+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Her public defender should be disbarred!
Grandma charged with ‘parading’ at the Capitol told to denounce her whiteness
By Eric Utter
A 49-year-old grandmother named Anna Morgan-Lloyd was directed by her attorney to denounce her whiteness prior to appearing before a federal judge to account for her crime of January 6th, 2021, in which she stands accused of “parading”—yes, parading-- through an open Capitol door. She’s lucky she didn’t get the death penalty, considering the vicious clowns in charge of Washington, D.C.—and therefore the rest of the formerly United States—today.
Uncle Sam, who has looked the other way for 13 months as Antifa, BLM, and assorted anarchists and lowlife thugs engaged in violent riots, burning, looting, and laying waste to America’s big cities is now throwing his full weight behind prosecuting the 500 or so unarmed people who strolled through open Capitol doors on that fateful day. The vast majority of the aforementioned 500 did nothing wrong during their short stint inside The Capitol. However, authorities and the media are bending over backward to disparage them, sap their finances-- and ruin their lives.
Not only was Morgan-Lloyd charged with trespassing, as the others have been or will be, but she was also advised by her court-appointed public defender to denounce her “white privilege.” The defense attorney also gave her a reading list to help her reprogram her political views in exchange for potentially avoiding prison time for her heinous acts. With public defenders like that, who needs prosecutors?
Grandma Morgan-Lloyd is the first of the trespassers to be sentenced. We can only guess what will befall the others. Will they be forced to read The Communist Manifesto? After all, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff bragged about doing so. Or perhaps they’ll have to watch 10 consecutive episodes of The View and write “Don Lemon is the best” 1,000 times in a spiral notebook?
Threats from the government to the American people are getting out of hand. President Biden recently noted, while mocking the Second Amendment, that “if you wanted, or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.” Yet, as brilliantly parodied by the Babylon Bee, the same government claims the 500 completely unarmed citizens who “paraded” through The Capitol constituted an “insurrection” that nearly toppled the government.
As someone once said, there can be only two types of societies: ones in which the people are afraid of the government (Soviet Union, China, North Korea, etc.) and ones in which the government is afraid of the people. Sadly, as I wrote in a previous American Thinker post, “the biggest and most existential threat to our way of life emanates from our own government — our supposedly duly elected leaders,” who are willing to release convicted terrorists while simultaneously branding patriotic citizens as the biggest threat to the republic.
We cannot logically denounce what we have no control over. If we must denounce our skin color, should we also denounce our sex, our species, our physiology? That is the opposite of science…not to mention reason and morality.
There is an insurrection occurring. Democrats and their elite leftist enablers have essentially overthrown the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the rule of law, and the concept of representative republican government. They would dispense with or repeal Natural Law, too, if they could. But they can’t, as it is granted each of us by our Creator. Which is why they disdain the concept of a higher power.
Before you and I get charged with “parading” and sentenced to prison, or worse, we need to help re-establish a government of, by and for the people. The only way to do this is to never back down, never stay silent out of fear, never cower…never surrender.
We used to have the confidence of learned adults. The Founders didn’t care what those who would abuse them thought. They would not have denounced themselves no matter the cost. American troops were not demoralized by the Tokyo Roses and Axis Sallies mocking and debasing them during World War II. No one in their right mind would denounce themselves for their skin color, whatever that color may be.
The next time a would-be tyrant attempts to oppress and/or indoctrinate you or your kids, look them in the eye and recite a line from Dirty Harry, “You’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do you punk?”
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.
If you would like to comment on this or any other American Thinker article or post, we invite you to visit the American Thinker Forum at MeWe. There, you can converse with other American Thinker readers and comment freely (subject to MeWe's terms of use). The Forum will be fully populated and ready for comments by midday (Eastern time) each day.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Biden's anti-discrimination garbage is being found to be discriminatory. DUH!
The New Racial Discrimination
The Biden Administration’s ‘equity’ policies are losing in court.
By The Editorial Board
The Supreme Court recently put off whether to hear a case accusing Harvard of discriminating by race in admissions. The Court asked the Biden Administration for its view of the case, punting a decision to next fall or later. We hope the Justices realize that sooner or later they will have to decide whether the new wave of racial discrimination is constitutional.
