Has it Become ‘Partisan’ and ‘Anti-Democratic’ to Choose Freedom or to Defend the Constitution?

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by StudioLabs from Pixabay

When I launched this blog a couple of months ago, WordPress recommended the addition of a tagline. I wrote that it was the winter of 1776 in America today. I quickly deleted it thinking it might sound overly dramatic.

But as the missteps of the Biden Administration pile up, and Americans’ liberties are under assault as never before, I find myself reconsidering that statement.

I was reminded of the tagline again last week after reading the open letter signed by a group of 124 retired generals and admirals (reprinted below) which lays out the “full-blown assault” on our Constitutional rights since the start of the Biden Administration. The signers also question the integrity of the election that brought us this administration.

The missive begins as follows: “Our Nation is in deep peril. We are in a fight for our survival as a Constitutional Republic like no other time since our founding in 1776.”

Far from recommending revolution in the streets, the retired commanders write that the problems we face “must be countered now by electing congressional and presidential candidates who will always act to defend our Constitutional Republic.”

Unable to argue against the truth contained in their message, the left is up in arms over the group’s politicization of the military.

Left wing media outlet Politico immediately called out the letter in an article entitled, “‘Disturbing and reckless’: Retired brass spread election lie in attack on Biden, Democrats.” They cite several former and current members of the military who strongly condemn this effort.

One serving Navy officer, who did not want to be identified publicly, called it “disturbing and reckless.”

Jim Golby, an expert in civil-military relations, called it a “shameful effort to use their rank and the military’s reputation for such a gross and blatant partisan attack,” while a retired Air Force colonel who teaches cadets at the Air Force Academy, Marybeth Ulrich, labeled it “anti-democratic.”

“I think it hurts the military and by extension it hurts the country,” said retired Adm. Mike Mullen, a former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, describing it as replete with “right-wing Republican talking points.”

Has it become “partisan” to want Americans to embrace freedom and liberty, the principles upon which our nation was founded? Is it really “disturbing and reckless” to ask that the Biden Administration obey and enforce our founding document, the Constitution? Is it “anti-democratic” to ensure our elections remain free and fair? Or to encourage Americans to elect candidates who will defend the Constitution?

There is nothing radical in this letter.

As for members of the military remaining apolitical, did they forget Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin’s hyper-political crusade to root out radical extremists (aka Trump supporters) from the military? Or his highly partisan fight against what the Biden Administration considers the newest threat to national security, climate change?

How about the rabid efforts of retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Obama’s top commander in Afghanistan, to derail President Trump’s reelection?

Trump’s former Defense Secretary James Mattis resigned because he disagreed with his commander in chief’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria. Mattis, Mr. Integrity, has accused Trump of dividing Americans and referred to him as a threat to the Constitution.

Examples of former military brass speaking on behalf of Democrats and/or to denigrate Trump abound and are entirely acceptable. It’s only the reverse that is taboo.

Questioned by Politico, retired Army Maj. Gen. Joe Arbuckle, who organized the letter, responded by email. He wrote “retired generals and admirals normally do not engage in political actions, but the situation facing our nation today is dire and we must speak out in order to be faithful to our oath to support and defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

“We are facing threats greater than at any other time since our country was founded … many of these threats flow directly from policy positions and actions of our own government. It is critical that the threats to our national security be brought to the attention of the American people and that is the main purpose of the letter. To remain silent would be a dereliction of duty,” he added.

It would indeed.

Fellow Americans, it is the winter of 1776.

Please read this important letter.

 

Open Letter from Retired Generals and Admirals: May 11, 2021

“We are in a fight for our survival as a Constitutional Republic like no other time since our founding in 1776. The conflict is between supporters of Socialism and Marxism vs. supporters of Constitutional freedom and liberty.

“During the 2020 election an “Open Letter from Senior Military Leaders” was signed by 317 retired Generals and Admirals and, it said the 2020 election could be the most important election since our country was founded. “With the Democrat Party welcoming Socialists and Marxists, our historic way of life is at stake.” Unfortunately, that statement’s truth was quickly revealed, beginning with the election process itself.

