I will be merging my site with a new conservative blog called the American Free News Network – americanfreenewsnetwork.org. It was started by a fellow RedState alum, retired Army Col. Mike Ford.
AFNN is a non-profit media platform conceived and created for the purpose of advancing the interests of American citizens who have been disenfranchised by the legacy media, Big Tech and politicians of both parties. AFNN is the brainchild of a group of American conservative writers from all walks of life, including the military and private industry. Being very concerned about the level of censorship and in some cases, outright legal and financial coercion of conservative media and in some cases, themselves personally, they decided to do something about it.
The site currently has 32 featured writers and invites “citizen writers” to comment on the news of the day.
I want to thank you all for your support of The American Crisis and I hope you will join me over at AFNN.
Citing the mass shooting which left nine people dead at the San Jose, California, Valley Transportation Authority light rail yard two weeks ago, the city’s Democratic mayor, Sam Liccardo, has proposed measures that would require citizens who own guns to buy mandatory gun owners’ insurance and to pay an annual fee.
Liccardo spoke to reporters on Tuesday from the memorial set up at City Hall to honor the victims of the shooting. He said, “With council approval San Jose would become the first city in the United States to require every gun owner to have liability insurance coverage for their firearms. Second, San Jose would become the first U.S. city to require gun owners to pay a fee to compensate taxpayers for the public cost of responding to gun violence,” according to KPIX 5.
“And that way we can ensure that victims are compensated where there’s an insurable event,” Liccardo told those gathered. “And of course, insurance companies will help us make gun possession safer.”
The mayor did not specify the amount of the fee, but said he was working with a “team of experts” to determine what the right amount would be.
“We are cognizant, as the Second Amendment dictates, so that we will not be imposing fees that are so great as to be prohibitive to ownership. We want a fee that will compensate taxpayers for the cost of everything from emergency rooms to police response,” he added.
KPIX reports that there are several other proposals under consideration as well. These include:
Ghost Guns: San Jose would implement an ordinance to tighten loopholes in state law.
Video and audio recording of gun purchases: to reduce “straw purchases” where one party buys a firearm for another.
Gun Violence Restraining Orders: Public education campaign, and improved law enforcement training, and sponsoring state legislation.
“Looking Out for One Another”: Create a public campaign for community-based, crowd-sourced reporting of implied or explicit threats of violence.
Sam Paredes, Executive Director of Gun Owners of California, told KPIX that if Liccardo’s proposals are passed by the City Council, he will work with a coalition of gun rights supporters to fight it through the courts. He said, “I strongly believe that Mayor Sam Liccardo is trying to do things he has no authority to do.”
Paredes also noted that California has preemption laws in place to stop local governments from passing their own firearm laws.
The Giffords Law Center explains that “’Preemption’ occurs when a higher level of government [the state of California] removes regulatory power from a lower level of government [San Jose in this case].”
Paredes told KPIX, “Without that, various communities could sponsor their own laws governing firearms acquisition, sales, use and storage, and all of that. And law abiding citizens from other parts of the state would be breaking the law just by passing through some of these communities. That’s why no other city has successfully done what the mayor is proposing to do.”
“It is, we believe, very strongly unconstitutional for the government to require law-abiding citizens who are doing nothing more than exercising their Second Amendment rights to be required to have insurance, or to be taxed, while they are exercising that enumerated right,” he said.
The report said these measures will be presented to the Rules Committee next week. If they are approved by the Committee, “Liccardo’s proposal could move towards consideration before the full San Jose City Council before the end of June.”
KPIX noted that this is the second time Liccardo has put forward this proposal. The first occasion followed a shooting which killed three and wounded 17 people at the 2019 Gilroy Garlic Festival.
What this move boils down to is that Liccardo is trying to force San Jose residents to pay to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It doesn’t say that if the mayor so chooses, he may force his constituents to pay for the privilege of exercising this right.
Gun owners in San Jose are right to be concerned about Liccardo’s proposal. They are not felons who have lost their right to gun ownership.
This is an example of government overreach. It is a power grab that amounts to tyranny.
Last month, the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association saw fit to publish a “research article” entitled “On Having Whiteness” that was so vile and racist, even Newsweek appeared to be repelled by it.