President Biden’s emphasis on “equity” as a dominant policy goal is already creating new challenges in the federal courts. By equity, Mr. Biden means preferences for some racial groups over others to achieve equal outcomes. A federal judge in Wisconsin recently issued a temporary restraining order against a $3.8 billion Department of Agriculture program that allocates loan forgiveness by race. And last week another federal judge, this one in Florida, issued a preliminary injunction.
This program, part of Covid-19 relief, is aimed at helping “socially disadvantaged farmers.” A USDA fact sheet boasts that it steers benefits to those who are “Black, Native American/Alaskan Native, Asian American or Pacific Islander, or are of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.” The legislation further includes $1.01 billion in funding “to USDA to create a racial equity commission and address longstanding discrimination across USDA.”
White farmers say the program’s allocation by race is unconstitutional—and that the program could run out of funds before their applications are even considered. Federal Judge William Griesbach in Wisconsin agreed, finding that the government lacked a “compelling interest” for racial classifications, that its use wasn’t narrowly tailored, and that the farmers are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that Agriculture’s “use of race-based criteria” violates their right to equal protection under the law.
Meanwhile, two other federal courts have ruled against the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) program to distribute restaurant revitalization funds by race. Women and racial minorities were given priority in the first 21 days, sending everyone else to the back of the line. Federal Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas granted a preliminary injunction on grounds the restaurateurs are “experiencing race and sex discrimination at the hand of government officials.” The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a preliminary injunction in a separate case.
Mr. Biden sells his agenda as taking America into the future. But allocating government funds or privileges by race is a step back to an uglier past. It moves away from the ideal espoused by Martin Luther King Jr. that Americans should be judged by their character—not their skin color. Instead it adopts a system of racial preferences like Malaysia’s that favors ethnic Malays over other groups, especially ethnic Chinese. If applied on the scale Mr. Biden hopes, America would become a nation of groups competing for racial spoils and defined outcomes rather than seeking equal opportunity for everyone.
In ruling against the SBA, the Sixth Circuit cited Richmond v. Croson (1989) in which the Supreme Court struck down a Richmond, Va., program that reserved 30% of any city construction contract for minority businesses. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority that the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause demands strict scrutiny for judging governmental racial classifications—and that broad justifications based on past discrimination aren’t enough.
Strict scrutiny requires that the government have a compelling interest for discriminating by race, and that it must use the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. If less restrictive ways can achieve the same purpose, the policy fails.
By this standard it’s hard to see Mr. Biden’s race-based equity plans prevailing in court. On CBS’s Face the Nation this month, Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.) singled out the disparate treatment for black and white farmers as a perverse example of justifying new discrimination on the basis of old discrimination.
The Harvard case doesn’t involve divvying up government aid by race. But the use of racial classifications to discriminate against Asian-Americans in admissions is the same violation of constitutional principles. Harvard accepts federal aid and is obliged to follow Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. History shows that discriminating by race breeds resentment and deeper political and social polarization. For the good of the country, this is an issue the Supreme Court can’t duck forever.
http://media.washtimes.com/static/images/twtlogo_signature.jpg
+++
Getting smarter about Critical Race Theory
If CRT is correct, is America worth defending?
By Clifford D. May
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley testifies before a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Thursday, June 17, 2021, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Evelyn Hockstein/Pool via AP)
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley testifies before a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Thursday, June 17, 2021, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Evelyn Hockstein/Pool via AP) more >
At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee last week, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this about Critical Race Theory: “I’ll obviously have to get much smarter on whatever the theory is, but I do think it’s important actually for those of us in uniform to be open-minded and be widely read.”
Fair enough but that leads to this question: How does one become smarter about CRT? In much of the media, it’s being described as nothing more than an “academic concept” or an “analytic tool” for understanding “white rage” and “systemic racism.”
That assumes there is convincing evidence to support the charge that people with pale skin are especially prone to violent, uncontrollable anger. And is the claim that “systemic racism” is the defining feature of 21st century America really beyond debate?
Coverage of the hearing may have misled you about what troubled several members of Congress: not military personnel learning about CRT but rather CRT advocates proselytizing to military personnel. It seems that “foundational” military reading lists now include, alongside books on history and strategy, tracts on CRT that allege that all people of color are victims, and all people of pallor are victimizers – irredeemably so.