“Without fair and honest elections that accurately reflect the “will of the people” our Constitutional Republic is lost. Election integrity demands insuring there is one legal vote cast and counted per citizen. Legal votes are identified by State Legislature’s approved controls using government IDs, verified signatures, etc. Today, many are calling such commonsense controls “racist” in an attempt to avoid having fair and honest elections. Using racial terms to suppress proof of eligibility is itself a tyrannical intimidation tactic. Additionally, the “Rule of Law” must be enforced in our election processes to ensure integrity. The FBI and Supreme Court must act swiftly when election irregularities are surfaced and not ignore them as was done in 2020. Finally, H.R.1 & S.1, (if passed), would destroy election fairness and allow Democrats to forever remain in power violating our Constitution and ending our Representative Republic.

“Aside from the election, the Current Administration has launched a full-blown assault on our Constitutional rights in a dictatorial manner, bypassing the Congress, with more than 50 Executive Orders quickly signed, many reversing the previous Administration’s effective policies and regulations. Moreover, population control actions such as excessive lockdowns, school and business closures, and most alarming, censorship of written and verbal expression are all direct assaults on our fundamental Rights. We must support and hold accountable politicians who will act to counter Socialism, Marxism and Progressivism, support our Constitutional Republic, and insist on fiscally responsible governing while focusing on all Americans, especially the middle class, not special interest or extremist groups which are used to divide us into warring factions.

“Additional National Security Issues and Actions:

• Open borders jeopardize national security by increasing human trafficking, drug cartels, terrorists entry, health/CV19 dangers, and humanitarian crises. Illegals are flooding our Country bringing high economic costs, crime, lowering wages, and illegal voting in some states. We must reestablish border controls and continue building the wall while supporting our dedicated border control personnel. Sovereign nations must have controlled borders.

• China is the greatest external threat to America. Establishing cooperative relations with the Chinese Communist Party emboldens them to continue progress toward world domination, militarily, economically, politically and technologically. We must impose more sanctions and restrictions to impede their world domination goal and protect America’s interests.

• The free flow of information is critical to the security of our Republic, as illustrated by freedom of speech and the press being in the 1st Amendment of our Constitution. Censoring speech and expression, distorting speech, spreading disinformation by government officials, private entities, and the media is a method to suppress the free flow of information, a tyrannical technique used in closed societies. We must counter this on all fronts beginning with removing Section 230 protection from big tech.

• Re-engaging in the flawed Iran Nuclear Deal would result in Iran acquiring nuclear weapons along with the means to deliver them, thereby upsetting Mideast peace initiatives and aiding a terrorist nation whose slogans and goals include “death to America” and “death to Israel”. We must resist the new China/Iran agreement and not support the Iran Nuclear Deal. In addition, continue with the Mideast peace initiatives, the “Abraham Accords,” and support for Israel.

• Stopping the Keystone Pipeline eliminates our recently established energy independence and causes us to be energy dependent on nations not friendly to us, while eliminating valuable US jobs. We must open the Keystone Pipeline and regain our energy independence for national security and economic reasons.

• Using the U.S. military as political pawns with thousands of troops deployed around the U.S. Capitol Building, patrolling fences guarding against a non-existent threat, along with forcing Politically Correct policies like the divisive critical race theory into the military at the expense of the War Fighting Mission, seriously degrades readiness to fight and win our Nation’s wars, creating a major national security issue. We must support our Military and Vets; focus on war fighting, eliminate the corrosive infusion of Political Correctness into our military which damages morale and war fighting cohesion.

• The “Rule of Law” is fundamental to our Republic and security. Anarchy as seen in certain cities cannot be tolerated. We must support our law enforcement personnel and insist that DAs, our courts, and the DOJ enforce the law equally, fairly, and consistently toward all.

• The mental and physical condition of the Commander in Chief cannot be ignored. He must be able to quickly make accurate national security decisions involving life and limb anywhere, day or night. Recent Democrat leadership’s inquiries about nuclear code procedures sends a dangerous national security signal to nuclear armed adversaries, raising the question about who is in charge. We must always have an unquestionable chain of command.

“Under a Democrat Congress and the Current Administration, our Country has taken a hard left turn toward Socialism and a Marxist form of tyrannical government which must be countered now by electing congressional and presidential candidates who will always act to defend our Constitutional Republic. The survival of our Nation and its cherished freedoms, liberty, and historic values are at stake.

