Category Archives: Politics

This is What the Fall of Civilization Looks Like

Posted on by
Reply

Rapper Lil Baby turned the Grammys stage on Sunday night into a riot scene that mirrored the deadly and violent protests that gripped the nation in response to the death of George Floyd. Lil Baby’s performance of his song “The Bigger Picture” included a speech from Black Lives Matter activist Tamika D. Mallory, who looked into the camera and demanded President Joe Biden to bring “justice, equity, policy, and everything else that freedom encompasses.” [Breitbart News]

All that “freedom encompasses”? What do anarchist-Communists know or care about freedom?

Freedom requires self-responsibility. And rationality, objectivity. It does not mean equality of outcome, as “equity” implies. It simply means equal under the law. Martin Luther King had the right idea; not rappers given an opportunity to spout BS because wealthy celebrities wish to be SEEN applauding it.

The Grammys used to mean something. They meant MUSIC. Music and politics don’t mix. You shouldn’t know, or have to care about, the political views of the people whose music you enjoy.

But the political views of the people whose music you enjoy are no longer limited to national health insurance, higher taxes and more regulations. These people whose music you try to enjoy, and whose achievements you would otherwise be glad to admire, now support things like defunding the police; letting small businesses be shut down by government and torn apart by looters; destroying our military; handing over all competitive advantages in a now unfree market to totalitarian dictators in China; upholding election fraud in support of one party being in control; and confiscating guns.

“Justice”, to such people, means getting to stomp, scream and get whatever they want. Not because they’re right. But because morally shallow, psychologically fragile and intellectually challenged musicians and celebrities want to be SEEN endorsing these things.

This is what the fall of civilization looks like. Enjoy.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Ayn Rand on The Virtue of Productiveness

Posted on by
Reply

The virtue of Productiveness is the recognition of the fact that productive work is the process by which man’s mind sustains his life, the process that sets man free of the necessity to adjust himself to his background, as all animals do, and gives him the power to adjust his background to himself. Productive work is the road of man’s unlimited achievement and calls upon the highest attributes of his character: his creative ability, his ambitiousness, his self-assertiveness, his refusal to bear uncontested disasters, his dedication to the goal of reshaping the earth in the image of his values. “Productive work” does not mean the unfocused performance of the motions of some job. It means the consciously chosen pursuit of a productive career, in any line of rational endeavor, great or modest, on any level of ability. It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.

Productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your recognition of the fact that you choose to live—that productive work is the process by which man’s consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one’s purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one’s values—that all work is creative work if done by a thinking mind, and no work is creative if done by a blank who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others—that your work is yours to choose, and the choice is as wide as your mind, that nothing more is possible to you and nothing less is human—that to cheat your way into a job bigger than your mind can handle is to become a fear-corroded ape on borrowed motions and borrowed time, and to settle down into a job that requires less than your mind’s full capacity is to cut your motor and sentence yourself to another kind of motion: decay—that your work is the process of achieving your values, and to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to live—that your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver, and you must drive as far as your mind will take you, with achievement as the goal of your road—that the man who has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at the mercy of any boulder to crash in the first chance ditch, that the man who stifles his mind is a stalled machine slowly going to rust, that the man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap, and the man who makes another man his goal is a hitchhiker no driver should ever pick up—that your work is the purpose of your life, and you must speed past any killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value you might find outside your work, any other loyalty or love, can be only travelers you choose to share your journey and must be travelers going on their own power in the same direction.

Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work—pride is the result.

Where Are All the Girls in Boys’ Sports ?

Posted on by
Reply

It’s probably a question I’m not allowed to ask, but I honestly don’t care. And the fact that it will upset a bunch of pearl-clutching leftists and gender fascists just makes me want to ask it more, and louder. But with all the talk from the left about transgender rights and how boys who believe they are girls should be allowed to compete in any sport they so choose, why aren’t there any stories of the opposite happening? Where are the girls in boys’ sports?

It’s pretty easy to find stories about boys competing in girls’ sports, particularly track and field events, largely because they tend to win…by a lot. Records are being broken, record books rewritten, and scholarships awarded to boys who “identify” as girls, but has there been one case of a girl identifying as a boy, not only competing in boys’ sports, but dominating?

I can’t find one.