Rep. Mike Waltz, a former Green Beret, cited a classroom slide labeled “White Power at West Point,” and a seminar at the academy titled “‘Understanding Whiteness and White Rage’ taught by a woman who described the Republican Party platform as a platform of white supremacy.”
Rep. Waltz expressed concern that “our future military leaders are being taught that the Constitution and the fundamental civilian institutions of this country are endemically racist, misogynist, and colonialist and therefore it is their duty to resist them.”
He added: “The military needs to be open to all Americans, absolutely, that is the strength of the United States military. But once we’re in, we bleed green, and our skin color is camouflage.
As suggested above, if you want to understand CRT, the mainstream media is not a reliable source. Look instead to the Manhattan Institute or the Heritage Foundation or to historian Allen Guelzo, director of the James Madison Program Initiative on Politics and Statesmanship and senior research scholar in the Council of the Humanities at Princeton University.
Last week, he was interviewed by the American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka and Marc Thiessen on their excellent “What the Hell Is Going On?” podcast. You should listen to the entire conversation, but I’ll touch on a few key points here.
Critical Race Theory is a variant of critical theory, Professor Guelzo explains, and has its “origins in a reaction against the Enlightenment and against the confidence that scientific reason could discover the answers to things.” Of particular note: Immanuel Kant, a 19th century philosopher, developed “a critique of reason, a critical theory, if you will.”
This “set off a chain reaction of romantic investigations for non-rational explanations of reality.” For example, “you might think that economics functions as what Adam Smith called a natural instinct to truck and barter.”
But Karl Marx saw it as “governed by the oppressive relations of class” – a struggle between the oppressor class (capitalists, employers, the bourgeois) and the oppressed class (workers, the proletariat). Marx further asserted that to overcome this “structure of oppression” requires revolution.
Another ideology that grew out of critical theory: Nazism. If one believes, as do Nazis, “that the Jews are responsible for all political and economic events, then my pointing out that the overwhelming majority of political leaders are not Jews merely shows that I am either a dupe of the Jews or that I'm in on the fix. That is how Nazi racial theory functioned.”
Whereas Marxist theory focuses on class, and Nazi theory focuses on ethnicity and/or religion, CRT focuses on race. Those deemed “white” (a term so vague it can include Swedes, Greeks, Chechens, and Iranians) are presumed guilty of oppressing “people of color” (a term so vague it can include those with African, Latin American, Asian, and Arab ancestry).
Ibram X. Kendi, a leading CRT proponent, is candid about what must be done. “The only remedy to racial discrimination is antiracist discrimination,” he has declared. Also: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
While some people cast as oppressors will acquiesce to the establishment of this new, race-based hierarchy, others will embrace what Mr. Guelzo calls the “opposite irrationality. The irrationality, for instance, of genuine white supremacy, of genuine Aryan Nazi fairytales.”
So, if CRT becomes the new orthodoxy at West Point and other educational institutions, in federal bureaucracies, and corporate America, increased racial division, animosity, and conflict will inevitably result.
CRT also envisions group rights replacing individual rights, and the destruction of capitalism and the institutions of American democracy. Because they are seen as “systemically” racist, they must be “exploded,” as CRT advocate Derrick Bell wrote.
And, of course, Martin Luther King’s dream of American children one day living “in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” will be relegated to the dustbin of history (to borrow a phrase from critical theorist Leon Trotsky).
If Gen. Milley is to “get much smarter” about CRT, he will need to understand such things. He’ll also need to grapple with this question: Why should young people, of whatever color, serve in the armed forces and risk their lives to defend the failed experiment that CRT alleges America is and always has been?
Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for the Washington Times.
The Washington Times: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jun/29/if-critical-race-theory-is-correct-is-america-wort/
+++++++++++++++++++++
Stop Gaslighting Parents on Critical Race Theory
By Max Eden
Proponents of Critical Race Theory are resorting to semantic gaslighting to defend a dogma that most Americans instinctively abhor.
Some pundits claim that CRT is exclusively a school of thought taught in legal academia. On her MSNBC show, Joy Reid claimed that “law school is really the only place it is taught. NBC has looked into everywhere.” Former Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway tweeted: “I don’t think critical legal studies should be taught in elementary schools, and I am ready to die on that hill[.]”