“We urge all citizens to get involved now at the local, state and/or national level to elect political representatives who will act to Save America, our Constitutional Republic, and hold those currently in office accountable. The “will of the people” must be heard and followed.”

Signed by:

RADM Ernest B. Acklin, USCG, ret.
MG Joseph T. Anderson, USMC, ret.
RADM Philip Anselmo, USN, ret.
MG Joseph Arbuckle, USA, ret.
BG John Arick, USMC, ret.
RADM Jon W. Bayless, Jr. USN, ret.
RDML James Best, USN, ret.
BG Charles Bishop, USAF, ret.
BG William A. Bloomer, USMC, ret.
BG Donald Bolduc, USA, ret.
LTG William G. Boykin, USA, ret.
MG Edward R. Bracken, USAF, ret.
MG Patrick H. Brady, MOH, USA, ret.
VADM Edward S. Briggs, USN, ret.
LTG Richard “Tex’ Brown III USAF, ret.
BG Frank Bruno, USAF, ret.
VADM Toney M. Bucchi, USN, ret.
RADM John T. Byrd, USN, ret.
BG Jimmy Cash, USAF, ret.
LTG Dennis D. Cavin, USA, ret.
LTG James E. Chambers, USAF, ret.
MG Carroll D. Childers, USA, ret.
BG Clifton C. “Tip” Clark, USAF, ret.
VADM Ed Clexton, USN, ret.
MG Jay Closner, USAF, ret
MG Tommy F. Crawford, USAF, ret.
MG Robert E. Dempsey, USAF, ret.
BG Phillip Drew, USAF, ret.
MG Neil L. Eddins, USAF, ret.
RADM Ernest Elliot, USN, ret.
BG Jerome V. Foust, USA, ret.
BG Jimmy E. Fowler, USA, ret.
RADM J. Cameron Fraser, USN, ret.
MG John T. Furlow, USA, ret.
MG Timothy F. Ghormley, USMC, ret.
MG Francis C. Gideon, USAF, ret.
MG Lee V. Greer, USAF, ret.
RDML Michael R. Groothousen, Sr., USN, ret.
BG John Grueser, USAF, ret.
MG Ken Hagemann, USAF, ret.
BG Norman Ham, USAF, ret.
VADM William Hancock, USN, ret.
LTG Henry J. Hatch, USA, ret.
BG James M. Hesson, USA, ret.
MG Bill Hobgood, USA, ret.
BG Stanislaus J. Hoey, USA, ret.
MG Bob Hollingsworth, USMC, ret.
MG Jerry D. Holmes, USAF, ret.
MG Clinton V. Horn, USAF, ret.
LTG Joseph E. Hurd, USAF, ret.
VADM Paul Ilg, USN, ret.
MG T. Irby, USA, ret.
LTG Ronald Iverson, USAF, ret.
RADM (L) Grady L. Jackson
MG William K. James, USAF, ret.
LTG James H. Johnson, Jr. USA, ret.
ADM. Jerome L. Johnson, USN, ret.
BG Charles Jones, USAF, ret.
BG Robert R. Jordan, USA, ret.
BG Jack H. Kotter, USA, ret.
MG Anthony R. Kropp, USA, ret.
RADM Chuck Kubic, USN, ret.
BG Jerry L. Laws, USA, ret.
BG Douglas E. Lee, USA, ret.
MG Vernon B. Lewis, USA, ret.
MG Thomas G. Lightner, USA, ret.
MG James E. Livingston, USMC, ret.
MOH MG John D. Logeman, USAF, ret.
MG Jarvis Lynch, USMC, ret.
LTG Fred McCorkle, USMC, ret.
MG Don McGregor, USAF, ret.
LTG Thomas McInerney, USAF, ret.
RADM John H. McKinley, USN, ret.
BG Michael P. McRaney, USAF, ret.
BG Ronald S. Mangum, USA, ret.
BG James M. Mead, USMC, ret.
BG Joe Mensching, USAF, ret.
RADM W. F. Merlin, USCG, ret.
RADM (L) Mark Milliken, USN, ret.
MG John F. Miller, USAF, ret.
RADM Ralph M. Mitchell, Jr. USN, ret.
MG Paul Mock, USA. ret.
BG Daniel I. Montgomery, USA, ret.,
RADM John A. Moriarty, USN, ret.,
RADM David R. Morris, USN, ret.
RADM Bill Newman, USN, ret.
BG Joe Oder, USA, ret.
MG O’Mara, USAF, ret.
MG Joe S. Owens, USA, ret.
VADM Jimmy Pappas, USN, ret.
LTG Garry L. Parks, USMC, ret.
RADM Russ Penniman, RADM, USN, ret.
RADM Leonard F. Picotte, ret.
VADM John Poindexter, USN, ret.
RADM Ronald Polant, USCG, ret.
MG Greg Power, USAF, ret.
RDM Brian Prindle, USN, ret.
RADM J.J. Quinn, USN, ret.
LTG Clifford H. Rees, Jr. USAF, ret.
RADM Norman T. Saunders, USCG, ret.
MG Richard V. Secord, USAF, ret.
RADM William R. Schmidt, USN, ret.
LTG Hubert Smith, USA, ret.
MG James N. Stewart, USAF, ret.
RADM Thomas Stone, USN., ret.
BG Joseph S. Stringham, USA, ret.
MG Michael Sullivan, USMC, ret.
RADM (U) Jeremy Taylor, USN, ret.
LTG David Teal, USAF, ret.
VADM Howard B. Thorsen, USCG, ret.
RADM Robert P. Tiernan, USN, ret.
LTG Garry Trexler, USAF, ret.
BG James T. Turlington, M.D., USAF, ret.
BG Richard J. Valente, USA ret.
MG Paul Vallely, USA, ret.
MG Russell L. Violett, USAF, ret.
BG George H. Walker, Jr. USAR Corp of Engineers, ret.
MG Kenneth Weir, USMCR, ret.
BG William O. Welch, USAF, ret.
MG John M. White, USAF, ret.
MG Geoffrey P. Wiedeman, JR. USAF, ret.
MG Richard O. Wightman, Jr., USA, ret.
RADM Denny Wisely, USN, ret.
LTG John Woodward, ret.