We’re told by Democrats that there is no difference between the sexes, and people should be allowed to compete in sports in the gender with which they identify. If that’s true, if they aren’t simply spouting off talking points cooked up by activist organizations to deflect from the reality of the situation, shouldn’t there be girls in boys’ sports?

If leftists are telling something backed up by science, as they claim it is, then the only option is that every single “trans-boy” in America is disinterested in sports. Every sport, always.

If there are no physical advantages for biological boys identifying as something else, then biological women identifying as boys should easily slide into male sports. Even if they don’t dominate the way boys do in girls’ track, they should at least be on the team and win every once in a while, right?

If there are no differences, shouldn’t trans-boys have been awarded some scholarships by now? Wouldn’t that have led to the boys who didn’t win those scholarships and their parents being upset the way the girls who’ve lost scholarships to boys are? Wouldn’t a Democrat lawmaker somewhere in the country be highlighting cases like this the way parents are highlighting the track situation in Connecticut?

Seems to me like the would be.

That makes the fact that they aren’t all the more curious, doesn’t it?

Of course, how someone “identifies” is irrelevant, in the grand scheme of things. I don’t care how someone chooses to live. I care that Democrats are using the power of government to force others to participate in someone else’s view of the world that is the opposite of reality. Reality is not dependent upon your belief in it, or your willingness to accept it. It just is.

Boys are, by and large, physically stronger than girls. We’re just built that way. If you have an issue with that, take it up with God.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t some women who aren’t stronger than some men, because there are. But we aren’t dealing with hypotheticals or exceptions to the rules. We’re dealing with reality. There is no woman on Earth who can lift as much weight as a man. The world record for deadlifting, for example, is currently 1,104.52 pounds by a guy named Hafthor Bjornsson. The women’s world record is 683 pounds by a woman named Becca Swanson.

Men have been lifting over 1,000 pounds since 2006. Women aren’t close.

The women’s world record for the 100-meter dash is 10.49 seconds, set in 1988 by Florence Griffith-Joyner. The men’s world record is 9.58 seconds by Usain Bolt set in 2009. The men’s record was 10.4 seconds back in 1932. Griffith-Joyner’s world record time would not have qualified for the Olympic finals for the men at the Rio Olympics, where the slowest racers qualified for the finals with a time of 10.01 seconds.

People can lament the fact that there are biological differences between men and women all they want, but that lament won’t change the fact that they exist. Because if they didn’t, there would be girls not only trying out for, but doing well in boys’ sports, and they simply are not.

That leads to another question we aren’t allowed to ask, that will have to be saved for another time, but is worth posing here: if gender is a “social construct,” how does anyone know what it feels like to be another person, let alone the opposite gender? The short answer is they don’t. Which then opens you up to a world of possibilities about what is really going on in this wing of the culture war that will have the left freaking out. Good times ahead.

Derek Hunter, townhall.com

More Evidence the United States Fought WW II Against the British

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday (March 8, 2021) I reported that my conclusion from David Irving’s two volume Churchill’s War (a third volume is expected) is that Washington fought World War II against the British. Confirmation of this is provided by Michael Hudson’s book, Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire, whose expanded 50th-anniversary edition is to be published this May.

In the fifth chapter, “Lendlease, the British Loan and Fracturing of the British Empire, 1941-45,” Hudson shows that British desperation for financial means with which to conduct war was taken advantage of by Washington in order to destroy the British Empire.

“Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. and his staff negotiated with Britain the terms on which America would provide support. Their aim was to help Britain against Germany, but not help it recover its position as world banker, for it was seen not only as a friendly belligerent in need of arms credit but as a potential rival. The U.S. negotiators were single-minded and unyielding.” The aim was “American financial hegemony.” One of the steps taken was to strip Britain of her overseas investment holdings of its large companies. Britain had to nationalize the private companies and put them up for sale abroad.

“To U.S. officials, what was being decided were the terms for just how the dollar would end up replacing sterling as the world’s leading currency. When Britain’s negotiator Frederick Phillips reached Washington in December 1940, he found that Morgenthau “insisted that the British should turn their pockets ‘inside out’ and give him full details of their assets in the United States and Latin America, and what they were willing to take for them.” Morgenthau “started putting pressure on the British to sell off their big American companies – Shell Oil, Lever Brothers and Brown & Williamson Tobacco,” and on January 28, 1941, promised the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “If Lord and Lady Astor own real estate in New York their assets will be on the auction block with the rest.” The assets that Roosevelt’s officials had been unable to get the British government to requisition from its citizens and sell off to U.S. buyers to settle its World War I debts now would be sold to pay for arming itself and fighting World War II.