Some journalists, informed by other “experts,” contend that CRT is synonymous with “talking about racism.” NPR defined CRT as “teaching about the effects of racism”; the New York Times called it “classroom discussion of race, racism.” NBC News labeled it the “academic study of racism’s pervasive impact.”
These definitions are, of course, mutually exclusive. But they both serve to paint parents into a corner. If CRT is defined just as talking about racism, then parental objections to it must be rooted in racism. If CRT is defined just as a thesis discussed in law schools, then parental objections to it must be rooted in ignorance.
There’s no doubt that CRT has become a politicized term. Manhattan Institute senior fellow Chris Rufo forthrightly explained his strategy on this issue as follows: “The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’ We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”
Liberal writer Freddie DeBoer has argued that CRT is now a “completely floating signifier.” Conservatives label a host of things they don’t like as CRT. Liberals, then, “feel compelled to defend CRT because conservatives attack it,” and defend it by claiming that it has nothing to do with any of the bad things conservatives say.
But words have meaning. Parents and policymakers should understand CRT not as conservatives or liberals define it, but as it defines itself. Here’s a definition from a 2001 book, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefanic, widely credited as key architects of CRT:
The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up, but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, context, group- and self-interest, and even feelings and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.
Although CRT began as a movement in the law, it has rapidly spread beyond that discipline. Today, many in the field of education consider themselves critical race theorists who use CRT’s ideas to understand issues of school discipline and hierarchy, tracking, controversies over curriculum and history, and IQ and achievement testing. Political scientists ponder voting strategies coined by critical race theorists. Ethnic studies courses often include a unit on critical race theory, and American studies departments teach material on critical white students developed by CRT writers. Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension. It not only tries to understand our social situation, but to change it. (Emphases added.)
Several points here deserve restatement: CRT defines itself in opposition to traditional civil rights and even Enlightenment rationalism. It defines itself not simply as a “Theory,” but also as movement of activists who seek to transform society. Many educators consider themselves to by Critical Race Theorists, and CRT ideology has had a profound impact on a wide range of education policy and pedagogical issues.
Anybody who tries to peddle the line that CRT is just “talking about racism” is either gaslighting or being gaslit themselves. And anyone who maintains that CRT is simply an academic theory discussed in law school, at best, is ignorant of what CRT really is.
By contrast, parent intuitions about CRT are spot on. Given that CRT informs so many aspects of education policy and pedagogy, the real crux of the issue for parents is, as Andrew Sullivan adroitly put it, “not teaching about critical race theory; it is teaching in critical race theory.” (Emphases in original.)
Public schools may be commonly assigning Critical Race Theorists like Kimberlé Crenshaw. But they have embraced a host of policies and practices that are rooted in Critical Race Theory. When parents hear terms like: “Equity,” “Anti-Racism,” “Cultural Competence,” “Culturally Responsive Education,” “Restorative Justice,” “Ethnic Studies,” “Equitable Math,” “Whiteness,” they would be fundamentally correct to go to a school board meeting and complain about Critical Race Theory. All of these practices are influenced by and have the same politicized purpose as CRT, which – to reiterate – defines itself not merely as a “theory” but also as an activist practice.
School boards that are implementing CRT-infused programming should not follow the media’s lead and gaslight parents by claiming that they are “not teaching CRT” on the grounds that they are not assigning academic journal articles by self-avowed Critical Race Theorists. Because the more parents look into it, the more may realize that although their schools might not assign canonical CRT academic journal article, they are teaching “in” CRT.
That will further heighten alienation and distrust between schools and families – alienation and distrust that is unavoidable so long as schools educate students through a “lens” intended to train children to oppose the foundations of our liberal order.
Max Eden is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Herschel Walker Runs
Former President Donald Trump is telling people Herschel Walker is running for the United States Senate in Georgia against Raphael Warnock. Walker is the greatest college football player of all time and a legend in the State of Georgia. He played for the University of Georgia and received the 1982 Heisman Trophy. He’s also an Olympian.
The 59-year-old is a native of Wrightsville, Georgia in Johnston County, a poor, rural part of Southeast Georgia. On paper, Walker is a compelling candidate. I have concerns though.