Chris Wallace Makes an Astute Observation as Psaki Stonewalls Him: ‘You Are Being Less Transparent Than the Trump Administration’

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

The Trump administration was often painted as doing nefarious things just out of the media’s eye despite the press being given access to many areas and events. The Biden administration is actively blocking reporters from covering the border crisis in person and stonewalling every attempt by journalists to get answers for the American people.

It took about a nanosecond for Fox News host Chris Wallace to realize that White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was not going to answer his questions either, prompting him to say, “You are being less transparent than the Trump Administration.”

Wallace opened the interview with a quote from President Joe Biden on the border crisis. Last week, Biden insisted, “Nothing has changed. … It happens every year.”

Wallace then read a comment from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas who said, “We are on pace to encounter more individuals on the southwest border than we have in the last 20 years.”

“So, who’s wrong,” he asked. “The DHS Secretary or the President?”

When Psaki begins an answer with “Well, first factually,” one knows that what follows will be a whopper and it was.

“There was an increase of about 31 percent of people coming to the border during the final months of the Trump Administration. It’s been about a 29 percent increase since Biden took office. But our focus is on solutions,” Psaki told him. Dodging the question, she then went on to enumerate all of the steps they are taking to protect children.

Well aware that immigrants likely began planning their journeys on Nov. 4, and the 31 percent figure Psaki quoted belonged to Biden, Wallace said, “You can play with percentages, but in absolute numbers, these are record numbers. There are now 18,000 unaccompanied minors in U.S. custody. …”

“Well, Chris. Our objective is to take a different approach from the last administration,” Psaki replied. “We are not going to send children under the age of 18, kids under the age of 18 back on this treacherous journey. They are fleeing challenging economic circumstances, hurricanes, prosecution in some scenarios. It does not mean they get to stay in the United States. It means their cases are adjudicated. …”

Pivoting to the administration’s pledges of transparency, Wallace played a clip of Biden at last Thursday’s press conference. “You’ll have full access to everything once we get this thing moving.” Asked how soon that would be, Biden said, “I don’t know.”