The Americans even wanted the British to turn over the gold deposited in London for safekeeping by Britain’s defeated allies and to send a cruiser to seize South Africa’s gold for Washington.

The British economist John Maynard Keynes complained that the Roosevelt administration was focused on stripping Britain “of our liquid assets to the greatest extent possible” as the price of LendLease. The British were plundered by the Americans. For example, Britain’s Courtauld’s Viscose Corporation was sold “to an American banking group for $54 million, about half its real value.”

Congress delayed the British rescue until “a financially exhausted Britain was left with only $12 million in uncommitted reserves. On July 28, 1941, Keynes was handed a draft of Article VII of the Lend-Lease Agreements, calling for a strict commitment to non-discriminatory foreign trade and the end of British Imperial Preference.”

In other words, the price to the British of LendLease was “the dismantling of Commonwealth economic arrangements” and the end of the British Empire. Churchill warned “that the United States was capitalizing on British adversity to seize control of the British Empire.” Keynes insisted that the British could not sign what he said were “lunatic proposals,” but the British acquiesced. The price of Churchill’s war was the British Empire and the rise of US world hegemony.

Paul Craig Roberts, UNZ Review

So Money DOES Grow on Trees After All

Posted on by
Reply

“Money doesn’t grow on trees.” Parents used to teach this to their kids — because it’s true, and because they believed it.

There’s no longer a basis for believing it. At least, not if you believe politicians.

Starting last year, and now with more intensity since President Trump and Republicans lost control of the government, government spends trillions upon trillions of dollars. Even the most robust economy could never create the money they’re spending. It’s just debt — and inflation of the currency, via “printing” more money.

They do it as justification for the wreckage they caused via lockdowns and riots — and then take credit for cleaning up.

Even five years ago, it would have been unthinkable for the government to shut down most human activity. The first protest you’d hear is, “What about the economy?”

Today, that’s no longer a problem. The government shuts down most human activity and then pays everyone what they no longer get. Unemployment benefits now pay more than many jobs, particularly entry level jobs, or jobs in the not-so-high-paying food service industries. To the government, that’s just fine. They can provide a guaranteed national income (without calling it that) which makes jobs increasingly irrelevant.

I routinely hear people talking about it now. Particularly younger people, or people with low income. There’s little or no rational anxiety about holding or keeping a job. The question isn’t, “Where will I find work?” Or: “How do I keep my job? Or rise up the ladder?” The question has become: “When is the next stimulus check coming? And how much will it be?” Democrats are firmly, and likely permanently (thanks to election fraud), in charge of the government. They have openly reassured their needy subjects: More checks will be coming. Forever.

It appears that money DOES now grow on trees. Most of our parents were wrong. Since it’s so easy for the government simply to “print” or create (electronically) more and more money, then why not just pay everyone a billion dollars a month, instead of a mere $1400 or $2000 or whatever the next stimulus check will be? On the same premise, it shouldn’t be a problem. And if it IS a problem, morally and economically speaking, then why are we doing it at all?

It’s the greatest con job in all of human history. The government has created a crisis to ensure destruction of the economy. Then the same government that destroyed the economy comes in as the rescuer to provide “emergency” bailouts for an emergency that’s already into year two, with no signs of ending.

Of course, economists do have a few things to say about unlimited government spending. Deficits and a spiraling national debt do matter. And something called inflation — to say nothing of hyperinflation, which totally devalues the currency — might eventually come home to affect everyone except for the one percent elites who rule over our Communist paradise. Everything we know about economics, human nature, and the repeated failures of socialism tell us that disaster will arrive. Including — and especially — toward the ignorant fools who now celebrate their government “freebies”.

Not that we’ll be permitted to talk about it, when it happens.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

It’s Time for States to Start Nullifying Federal Law

Posted on by
1

As we all know, the last election was a “tipping point” election on many different levels. An election won with the use of illegal last-minute changes to state election laws has led to a rogue regime that threatens the very foundations of America. This is being achieved through highly questionable executive orders, the decimation of the concept of national sovereignty and an attack on fossil fuels, the lifeblood of our economy. Moreover, Biden is converting our military into a social justice agency and transforming our intelligence services into witch-hunters for conservatives who dared to protest a stolen election.