The author, Dr. Donald Moss, who is white, describes “Whiteness” as “a malignant, parasitic-like condition” that primarily afflicts white people. “Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples.” Those who contract this disorder are pretty much doomed, for Moss tells us “there is not yet a permanent cure.”
Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has—a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. Effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social-historical interventions. Such interventions can reasonably aim only to reshape Whiteness’s infiltrated appetites—to reduce their intensity, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. When remembered and represented, the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function either as warning (“never again”) or as temptation (“great again”). Memorialization alone, therefore, is no guarantee against regression. There is not yet a permanent cure.
Rather than a scholarly description of a newly identified disorder, this article strikes me as the product of an individual who has been so completely immersed in the left’s war on “systemic racism,” that he can no longer see clearly.
This is not medical research, it’s politics. It’s propaganda thinly disguised as research. It’s meant to be trotted out as if to “prove” a political point.
Moss’ words are so absurd, they almost make Nikole Hannah-Jones, the creator of the 1619 Project, sound reasonable. Almost.
If one were trying to describe the symptoms of the affliction that has taken hold and spread throughout the American left in recent years like a California wildfire, Moss’ article could be “Exhibit A.”
This is the kind of dangerous and radical propaganda that dehumanizes entire groups of people and has historically served as the rationale behind genocides.
Is there any question that, if they could, the far left would put all conservatives into work camps?
This man has completely lost touch with reality and should himself seek psychiatric help.
The Daily Mail reports that Moss teaches psychoanalysis at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute and the San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis.
Fortunately, this article was widely condemned by people across the political spectrum.
Dr. Philip Pellegrino, a psychologist tweeted: ‘How do my colleagues consider this scholarship?’
How do my colleagues consider this scholarship? Anyone actuality take this seriously? #science#psychology
Unbelievable This man should loose his license immediately along with the people responsible for approving this embarrassment of a paper. They all need to be terminated from their positions and then hospitalized for their mental conditions. The Mentally ill have taken over.
In one week we have this ignorant fool “Dr” Moss with his river of verbal diarrhea printed in a medical journal and a psychiatrist at yale discussing her fantasies of murdering white people. Perhaps there is a problem in the psychoanalytic community that they create such scum.
Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Republican, replied to an absurd tweet from Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts on Monday in which she disparaged the Republicans refusal to support the unconstitutional For the People Act.
“Republicans have decided that the only way they can win is by preventing American citizens from voting. That should shock every American. But we can’t just sit back and watch their power grab. We have to fight back for our democracy by passing the #ForThePeopleAct,” Warren wrote.
Crenshaw responded to Warren by calling her words “a blatant lie.”
Hey @jack, I think you’re supposed to put a fact-check notice on these right?
Since her claim isn’t just “disputed or misleading”… but a blatant lie?
His November 2020 opponent, Elisa Cardnell, a Democrat, decided to interject herself into this debate and sent off a nasty tweet to Crenshaw: “The GOP has been singlemindedly chipping away at democracy for months. The reason you can’t see the objective truth isn’t because of your eyes; it’s because of how far you have your nose up your Dear Leader’s a$$.”
(Note: Cardnell has since switched her Twitter account to private. The Daily Wire provided screenshots of her messages.)
This was a rather low blow because Crenshaw lost his right eye in an IED attack while deployed to Afghanistan’s Helmand Province in 2012. He was recently forced to take a month’s leave of absence from Congress to undergo surgery on his left eye.
Still, he responded to Cardnell with humor rather than anger, which she really didn’t deserve. He wrote: “Actually it’s just ‘eye,’ singular.”
It’s not surprising that Crenshaw handled his former opponent’s comments so tactfully. Shortly before Election Day in 2018, Crenshaw’s grace endeared him to a nation. The Washington Post tells the story.
A couple of weeks before the election, Saturday Night Live’s Pete Davidson held up a photo of Crenshaw wearing an eyepatch and joked, “You may be surprised to hear he’s a congressional candidate from Texas and not a hit-man in a porno movie. I’m sorry, I know he lost his eye in war or whatever.”
The show’s creator, Lorne Michaels, called Crenshaw afterward to apologize and to invite him to come on the next show which he did, reluctantly.
Sitting next to Davidson the following weekend, he told viewers, “But, seriously, there’s a lot of lessons to learn here. Not just that the left and right can still agree on some things but also this: Americans can forgive one another. We can remember what brings us together as a country.”