Walker has lived out of Georgia for a number of years. He has been diagnosed with multiple personality disorder, or more commonly referred to now as disassociative identity disorder. He has, however, become a compelling spokesman for mental health treatment and wrote a book on the subject in 2008. He has been very open about his diagnosis.
My great concern about Walker has nothing to do with that, though I suspect the diagnosis will be used against him and he will need to find ways to push back. Let’s be honest, the Democrats and collaborates in the press will find ways to push Walker to provoke him. He is going to need to surround himself with competent people.
Therein lies my concern. I have a sense of some of the people Walker has been talking to and working with and that gives me hope. But his day-to-day team is going to matter and because there’s been buzz for some time in Trump circles, I worry a rich man from out of state with fame is going to be circled by grifters like vultures do to roadkill. He’s going to need a highly competent, polished team that gets him off and running. On the GOP side of late, the rich men with high name ID are the ones who the grifters seem to take advantage of the most. The team is going to matter.
The upside of Herschel Walker is his positive name recognition. The downside of Walker is that he went to play for the Dallas Cowboys in 1986 and has not been a regular feature in Georgia for a long time. The Atlanta suburbs are filled with people who were not Georgians when Walker made his name at UGA. In fact, the Atlanta suburbs have a lot of non-natives who are not UGA fans at all. Walker’s legend won’t impact them. His policies will.
Last year, he came on my radio show to get out the vote for Team Trump. He spent a great deal of time talking about national issues and focusing on socialism and the left. He’s going to need a message that resonates with Georgians about Georgia. One of the overarching criticisms of the Perdue and Loeffler runoffs is that they spent so much time attacking Warnock and Ossoff about socialism that they never painted an agenda for themselves.
Walker will have to fight in the Atlanta suburbs for the GOP in a primary and will face Georgia’s popular agriculture commissioner in South Georgia for the farmer vote. He will have Donald Trump with him, but Trump legitimately lost Georgia. That connection can get Walker through a primary, but he’s going to need more than Trump in a general election — he’ll need a platform of his own ideas for Georgia.
If Walker can do that with a competent team that isn’t just there to serve as yes men while bleeding him dry, he’ll be the favorite to win. But we need to see the team and the walk onto the field first. His initial steps onto the field are going to tell us a lot.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
St John's progresses:
JUST SOME THINGS I THINK ABOUT…
By E. P. Unum
Here are some random thoughts that continue to pop into my head on this cloudy, dreary, and rainy day in South Florida:
1. I’m curious, has anyone heard from John Durham yet? Has he finished his investigation into the 2016 Russiagate election fiasco in which democrats were caught red-handed spying on a Presidential candidate then a President-elect then President of the United States….and lying about it?
2. Anyone heard anything about the Hunter Biden investigation or the content contained on his laptop which the FBI has had since before the 2020 election?
3. If you are thinking of finishing your basement, maybe you ought to put it off a bit. Have you checked out the cost of a sheet of ¾ inch plywood recently? Would you believe over $100! So, lumber is skyrocketing in price as is the cost of new construction and, of course, steel prices are through the roof. So what makes President Biden and his democratic acolytes think that our country can afford an infrastructure bill now.
4. I believe the very essence of Critical Race Theory is racist on its face. There is a straightforward way to determine if CRT is racist. Remove the word white out of every sentence and replace it with the word black. Sounds racist, doesn’t it? Pretty compelling don’t you think? Perhaps General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ought to reflect on this along with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and rescind their orders to have every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine be exposed to this asinine, stupid, demoralizing, and divisive concept.
5. I’m trying to figure out why VP Kamala Harris went to El Paso, Texas which is about 1,000 miles from the Rio Grande area on our southern border where the massive influx of illegals are coming across into the U.S. What the hell did she think such a visit would accomplish? She spoke with no farmers, no border agents, no immigrants, and was exposed to none of the challenges faced by border security. Perhaps she decided to suddenly make the trip because President Trump announced he would be visiting next week?
6. Have you noticed the crime wave that continues unabated throughout the nation? Murders, robberies, assaults, rapes all are up significantly from pre-pandemic levels, yet all we hear from democrats is the same old refrain that all of this crime is related to easy access to guns! Here is a news flash for President Biden…criminals don’t give sour owl shit about gun laws and regulations because they don’t buy guns in gun stores! And here is another news scoop…if you defund police departments as New York City did, you will get more crime! If you institute ridiculous rules like cashless bail and arrest and release, criminals will commit more crimes! If District Attorneys refuse to prosecute crimes or criminals, you will get more crime! Is this so difficult to understand?