More alarming is the left’s goal to make its political power permanent by granting amnesty to 20-30 million illegal aliens, granting statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico, expanding the Supreme Court, and normalizing the censorship of conservatives, not to mention the institutionalizing of election fraud, especially in key swing states.

There is little doubt, if history is our guide, that should the left achieve permanent political power, future elections will just become “show” elections, our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights will be diminished, if not gutted, and our economy will become permanently stagnant as with all other socialist economies in the world. It will be the beginning of the end of America as we know it.

Our Founders, however, were extremely wary of federal power and thus created a number of checks and balances to counter it. One of them was the ability by the states to “nullify” federal laws and even Supreme Court decisions. As most conservatives know, nullification is when a State decides to not abide by a federal law, regulation or even a Federal court ruling by simply refusing to enforce it. This concept is rooted in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which plainly states that if the states, who are the creators of the federal government, have not specifically given them authority, that authority rests with the states and the people of the state:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Over the last 150 years or so, liberal legislators and judges have violated the Tenth Amendment by illegally expanding the scope and power of the federal government. We know that Federal power is limited because such powers were actually “enumerated” or listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and include actions such as “To lay and collect taxes,” “coin money,” and “raise and support Armies.” The federal government was not given any role in education, health, welfare, transportation, energy, or even with maintaining secure borders. All those issues were left up to the states to decide. If our founders wanted to expand the federal government into every area of our life, they would not have specifically listed the very few powers they granted it.

Conservative constitutional scholars such as Thomas E. Woods, in his book, Nullification, How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, documents that our Founders believed that if a “law is unconstitutional and therefore void and of no effect, it is up to the states, the parties to the federal compact, to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce it.”

The left will scream about such nullification efforts, but they have been engaged in nullifying federal laws for years. For example, all state laws legalizing marijuana are illegal since they’re in conflict with federal narcotic laws, but states have simply refused to
enforce these federal laws and so have “nullified” them. Likewise, states controlled by the left have allowed various cities and counties to become “sanctuaries” in which they refused to abide by federal immigration laws. And no, the Marines were not sent in nor did any state or city even suffer the loss of federal funding.


enforce these federal laws and so have “nullified” them. Likewise, states controlled by the left have allowed various cities and counties to become “sanctuaries” in which they refused to abide by federal immigration laws. And no, the Marines were not sent in nor did any state or city even suffer the loss of federal funding.

It is time our side use this tactic as a way of protecting our constitutional rights. Here are some of the issues that could be affected by the concept of nullification:

  1. Nullify all 1st Amendment Restrictions. States should refuse to enforce all federal edicts and Supreme Court rulings that impinge upon the 1st Amendment protections of our religious freedom, such as efforts by radical gays to force churches, faith based adopting agencies, religious schools, colleges, and businesses to carry out a radical gay and transexual agenda.
  2. Nullify all federal efforts to undermine the 2nd Amendment. States should nullify all federal laws that compromise the 2nd Amendment such as those being proposed by the Biden team.
  3. Nullify open border policies. With Biden announcing his intent to grant amnesty to all illegal aliens, combined with his hostility to border security, expect the border to get out of control. Already, migrant caravans are heading to the border. States should nullify such pro-open border policies and use their resources to stop illegal immigration. The reality is that states were originally involved in setting immigration policy and indeed, used to detain and deport illegals prior to the existence of a Border Patrol or ICE. The only mention in the constitution regarding immigration is “to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
  4. Nullify the anti-police agenda. During the Obama regime, his DoJ hamstrung city police departments all over the country with phony “civil rights” investigations, resulting in cities hesitant to arrest or prosecute violent thugs. With anti-police activists surrounding Biden, his administration will do the same, thereby empowering leftist rioters in our cities. The founders never gave the federal government a law enforcement role as they thought this responsibility best be carried out by local police and sheriff departments. States should resist and ignore all federal anti-police regulations and DoJ harassment of local police departments.
  5. Nullify all federal efforts to preserve fraudulent voting procedures. Conservative states need to immediately take action on election fraud and pass comprehensive voter ID laws, which, of course, will be attacked by Biden’s DoJ as a “civil rights” violation. States also need to remove the estimated 2-3 million illegal aliens from its voting rolls. Indeed, a fact check site has documented that the millions of illegal aliens are currently voting and may have thrown the election to Biden. States need to stop disenfranchising its legal citizens and also purge from its voter rolls dead people, repeat registrations, and those who moved out of state.