Crenshaw told Americans that rather thanking a member of the military for their service, say “Never forget.”
According to the Post, “On June 15, 2012, when Crenshaw was 28, he and his platoon helicoptered into Helmand province on a last-minute mission to support a Marine Special Operations unit. At the time, Helmand was littered with improvised explosive devices. Bombs were so present in some areas that it was safer to crouch in place during oncoming fire — and wager on a sniper’s uncertain aim — than to dive for cover onto uncertain ground.”
The report said, “While Crenshaw’s platoon moved to secure a compound, an Afghan interpreter named Raqman, who wanted to become a Navy SEAL himself, responded to a call and crossed in front of Crenshaw. Raqman stepped on a pressure plate, triggering 15 pounds of explosives and suffering fatal injuries. Crenshaw, who was a couple of paces back, said he felt like he was hit by a truck while a firing squad shot at him. He was on the ground and his eyes were numb. The rest of his body screamed like it had been scratched open and doused in Tabasco. He reached down and felt his legs. Good sign. He had no vision, but assumed his eyes were just filled with dirt.”
While a medic was assessing the his injuries, Crenshaw said, “Dude, don’t ever get blown up. It really sucks.”
Considered a rising star in the Republican Party, Crenshaw first won his seat representing Texas’ 2nd congressional district in November 2018. He defeated seven opponents during the Republican primary, “then squashed a state legislator in a runoff.” Crenshaw won a second term in November.
Although the Democrats always maintain a steady stream of anti-Republican messaging, some efforts are more strategic and require more preparation than others. These are the major propaganda campaigns that truly move the needle.
We’ve seen the Democrats execute a handful of them since President Donald Trump first arrived on the scene. They all begin with a well-defined objective and a coordinated plan of action. The party works together and sticks together.
Because we’ve witnessed several of these from start to finish over the past six years, we’ve become adept at recognizing the signs that one has begun. You might read an article that sounds a little “off” in the New York Times, or hear an unusual remark from a Democratic politician. Then a week later, a pundit may refer to it on a cable show, and within a couple months, the entire American left is focused on it. This pattern has grown very familiar.
This strategy comes from the late communist/community organizer Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals,” which says, “Accuse your opponent of what you are doing, to create confusion and to inculcate voters against evidence of your own guilt.” Alinsky drew heavily from the writings of Karl Marx and from the tactics used by Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels famously pointed out that a lie, repeated a thousand times, becomes the truth.
Every propaganda campaign directed against the GOP has followed the same formula. The effort to portray then-candidate Donald Trump as a Russian asset began with Yahoo writer Michael Isikoff’s late September 2016 report that U.S. Intelligence officials were investigating ties between Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page and the Russians. Shortly afterward, a second article appeared in Mother Jones. Just before Election Day, The New York Times published another damaging story.
The questions surrounding then-President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky which ultimately led to his first impeachment originated in the same way.
The Democrats are in the early stages of advancing a new narrative and it goes like this: Republications are undermining our democracy and pose the greatest existential threat to America’s future as a democracy.
Aside from the fact that America is not a democracy, but a democratic republic, these remarks are breathtaking. Hypocrisy comes to mind. The Democrats are accusing Republicans of what they themselves are doing.
An early reference to this narrative came in a March Vox article, which was entitled, “The Republican revolt against democracy, explained in 13 charts.” Its lede states, “The Trump years revealed a dark truth: The Republican Party is no longer committed to democracy. These charts tell the story.” Author Zack Beauchamp writes:
The Republican Party is the biggest threat to American democracy today. It is a radical, obstructionist faction that has become hostile to the most basic democratic norm: that the other side should get to wield power when it wins elections.
A few years ago, these statements may have sounded like partisan Democratic hyperbole. But in the wake of the January 6 attack on the Capitol and Trump’s acquittal in the Senate on the charge of inciting it, they seem more a plain description of where we’re at as a country.
But how deep does the GOP’s problem with democracy run, really? How did things get so bad? And is it likely to get worse?
On Tuesday, an article by far-left economist Robert Reich topped the page over at RealClearPolitics. Reich was terribly upset about Joe Manchin’s decision to vote against the For the People Act. The title of the piece? “American democracy is fighting for its life – and Republicans don’t care.” After glancing at the title, I thought a conservative must have written it. I was wrong.
