all that familiar with men – as JD Vance accurately pointed out, a key Democrat constituency is lonely cat women who are unworthy of a man’s love, and you can feel their fussy resentment bubbling up. They got their own Zoom call to make fools of themselves. The White Women for Harris thing the other day was a bunch of affluent Chardonnay guzzlers getting together to tell each other how their role was to listen to and obey, to never correct BIPOC women, and to use their privilege for good instead of evil. If it were any more cringe, your spine would snap. This kind of ritual self-abnegation is bizarre and psychotic. And yet these women and alleged men revel in it.

That this all furthers segregation is beside the point. Even making that observation is to somehow credit leftists with actually believing their own ideology. They don’t. When they tell you they’re against racism, they are lying. They’re not against racism. But they are not for racism either. They don’t care about racism. They seek to alternatively exercise it or exorcise it as the situation requires. This kind of moral flexibility is very useful; they are whatever they need to be at any given moment as long as it gains them power.

The same goes for trans nonsense, sexism, and Islamophobia. They don’t care about deluded people who think they are the other gender, or women, or Muslims. They care about their own power, and if they can leverage the alleged oppression of any of these groups to gain more power, they will do it. They will also oppress any of these groups to gain more power. Do you think the White Women for Harris who are so concerned with hearing the voices of BIPOC aren’t going to call the cops if they see one walking through their neighborhood at night? 

There’s performative politics, and then there’s what these people do. Where does their capacity to ignore indignity and hypocrisy come from? It’s almost like a religion rather than an ideology. But that’s what happens when you have a void deep inside yourself that actual religion should fill. You fill it with this kind of nonsense.

This week, we saw a bunch of white dudes – males who won’t call themselves “men” and probably shouldn’t – explain how they need to do the work and do better. They are very sorry for their skin tone. They took the blame for everything wrong in the world, but they could expiate their racial guilt by writing a nice big check to Kamala Harris.

It’s odd to see someone accept his inferiority because his great-grandfather came from Northern Europe and because he wields a penis, such as it is. These are the people who babble endlessly about how we need to get rid of “whiteness,” with “whiteness,” in their eyes, meaning any kind of personal responsibility. Punctuality is whiteness. Achievement is whiteness. Reading is whiteness. Getting things done is whiteness. They make whiteness seem pretty great. It’s weird that people who are so quick to charge racism are perfectly content to categorize people who aren’t white as not having any of the characteristics that someone who is not insane would associate with competence. But then again, as we’ve seen, they really aren’t anti-racist. They’re simply pro-personal power. This craven groveling is really just a power play, a way to buy themselves a seat in the ruling class.

One thing about these white dudes is that none of them are poor. It is a fetish of a bored ruling class. Poor people don’t have time for this kind of nonsense. This is the kind of boutique belief that only people with a lot of money and time on their hands can afford to cultivate. And it’s just a pose. They are not serious about actually giving anything up. They might write a check to Buys Large Mansions or some other organization dedicated to the communist revolution, but they’ll never actually do anything that harms their status, station, prestige, power, or bank account in any significant way. Their submission is all an act, a pose, and a creepy one at that. It’s like they’re role-playing some bizarre pseudo-sexual fantasy. Traditionally, a dominatrix would be clad in leather and run around with a whip. For these losers, their tormentor is some 29-year-old, unmarried HR consultant lashing them over the patriarchy with her vocal fry as they scream “Yes, mistress!” and then apologize for assuming her gender.

The Democrat memo went out decreeing that JD Vance is weird, and I say let’s go with that. Let’s talk about weird. Let’s talk about pasty femboys degrading themselves on video for their communist candidate. Let’s show some choice clips to guys who sweat when they work. They’re going to love it. Nothing real men like more than to make fools of themselves by reveling in their impotence. 

It should be no surprise that the Democrats don’t understand real men. After all, they don’t know real men because no real man will have them.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

NYT Columnist Pretends Democrats Just Got Into the Name Calling Game

posted by Jeff Charles at RedState 

A New York Times editor wrote an op-ed that might cause discerning readers to wonder whether she has been living in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan over the past two decades.

In the piece, contributing editor Jessica Bennett makes the questionable claim that with Democrats using terms like “weird” and “creepy” to describe their political opponents, they are finally emulating former President Donald Trump and using a new strategy: Name-calling.

Yes, you read that right. The author, probably with a straight face, suggested that calling people names is new for the left. However, there is much she has missed since she started dwelling in that particular cave.

Bennett starts her clueless op-ed by describing how “MAGA” folks have been behaving like children, using name-calling against Democrats, who are the paragon of virtue and of taking the high road.