Of course, states will be reluctant to invoke nullification but the alternative would be to watch our constitutional rights be trashed by leftists. The MAGA movement in the Red States needs to became active in urging legislators and governors to start reclaiming their constitutional powers and begin nullifying illegal Federal law.

Once states are engaged in nullifying federal laws, I believe we will witness what I call the “great migration” in which conservatives will leave blue states to live in red states and vice-versa. And yes, this could lead to a peaceful balkanization of America in which the Red states become redder and the Blue states become bluer, but this is not our fault. It is the left that is assaulting our constitutional rights and if conservatives desire to live in states that protect their rights, then so be it.

Already, we are seeing some movement in the states on the nullification front. The Arizona Senate passed a bill that declares it will not enforce federal gun control laws. Oklahoma, South Dakota and North Dakota legislators have all introduced legislation that nullifies Biden’s executive orders.

Nullification is simply returning America to its original system of governance in which most governmental authority is decentralized to the states and counties. The federal government can’t do much about it other than to cut federal funding for some state programs, but perhaps the time has come for states to do away with these federal handcuffs.

Steve Baldwin, America Thinker

Ayn Rand on Altruism

Posted on by
Reply

Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?

The answer you evade, the monstrous answer is: No, the takers are not evil, provided they did not earn the value you gave them. It is not immoral for them to accept it, provided they are unable to produce it, unable to deserve it, unable to give you any value in return. It is not immoral for them to enjoy it, provided they do not obtain it by right.

Such is the secret core of your creed, the other half of your double standard: it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others—it is immoral to consume your own product, but moral to consume the products of others—it is immoral to earn, but moral to mooch—it is the parasites who are the moral justification for the existence of the producers, but the existence of the parasites is an end in itself—it is evil to profit by achievement, but good to profit by sacrifice—it is evil to create your own happiness, but good to enjoy it at the price of the blood of others.

Your code divides mankind into two castes and commands them to live by opposite rules: those who may desire anything and those who may desire nothing, the chosen and the damned, the riders and the carriers, the eaters and the eaten. What standard determines your caste? What passkey admits you to the moral elite? The passkey is lack of value.

Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who don’t lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind.

If you succeed, any man who fails is your master; if you fail, any man who succeeds is your serf. Whether your failure is just or not, whether your wishes are rational or not, whether your misfortune is undeserved or the result of your vices, it is misfortune that gives you a right to rewards. It is pain, regardless of its nature or cause, pain as a primary absolute, that gives you a mortgage on all of existence.

If you heal your pain by your own effort, you receive no moral credit: your code regards it scornfully as an act of self-interest. Whatever value you seek to acquire, be it wealth or food or love or rights, if you acquire it by means of your virtue, your code does not regard it as a moral acquisition: you occasion no loss to anyone, it is a trade, not alms; a payment, not a sacrifice. The deserved belongs in the selfish, commercial realm of mutual profit; it is only the undeserved that calls for that moral transaction which consists of profit to one at the price of disaster to the other. To demand rewards for your virtue is selfish and immoral; it is your lack of virtue that transforms your demand into a moral right.

A morality that holds need as a claim, holds emptiness—non-existence—as its standard of value; it rewards an absence, a defect: weakness, inability, incompetence, suffering, disease, disaster, the lack, the fault, the flaw—the zero.

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.

There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

Biden’s Fireside Splat

Posted on by
Reply

Joe Biden avoided talking to the American people longer than any president in the last 100 years. And when he finally did, it wasn’t exactly worth waiting for. If you didn’t watch the 23 minutes of this White House’s revisionist history on the virus, count yourself lucky. It was an exercise in the dismal, partisan, hopeless rhetoric this administration was supposed to rise above. After more than 50 days of silence, all Joe Biden proved by coming out of the White House basement is that he’s a sore and ungracious winner, who isn’t above taking credit for the vaccine successes he inherited.

Naturally, that isn’t how the media saw it. In fact, their glowing reviews (“Biden projects hope”) were confusing to anyone who actually saw the speech. “If you hadn’t watched the president’s… address,” Christopher Bedford writes, “you might think it was something — anything — other than the most depressing, defeated, and resigned speech since President Jimmy Carter held the office. You might think he hadn’t devoted his third sentence to a baseless attack on his predecessor, and the entire rest of his address to death, sadness, loneliness, and despair.” Apparently, when Joe Biden promised darker days ahead, he meant it.