Referring to the voter reform laws recently passed in Georgia and Florida, he wrote: “Then came the post-Trump deluge of state laws making it harder for likely Democrats to vote, and easier for Republican state legislatures to manipulate voting tallies.” Reich is living in an alternate universe.
Also on Tuesday, The New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay, the one who found the dozens of American flags she saw on pickup trucks in Long Island to be so intolerable, appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” I posted about her remarks here.
She told the panel: “Trump flags, and in some cases, just dozens of American flags, which is also just disturbing, because essentially the message was clear, ‘This is my country. This is not your country. I own this.’”
“Because, you know, the Trump voters who are not going to get onboard with democracy, they’re a minority. You can marginalize them, long-term. But if we don’t take the threat seriously, then I think we’re all in really bad shape,” Gay said.
Brzezinski “totally” agreed – naturally.
Conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza joined Fox News’ Laura Ingraham to discuss the Democrats’ latest propaganda campaign on Monday night.
Ingraham was outraged. “The idea Dinesh that the Republicans are anti-democratic? They’re the most anti-democratic people out there. They shove these mandates down. They want us all scared. They don’t want our freedoms to be protected. In the end, they’re the oppressors.”
D’Souza said, “The left uses the rhetoric of democracy, but in reality, they don’t really believe in it. They believe that public opinion is something to be moulded from above. And this is why they’ve created this coordinated set of institutions from education to the media, ultimately to tell the public what to believe.”
Ingraham played a clip of Rep. Jim Clyburne (D-SC) who was upset that H.R. 1’s chances of passage are all but dead. His words illustrated the point perfectly. Clyburne said, “If we’re not careful, the greatest democracy on the face of the earth will go the way of the Roman Empire.”
The Democrats want to take away all vestiges of democracy so they can maintain power for the long-term. Then, they’ll blame it on the Republicans.
Mark my words.
The Democrat Party uses the rhetoric of democracy, but in reality, they believe the American public is something to be molded from above.https://t.co/Nn0LEBNuFt
Apparently, the shows of patriotism and support for former President Donald Trump witnessed by The New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay on a weekend trip to Long Island were a little more than she could bear.
In a Tuesday appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Gay told the panel she was disturbed. “Really disturbed.”
The topic was an op-ed written by The Washington Post’s Max Boot entitled “Too many people are still underestimating the Trump Threat.”
“You know, it’s really concerning to me that the Democrats haven’t just gone ahead at this point and said, ‘We’re doing this on our own’ in terms of getting a commission together to explain to the American people how we allowed the insurrection to take place in the Capitol. I think that really needs to move forward swiftly,” Gay explained.
“The reality is here is that we have a large percentage of the American population, I don’t know how big it is, but we have tens of millions of Trump voters who continue to believe that their rights as citizens are under threat by the simple virtue of having to share the democracy with others. I think as long as they see Americanness the same as one with whiteness, this is going to continue.”
“We have to figure out how to get every American a place at the table in this democracy, but how to separate Americanness, America, from whiteness. Until we can confront that and talk about that, this is really going to continue,” she cautioned.
“I was on Long Island this weekend, visiting a really dear friend and I was really disturbed. I saw, you know, dozens and dozens of pickup trucks with explicatives [expletives] against Joe Biden on the back of them, Trump flags, and in some cases, just dozens of American flags, which is also just disturbing, because essentially the message was clear, ‘This is my country. This is not your country. I own this.'”
“That is the real concern,” she said. “Because, you know, the Trump voters who are not going to get onboard with democracy, they’re a minority. You can marginalize them, long-term. But if we don’t take the threat seriously, then I think we’re all in really bad shape.”
Brzezinski “totally” agreed.
I can understand how a Biden supporter would find the sight of a large number of Trump flags offensive. But the only reason why seeing dozens of American flags could be disturbing is if you hate America.
I find it odd that she reads so much into the sight of an American flag on a pickup truck. The message, Gay said, was clear. ‘This is my country. This is not your country. I own this.’
When I see a flag on a pickup truck, I think, ‘Oh, there’s a fellow patriot.’ I smile and put up a hand. But when you hate America, I imagine it’s a different story altogether.