7. I am all for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reading the works of Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao Tse-tung, Che Guevara, Castro, Pol-Pot and anyone else he feels will help him understand potential adversaries and how they think. But, forcing Critical Race Theory down the throats of our enlisted men and women is a Bridge too Far as Cornelius Ryan so eloquently wrote about Operation Market Garden in WWII. Such a posture would only serve to weaken not strengthen our military and the General knows this. The last thing our fighting men and women need to be thinking about is race. It has no place in achieving and maintaining unit cohesiveness.
8. If you think that Gwen Berry the young black female hammer-throw athlete turning her back in protest while our National Anthem was being played is an isolated exception, think again. I believe we will be seeing more and more so-called activist athletes competing for their five minutes of fame at the Tokyo Olympics this summer. And for good reason. We allow it to happen. The more the media focuses attention on these imbecilic, self-serving gestures and attempts to explain them away with old clichés like “its’s their right to express themselves and their opinion”, the more they will occur. Here is a news flash: showing disrespect for the Flag of our Nation and the Uniform which bears our name USA and flag is disgraceful and should be met with immediate repudiation, dismissal from the team, forfeiture of any medals earned, and a ticket home. And, if the Commissioners of the NFL, MLB, and the NBA each grew a pair, they would lay down the law and institute a rule that addresses such protests and exhibits as a flagrant violation of the player’s personal service contracts with grounds for dismissal and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. If players feel strongly about their need to protest, leave the U.S. and go and compete for another country because they sure as hell don’t appreciate the one that provided them with the opportunity for recognition and fan adulation as well as making millions while playing a sport!
9. When will Director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, release the infamous Hunter Biden laptop? A better question is: Why aren’t Republicans demanding this
10. Listening to Attorney General, Merrick Garland, I now know why Mitch McConnell refused to bring his name to the floor for a vote as a Supreme Court Justice. AG Garland is a poster boy for the Left and Joe Biden’s lackey. What a putz.
11. Maybe it’s just me, but I sure get the strong sense that President Biden is not in control but is rather doing the bidding of Barack Hussein Obama, the Great Divider in Chief a/k/a DIC himself, Michelle Obama, and Valerie Jarrett.
12. It is now almost six months since Joe Biden took the oath as President of the United States, swearing to “preserve protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Yet, since that day, I cannot think of one policy, one executive order, one regulation enacted by President Biden that was beneficial to America and Americans. Not one. Indeed, I can make the argument that virtually all of his actions have served to weaken, not strengthen our nation, and harm not help its citizens. What do you think?
13. Don’t you find it fascinating how Dr. Anthony Fauci has seemingly vanished as a media darling these days? Funny how that happens when the news mounts that the Chinese Virus a/k/a Covid-19 is now believed to have been the result of a “leak” from the Wuhan China Institute of Virology (intentional or unintentional is yet to be determined). Curious also is the mounting evidence that the National Institutes of Health here in the U.S. had been funding research into Coronavirus at the Wuhan Laboratory. Why would America be spending U.S. taxpayers' money to fund this research in China?
14. I’m wondering why the Biden Administration is so hell-bent on getting back into the Iran Nuclear Deal and willing to back off sanctions that will allow Iran access to hundreds of billions in financing? Are we that naïve to believe Iran, the single largest state sponsor of terror in the world will suddenly amend its ways and join the community of nations? Have we learned nothing from history? And what about our staunch Middle East Ally, Israel, a nation Iran wants to destroy by any means possible? The Abraham Accords have ushered in a welcome era of peace between Israel and the Arab States, none of whom are comfortable with Iran. Biden’s overtures to Iran make little sense but, then again, much of what has transpired since this feeble old man has taken office does.
15. I cannot for the life of me understand why news organizations give so much time and exposure to people like Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Rashida Tlaib. They spew such ignorance, rarely make any sense, and offer nothing constructive to America. More than that, they lack even a basic understanding of American capitalism and history, and are not at all grounded in economics.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