“A year ago,” Biden said, “we were hit with a virus that was met with silence, and spread unchecked. Denials for days, weeks, then months, that led to more deaths, more infections, more stress, and more loneliness.” It was meant to be an attack on his predecessor, which makes it all the more unbelievable. Anyone with half a brain remembers that it was Democrats, not Republicans, who ignored the warnings about the pandemic. So consumed by their impeachment of Donald Trump, they refused to even listen to Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) sound the alarm in late January. And when the 45th president took bold action, closing down our borders to protect Americans, Biden wasn’t silent. He called Trump a “hysterical xenophobe,” accusing him of “irrational fearmongering” — when in fact, the administration’s quick thinking probably saved thousands of U.S. lives.

It was breathtakingly self-serving, as Biden tried to pretend the entire virus response plan was his own — when in fact, “the only thing that has really worked in this entire coronavirus pandemic,” Mollie Hemingway points out, “is developing the vaccine” — which was entirely done on Trump’s watch. The fact that Americans everywhere will soon have access to those shots is because of the last administration, who decided to cut the red tape that liberals love swimming in and create free market solutions. If Democrats had been in charge, we’d still be looking for a firm to develop the vaccine!

It’s also astounding, as several commentators have pointed out, that Biden is taking credit for a vaccine that he spent months disparaging! Now, suddenly, not only are the drugs a miraculous accomplishment — they’re his accomplishment. “Even the media acknowledges the Trump administration’s role in spearheading vaccine development and procurement,” former press secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted with side-by-side screenshots of ABC News and New York Times’s headlines, “but President Biden REFUSES to say the truth.” By the end of the night, he’d so overinflated his role in the vaccine that even the Washington Post called him out.

He pumped up his vaccine record “a little too much,” the Post said, arguing that his attempt to sell it as a Biden success story were “overstated.” The paper also took issue with the goals he set, quoting Biden: “You may recall, I set a goal that many of you said was kind of way over the top. I said I intended to get 100 million shots in people’s arms in my first hundred days in office. Tonight, I can say we’re not only going to meet that goal; we’re going to beat that goal.” As the Post reminds everyone, “When Biden came into office, there had already been several days of 1 million people being vaccinated — the daily number required to hit 100 million in 100 days. In other words, to hit the goal, he mostly just needed to keep things moving in the direction they were going… [C]asting this as some unthinkable feat goes too far and detracts from legitimate claims to success.”

As if that weren’t outrageous enough, the president spent the better portion of his speech telling his subjects that “maybe… we’ll let you celebrate” on July 4th if people continue to get vaccinated. How wonderful. Our benevolent overlords will let us out of our cells for a few hours on good behavior “if we do our part.” If we don’t, President Doomsday warns, “we may have to reinstate restrictions.” Well, unfortunately for the White House, it’s not up to the president whether Americans have barbeques. And this is July 4th we’re talking about — the day we’re supposed to be celebrating independence from tyrants.

And if Biden is such a cracker-jack problem solver where the virus is concerned, then why is he nominating a man with zero health care experience to head up our COVID response? On the one thing this administration can claim ownership of in the pandemic — HHS’s new leadership — they’ve offered up pro-abortion extremist, Xavier Becerra — confusing even hardline Democrats like Pramila Jayapal (Wash.). “I would have liked to see the HHS secretary have public health experience,” she said. Instead, Americans may be getting a lawyer, who’s only involvement in the medical field is suing Catholic hospitals over their First Amendment rights.

“I am hard-pressed to see any way such a radical and underqualified nominee should fill such a critical post at this crucial time,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said. So are we. Help us stop it! Contact your senators and urge them to vote no on Joe Biden’s Secretary of Health and Inhumane Services!

Tony Perkins

America’s Cultural Revolution

Posted on by
1

The “woke” revolution is a cultural revolution. China had one too, under Mao, before it went full blown Communist. A cultural revolution is the precursor to a totalitarian dictatorship. It’s an attempt to get people “ready” for the social transformation about to take place.