Gay believes the solution to our country’s woes is that we must separate “Americanness” from “whiteness.” I don’t see “Americanness” in terms of whiteness or blackness or brownness. Do you?
If you find it difficult to relate to Gay’s comments, you’re in good company. You won’t be surprised to hear that her remarks elicited a fair amount of criticism and derision online. But Gay was able to handle it.
I see I’m being trolled with the American flag this morning. Trolling a Black journalist with the American flag is not the own some people think it is.
First, I must credit RedState’s Mike Miller with discovering this little gem. You will never find a more rational, unassailable and succinct argument against reparations.
Listen to what this young woman has to say:
I’m seeing a lot of talk about reparations on Tik Tok, Twitter. There’s a pastor in Tulsa who says we cannot have true reconciliation and healing without reparations. I don’t agree with that. It’s 2021. How are we to determine who gets reparations and who doesn’t? Again, it’s 2021. Not every black person is the descendant of a slave and not every descendant of a slave is black. Not every person who was a slave was black.
And are we talking about slaves who were freed when the war ended or slaves who were freed maybe even decades after the first slave ships arrived? In a lot of the northern states, slavery ended just after the Revolutionary War. But I digress.
Reparations as a first step to healing. Uh, uh.
The first step to healing is forgiveness. If the first thing that comes out of your mouth is, ‘Well, they don’t deserve forgiveness,’ sit down, let me learn you a thing or two.
Time heals all wounds, but if you have a wound that hasn’t healed, it’s probably because you’re still picking at it. If you fill your heart with bitterness, there’s no room for joy, there’s no room for peace. Holding onto bitterness is bondage and many of you all have chained yourself to the dead. Even worse, some of you all have passed that bitterness down to your children. Forgiveness isn’t for that other person. It’s for you. It’s to set you free.
Calls for reparations have simmered in the U.S. for decades. But they’ve grown louder and more insistent since The New York Times’ deliberate political decision to rewrite history in August 2019 – the introduction of their controversial and absurd 1619 Project.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Their three-year-long full court press to portray President Donald Trump as an agent of Russia had just ended in the dumpster fire that was former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s disastrous July 2019 testimony before Congress.
Knowing the power and influence his newspaper had in steering American political discourse, Times’ editor Dean Baquet and his minions conceived a new plan. They would make race a central issue in the upcoming 2020 election and tie it around Trump’s neck.
Weeks after Mueller’s debacle, Baquet held a “crisis employee townhall” during which he issued his marching orders to the staff. (I posted about this meeting here.)
The death of George Floyd in May 2020 served as an accelerant to the false narrative the newspaper had tried so hard to thrust into the national conversation.
Suddenly, the idea that blacks are entitled to reparations because of slavery became a serious demand among Democrats.
There’s not much I can add to the very strong case against reparations made above. Although I agree that slavery was a terrible institution, I don’t feel any personal responsibility for it, nor any of the white guilt the left tells us we should feel.
Blacks have greater opportunities available to them in the U.S. than in any other country. I can’t think of a nation that works harder to address racism than America.
Democrats need to look at themselves. They want to keep blacks in a “dependent” state because it allows them to maintain power over a critical voting block. They’re setting the foundations to do the same thing to Latinos.
Why not introduce the idea of personal responsibility? Why not empower blacks to break out of the cycle that continues to keep them stuck? Incalculable numbers of blacks have found success in today’s America. They are the ones who don’t buy into the Democrats’ BS.
Dr. Steven Quay, founder of Atossa Therapeutics, and Richard Muller, emeritus professor of physics at the University of California Berkeley and a former senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, make the case in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, that it is almost impossible for COVID-19 to have occurred naturally.
The reason for this conclusion is that “the Covid-19 pathogen has a genetic footprint that has never been observed in a natural coronavirus.”
A vast amount of circumstantial evidence has come to light over the past few weeks which supports the theory that the coronavirus originated in a lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China.
First, the Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee released a report on May 19 which points to the lab leak theory. Four days later, The Wall Street Journal reported that three researchers from the Wuhan lab had fallen ill in November 2019 and were hospitalized “with symptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and common seasonal illness.”
In addition, we’ve learned that gain-of-function research was being conducted with the pathogens that cause the coronavirus. And China’s refusal to provide information or access to the facility to outside scientists gives the impression that they’re trying to hide something.