For years the MAGA movement has approached politics the way a bully would approach a schoolyard, sparring with labels so nasty, they seemed expressly chosen to appeal to the kind of people who stuffed nerds in lockers in sixth grade. And for years Democrats, abiding by the mantra to go high, not low, have responded by trying to be the adults in the room: defending themselves with facts, with context, with earnest explanations that nobody remembers (if they defend themselves at all).

The problem is that taking the high road only works if politics is a sport played mainly by people who act like grown-ups, which it is not. And also: Facts and context don’t make for particularly sticky messaging.

The author then claims that Democrats are just now getting into the dirt with those evil nasty MAGA Republicans.

Over the past two weeks, as “Brat” and coconut memes have taken over the internet and Kamala Harris inches closer to Donald Trump in the polls, the Democrats have finally gone low, deploying a bit of verbal jujitsu so delightfully petty it might just work.

Bennett continues, highlighting examples of the Harris campaign and other Democrats labeling Trump as “weird” and JD Vance as “creepy” to appeal to voters by making their opponents look less appealing. She notes, “Weird and creepy. Simple, gut-punching words. Not a threat to democracy or a menace to the ‘soul of America,’ not even ‘dangerous.’”

The author contends that using these terms is somehow effective because they are difficult to refute and pack a punch without being overt. Actually, refuting these terms hasn’t been hard for the right by any stretch of the imagination, as I pointed out in another article.

Here’s the thing: The notion that Democrats are just now joining the name-calling game is absurd on its face. For decades, the left has weaponized labels like “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” and other epithets to smear and ostracize those who disagree with their politics. It has been their favorite tactic for ages.

However, the left’s version of name-calling has been far more damaging. These false allegations of bigotry have led to people losing their jobs, being publicly shamed, and suffering personal and professional harm.

During the 2020 presidential campaign, President Joe Biden brd his entire campaign on the “fine people” hoax, which the media concocted to make it appear as if former President Donald Trump approved of white nationalists. They smeared him as the reincarnation of Hitler and his followers as neo-Nazis – with no evidence.

But let’s go back further than that. In 2010, The Daily Caller exposed a scandal among members of the activist media known as the “Journolist,” which was an email group set up by Ezra Klein for reporters, journalists, and other media figures to communicate with one another. Many of these emails were made public, showing just how biased our once-vaunted Fourth Estate had become. In one instance, one of the participants was discussing criticisms of then-President Barack Obama.

In the exchange, the individual suggested simply referring to Obama’s critics as racists.

In a key episode, Journolist members openly plotted to bury attention on then-candidate Barack Obama’s controversial pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman, for instance, suggested an effective tactic to distract from the issue would be to pick one of Obama’s critics, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Note that this person did not recommend bringing up examples of these individuals being racist or referencing their racist history. He just simply said: “Call them racists,” showing that he did not care whether the label was accurate.

What about the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)? The organization, which began as a noble pursuit of equal justice for all, has morphed into a propaganda mill for the left. Their shtick involves placing organizations and individuals they deem to be hateful on their “hate map.”

The problem? Many of those the SPLC places on the list, alongside groups like the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis, are not hateful. They just happen to reject progressive orthodoxy. This can be seen in the most recent “Year in Hate and Extremism” report.

This report, released on June 5, highlights the addition of even more right-leaning organizations on its “Hate Map,” including Gays Against Groomers and medical professionals and organizations that oppose using “gender-affirming care” on children.

These organizations are now on the SPLC’s list of hateful organizations, along with the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, and others.

The Southern Poverty Law Center released its “Year in Hate and Extremism” report Tuesday, warning about encroaching “theocracy” and an “authoritarian takeover” as part of the “organizational infrastructure … upholding white supremacy in the United States.”

Among those placed on the list was the group “Gays Against Groomers,” who oppose using government-run schools to indoctrinate children into progressive ideas on sexuality and gender. The group fell under scrutiny for labeling Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim who opposes terrorism, as an Islamophobe.

Let us also not forget how the left has weaponized transgender individuals against those they don’t like. If you happen to disagree with pushing puberty blockers and hormone treatments on minor children or forcing people to use preferred pronouns, you are a transphobe who must be punished.

What is even most insidious is that folks on the left who wield these labels as weapons know they do not apply to those they use them against. They use these terms deceptively to avoid debate.

You can hardly glance at a left-leaning publication without seeing an op-ed, video, or podcast interview in which they are not calling someone a bigot. This is the political environment the hard left has created.

Bennett’s contention that this is somehow a new trend isn’t just a delusional take: It is a blatant lie. She knows better. But she is hoping to get readers to forget about her team’s history of using name-calling to advance a political agenda.