Wokeness, like all cultural revolutions, is an attempt to impose a new normal, not just with regard to masks and lockdowns, but with regard to EVERYTHING. Getting rid of Aunt Jemima and Dr. Seuss is a way of telling people, “The things you have enjoyed in life, or taken for granted? Those things are all BAD.” They’re trying to condition our thinking, more than to change our minds. They’re trying to get us to associate pleasant, charming and fun aspects of civilization with guilty, shameful and unpleasant thoughts. Consider them left-wing Puritans, more controlling and dark than the most intolerant of Puritans.

Imagine a totalitarian religious dictatorship (Muslim, Christian, it doesn’t matter) taking over the whole country. That’s what this is. It’s happening now. It’s a campaign of intimidation and moralistic self-righteousness designed to replace the attributes of reason, persuasion and common sense. Totalitarians are seeking to reshape people by force. But they know they can’t force everybody to change their minds on everything; so they resort to intimidation. It’s easier to change people through the cultural institutions — sports, television, movies, social media, books, grocery stores, food chains — that they willingly embraced all along. Even if you don’t change anyone’s minds, in a cultural revolution you put people on notice that “now everyone thinks this way…so you had better do so too!”

Wokeness appeals to human weakness. One of the greatest weaknesses in most human beings is a craving to be a part of “the pack” — to replace one’s own observation of reality with the perceived perceptions of everyone else. Mind you, each and every individual is expected now to look to “what everyone else thinks” to ascertain the truth. That’s the toxic core of the Woke Cultural Revolution in America. Its underlying premise is: “You don’t think like a CONSERVATIVE, individualist, capitalistic Bill of Rights Lover … do you?” Hilariously, everyone is looking to everyone else — who’s also looking to everyone else — to figure out what’s true. Nobody has an independent thought. It’s the intellectually and psychologically blind leading the intellectually and psychologically blind.

That’s how we ended up with such widespread and blind allegiance to mask mandates and lockdowns. Cultural revolutionists watched the unthinking conformity to the COVID hysteria, and quickly realized how uncritical and fearful most Americans had become. So they struck Americans at this vulnerable hour: And look how they’re succeeding.

They won’t win in the long run. Irrational fanatics at war with facts, reason, reality and common sense cannot ever win. By definition, their quest is not triumph or achievement; only destruction. They are the cultural equivalent of arsonists or rapists. They can burn down or destroy. But they can create or sustain NOTHING. However, like any arsonist, they can do a hell of a lot of damage in their destruction. If you think they’ll stop at Dr. Seuss, Aunt Jemima, statues of Thomas Jefferson and copies of Gone With the Wind … well, you’re clueless. And right now, they’re literally destroying our culture. Gleefully, brick by brick.

America may go down in this cultural revolution. We are going down, at this moment. Decades or centuries from now, the best of the human spirit will surely rise again. But look at what we lost in 2020 and 2021. And how rational people in the future will properly condemn and mock those of us who let it happen. “Shame, shame, shame,” chant the Cultural Marxists setting America on fire. The actual shame belongs with those of us who remain silent and fearful, as it happens right before our eyes.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Biden’s Address Nothing but a Con-Job

Posted on by
Reply

Low as our expectations were, President Biden still disappointed with his speech Thursday night.

We’re supposed to hope that if all goes well, we can gather with a few others outdoors to celebrate Independence Day? Sorry, sir, we can do that now. And Americans by the tens if not hundreds of millions are.

And in Texas, Florida and other states, they’ll be packing stadiums by Memorial Day — with precautions, sure. But half the country’s done with extreme cautions.

Whether Biden knew it or not (and how would he?), the whole thing reeked of what another president, in a very different context, called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

He made a big deal of upping the vaccine supply, something that was hardwired in long before he took office. Anyone in the Oval Office would have built on the progress already made to do that.

And he’s still pretending his goals for jabs nationwide were bold, when the nation had already met that daily total by Inauguration Day. And in claiming the United States leads the world, he’s ignoring Israel. (But we fear he’s going to be making a habit of that.)

Same but worse for his targets on reopening schools, where he’s actually backtracked. Yet all the science says it should be done yesterday, not weeks or months down the line.

Part of it, we guess, is that he needed to accentuate the negative to justify his $1.9 trillion spending spree, even though most of it has nothing to do with relief, recovery or the virus, but only rewarding his party’s special interests and ideologues.

The whole thing felt like a con job, trying to sell Americans a bridge they already own. Our only question is whether the president knows that, or he simply has no clue.

New York Post Editorial Board