It is highly doubtful that the Chinese government will ever admit the truth.
Quay and Muller, however, have studied the genome, which they define as a “blueprint for the factory of a cell to make proteins,” of CoV-2 and have concluded that the probability of this occurring in nature is almost nil.
A scientist can “increase the lethality of a coronavirus enormously by splicing a special sequence into its genome at a prime location. Doing this leaves no trace of manipulation. But it alters the virus spike protein, rendering it easier for the virus to inject genetic material into the victim cell,” they explain.
They note that this has been done 11 times since 1992 and each time, the result has been a supercharged virus.
Scientists often use the amino acid arginine to supercharge viruses. One of the “words” used to describe arginine is “CGG-CGG,” a combination they say has “never been found naturally … in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2.”
“Now the damning fact,” they explain. “It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2. Proponents of zoonotic origin must explain why the novel coronavirus, when it mutated or recombined, happened to pick its least favorite combination, the double CGG. Why did it replicate the choice the lab’s gain-of-function researchers would have made?”
“Yes, it could have happened randomly, through mutations,” they admit. “But do you believe that? At the minimum, this fact—that the coronavirus, with all its random possibilities, took the rare and unnatural combination used by human researchers—implies that the leading theory for the origin of the coronavirus must be laboratory escape.”
In February 2020, Shi Zhengli, the Chinese virologist who researches SARS-like coronaviruses of bat origin, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, published a paper with “the virus’s partial genome.” She left out “the special sequence that supercharges the virus or the rare double CGG section.”
Quay and Muller wrote that they were able to identify “the fingerprint” from other data in the report.
Several weeks later, virologist Bruno Coutard and his team discovered and published the sequence and the “double CGG is there; you only have to look. They comment in their paper that the protein that held it ‘may provide a gain-of-function’ capability to the virus, ‘for efficient spreading’ to humans.”
Moreover, they explain the differences between CoV2 and the coronaviruses that cause SARS and MERS, both of which have natural origins. SARS and MERS, because of their natural origins mutated quickly.
On the other hand, CoV2 “appeared in humans already adapted into an extremely contagious version. No serious viral ‘improvement’ took place until a minor variation occurred many months later in England.” That makes sense. Scientists were worried early on about mutations, but it wasn’t until December that we began hearing about variants in Britain and Africa and certain regions of the U.S.
They explain that “such early optimization is unprecedented, and it suggests a long period of adaptation that predated its public spread. Science knows of only one way that could be achieved: simulated natural evolution, growing the virus on human cells until the optimum is achieved. That is precisely what is done in gain-of-function research. Mice that are genetically modified to have the same coronavirus receptor as humans, called “humanized mice,” are repeatedly exposed to the virus to encourage adaptation.”
“The presence of the double CGG sequence is strong evidence of gene splicing, and the absence of diversity in the public outbreak suggests gain-of-function acceleration. The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory.”
Last week, we learned from Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails that when Kristian G. Andersen, a professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology at Scripps Research Institute, first examined the genome, he noticed “unusual features” that made it “(potentially) look engineered.”
Andersen wrote: “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.”
“… I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.”
In a later paper, Andersen was on board with the “natural origin” theory.
The National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney, recently wrote an article entitled, “The Lab Leak Theory: Evidence Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” He said that “every good prosecutor will tell you that the best case is a strong circumstantial case — and that’s exactly what we have.”
The New York Times delivered some surprising news to Democrats on Sunday. The results of a study commissioned by three “major Democratic interest groups,” including Third Way, the Collective PAC and the Latino Victory Fund, showed that except for President Joe Biden, Democrats underperformed expectations in the November 2020 election.
The report, which is essentially an election post-mortem, has apparently left Democrats scratching their heads. According to the Times’ Alexander Burns, the report warns that Democrats are “at risk of losing ground with Black, Hispanic and Asian American voters unless it does a better job presenting an economic agenda and countering Republican efforts to spread misinformation and tie all Democratic candidates to the far left.”
“Democrats in 2020 lacked a core argument about the economy and recovering from the coronavirus pandemic,” the study found.
The Times cited an interview with former Florida Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, a Democrat who lost her bid for reelection. She had been concerned about “Democratic outreach to Hispanic voters and the party’s failure to rebut misinformation in Spanish-language media.”
Mucarsel-Powell said, “Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has in some ways lost touch with our electorate. There is this assumption that, of course, people of color, or the working class, are going to vote for Democrats. We can never assume anything.”
Obviously, I disagree that the GOP was disseminating misinformation, but, otherwise, she is spot on.
Party insiders said that Republicans’ efforts to paint Democrats as radicals who wanted to defund the police hurt them as well.
Matt Bennett, a Third Way strategist (one of the three groups that contributed to the report), said “We have got to take very seriously these attacks on Democrats as radicals.” Unbelievably, he added, “A lot of this just didn’t land on Joe Biden.”
As for why Biden outperformed Democratic House and Senate candidates, the study concludes that “voters of color loathed Mr. Trump but distrusted the Democratic Party as a whole. Those constituencies included Hispanic voters in Florida and Texas, Vietnamese American and Filipino American voters in California, and Black voters in North Carolina.”
I have my own ideas about why “this just didn’t land on Biden” and why he “outperformed” House and Senate Democrats, but I digress.
As for painting the entire Democratic Party as radicals, while they are not all as radical as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, there’s no denying the entire party has shifted to the left.
Look no further than the House vote for H.R. 1, which would have taken power over elections away from the states, ended all voter ID laws, and ensured one party rule in America for years to come. It passed in the House by a 220-210 vote. There was no Republican support for the bill and only one Democrat voted against it.
All Republicans oppose the Senate version of the bill and only one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia opposes it.
That gives us a pretty clear idea of how radical the entire party has become.
Moreover, the Democrats had no message other than, ‘We hate Trump and we need to remove him from the White House.’ They had no alternative plan to deal with the pandemic. For all of his criticism of Trump’s handling of it, Biden has simply continued to follow the plan that was put in place by the Trump Administration.
Biden hesitated, wisely, to talk about his radical plans ahead of the elections. Instead, on the few occasions he appeared in public, he was just good old Joe the moderate, and he wanted to unify the country. Once he took office, however, he morphed into Joe the radical and unity was cast aside.
In regard to Democrats taking minority support for granted, that’s a given. The party just keeps on increasing federal entitlements and minorities keep on showing up at the polls to vote for them.
In recent years, that pattern has begun to shift. President Trump was able to attract larger shares of the black and the Latino voting blocks in 2020 than in 2016. In 2016, he won 6 percent of the black vote and depending upon which pollster you listen to, his share increased to anywhere from 8 (Associated Press) to 12 percent (Edison Research) in 2020.
In 2016, Trump received 29 percent of the Latino vote and his share climbed to 32 percent in 2020.
These changes may sound small, but each additional percentage point is significant.
Now Democrats are learning they might have to actually work a little to keep those votes.
Over the weekend, the party had a surprising loss in a mayoral race in the deep blue Texas border town of McAllen, Texas. They also lost a second mayoral race in Ft. Worth, Texas, a city with a history of voting for Democrats.
Could it be that Biden’s open border policy and the humanitarian crisis that has materialized as a result are hurting the party? As excited as Steve Cortes and Ronna McDaniel are about these wins, we can’t divine too much from two mayoral races.
But it’s just possible that minorities are looking at the mess around them, especially those in border states that have been hit hard by the immigration crisis and wondering why the heck they continue to vote for Democrats?
Amazing news! McAllen, Texas is a major border town of 140,000 people. 85% Hispanic — and just elected a Republican mayor.
The macro realignment accelerates in South Texas, and elsewhere, as Hispanics rally to America First:
Both rightly rejected Biden and Harris’ failed policies and voted for the GOP. Whether rejecting a crisis at the border or a squandered economic recovery, these municipalities moved decidedly toward the GOP, because our policies work. (2/2)
Sunday, June 6, was the 77th anniversary of D-Day, the most significant date in the history of World War II. The Allied invasion of Normandy was the largest amphibious assault ever carried out. It marked the start of the two month long Battle of Normandy which ultimately liberated France from the German occupation.
Historians have calculated the number of confirmed Allied fatalities on that first day alone to be 4,415, according to the National D-Day Memorial. Total Allied casualties are estimated at nearly 10,000. Codenamed “Operation Overlord,” the D-Day landing involved “over 5,000 ships, 11,000 airplanes, and over 150,000 service men.”
Allied heads of state have traditionally marked this day of remembrance by honoring the brave men who sacrificed so much on the shores of Normandy so that we may enjoy freedom today.
Two years ago, then-President Donald Trump delivered one of the most powerful speeches of his presidency on the anniversary of D-Day. He even drew praise from critics such as MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and CNN’s Jim Acosta.
Not so for President Joe Biden, who neglected to acknowledge the momentous occasion at all. Instead, he chose to pay tribute to the survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Massacre.
I met with survivors of the Tulsa Massacre this week to help fill the silence. Because in silence, wounds deepen. And, as painful as it is, only in remembrance do wounds heal. pic.twitter.com/0mLMRAhJiD
My intention is not to minimize the atrocity which occurred on May 31, 1921 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It is arguably the single most tragic day in the history of racial violence in the U.S. I posted about the National Black Power Convention held last weekend in Tulsa to mark this sad chapter in history here.
For those who may be unfamiliar with this event, in the early 1900s, a large number of African Americans settled in the Greenwood district of Tulsa.
According to History.com, the neighborhood “grew and flourished as a Black economic and cultural mecca—until May 31, 1921. That’s when a white mob began a rampage through some 35 square blocks, decimating the community known proudly as ‘Black Wall Street.’ Armed rioters, many deputized by local police, looted and burned down businesses, homes, schools, churches, a hospital, hotel, public library, newspaper offices and more. While the official death toll of the Tulsa race massacre was 36, historians estimate it may have been as high as 300. As many as 10,000 people were left homeless.”
The events that took place 100 years ago in Tulsa were heinous. No one is denying that.
But Biden had already acknowledged the anniversary. He traveled to Tulsa last Tuesday to commemorate the occasion.
He spoke to survivors. His comments ranged from the ludicrous to the downright dangerous. Please read my post “Biden Managed a Trifecta of Stupid in His Tulsa Massacre Speech” to see for yourself just how disturbing his remarks really were.
The Tulsa Massacre anniversary rated a trip to Oklahoma, but the memory of D-Day, a date that changed the course of world history, didn’t elicit even a mention from the President of the United States.
Biden’s failure to recognize D-Day tells us, and our foreign adversaries, a lot about his and his administration’s priorities.
During his speech last week in Tulsa, Biden said, “According to the intelligence community, terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today. Not ISIS, not Al Qaeda, white supremacy. That’s not me. That’s the intelligence community.”
BIDEN: "According to the intelligence community, terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today." pic.twitter.com/Mm0KISuiyy
On Sunday night, former Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, now a Fox News contributor, concluded his new Fox News program by posing a question to those who can’t answer, those who sacrificed their lives on D-Day. A visibly emotionally Gowdy asked: “Was it worth it?”
“Was it worth it to the men and the women who were killed serving, protecting and defending this country?, Gowdy asked. ” … You might frame the question differently, you may ask, ‘Are we worth it?’ Are we now, as a country, what you sacrificed for us to be? Are we worth, as a country, worth what you gave up? … ”
He continued: “I do wonder sometimes what those women and men who died on behalf of this country would say. … When we reflect on the state of our politics, was it worth dying for? When we reflect on what has become of our first amendment, was it worth losing your life over? When we reflect on the divisions in our country, these divisions that seem so intractable at times, was it worth dying for? … ”
“Have we become the country you imagined we would be when you fought and fell for us? Is this the America you dreamed of when you were taking your last breath? … ”
If you were an eighteen-year-old boy traveling aboard a “Higgins boat” headed for Normandy, nauseous from the rough seas, frightened out of your mind because you knew you might lose your life in the next few hours, would it be worth it?
Perhaps five months ago, when we had a patriotic president who loved America, the answer might have been yes. But what if they were shown a clip of Biden or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spewing their stupidity? Desperately trying to take away our liberties for the sake of political power? Or Dr. Anthony Fauci conspiring with his cronies in the world scientific community to turn the lab leak theory into a conspiracy theory? What if they were shown a clip of Rep. Adam Schiff trying to impeach a president over what he knew to be lies? What would they think about H.R. 1, the Democrats’ latest attempt to consolidate power for years to come?
The answer might be no. Because they would see that the most dangerous threat America faces today is our own government.