He then showed a series of photos taken last week by members of Congress who had traveled to the border. “Jen, these kids are living in these conditions now. They’re not living in these conditions some indeterminate time from now when the President says everything will be fixed, so why not allow reporters and camera crews in, on a pool basis, safely to take pictures and show the American people what’s happening in those border patrol facilities right now.”

“Chris, we are absolutely committed to that. The President is committed to that. I’m committed to that. Secretary Mayorkas is committed to that,” she insisted. “Just last week we had a pool camera providing footage to Fox News, just last week into the shelters. We want to provide access into the Border Patrol facilities. We are mindful of the fact that we are in the middle of a pandemic. We want to keep these kids safe, keep the staff safe. We are absolutely committed to transparency and providing access to media … and we’re working to get that done as soon as we can.”

Wallace wasn’t going to let Psaki’s disingenuous statement slide. “Just to clarify Jen. You allowed a camera crew in to see the HHS facilities. What we’re talking about here are the border patrol facilities, the detention cells. … There is a law – let me just finish – that they are not allowed to be there for more than 72 hours. Many of them are there for ten days. At this point, in terms of allowing access to border patrol facilities for reporters, you are being less transparent than the Trump Administration.”

“The Trump administration was turning away kids at the border and sending them back on the treacherous journey, or they were ripping kids from the arms of their parents. We’re not doing that. We are committed to allowing cameras into the border patrol facilities, absolutely. We are committed to solutions.” Psaki said.

However, according to a March 17 report, two CBP officials told The Washington Examiner that “Biden Homeland Security officials have muzzled spokespersons and top officials at the Customs and Border Protection agency from speaking with the media about the situation on the border. … Officials have been placed under a sort of “gag order,” and they said they were told verbally not to communicate with media beyond statements approved from the top.”

Switching gears, Wallace said, “The president has come out strongly for the voting rights bill that has passed the House and is now being deliberated by the Senate. But look at some of the things that are in H.R. 1, the House voting rights bill. It creates public financing of congressional campaigns. It takes redistricting away from state legislatures and it opens the door to D.C. becoming a state.”

He asks Psaki, “Now, you can argue whether these are good ideas or bad ideas, but to get bipartisan agreement, to get compromise with Republicans, would the president consider supporting, taking some of those elements out and focusing just on voting rights?”

The press secretary delivers another non-answer. “Well, the president is absolutely open to the idea from Republicans, from Democrats, to make any piece of legislation better and stronger. But what he is not going to allow for is efforts to make it more difficult and harder to vote. And efforts to do that, people should question whether they have – why they would be doing that? If they have the best ideas, they should make it easier for people to vote. But you know, this is the process of a bill becoming a law – .”

“Chris, if Republicans want to come to the table have a discussion about what kind of package they can support to make voting more easy, easier and more accessible, the president is absolutely open to having that discussion.”

Wallace moved on to the filibuster. He noted that some Democrats were trying to convince Biden “to push to kill the Senate filibuster in order to pass legislation to protect voting rights.”

He played a clip of Biden from his press conference. “If there’s complete lockdown and chaos as a consequence of the filibuster, then we’ll have to go beyond what I’m talking about.”

Referencing Biden’s current characterization of the filibuster as “a relic of the Jim Crow era,” Wallace played a clip of Sen. Joe Biden when he supported the measure.

Biden said, “At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill. It’s about compromise and moderation.”

Pressing further, Wallace reminded Psaki that, “Just last year, Kamala Harris, when she was in the Senate, led the filibuster against Republican Senator Tim Scott, an African American, his plan for police reform. So, is the filibuster racist? Is it wrong?”

Psaki replied, “As the president said just last week, Chris, it’s been abused, and in the first 50 years of the filibuster being around, it was used about 50 times. It was used five times that many last year. The president doesn’t think that’s how the filibuster should be used.”

The Democrats often used the filibuster to block civil rights legislation. But no one is supposed to remind them of those days. Regarding its frequent use last year, it looks like Psaki forgot which party was in the minority.

Psaki continued with her deflection. “There’s an easy solution here, though, which the president would certainly advocate for, which is Democrats and Republicans, Republicans coming to the table with a willingness and an openness to discussing how we get things done. They want to come the table and talk about how to make voting easier, more accessible, let’s have that conversation. The president is eager to have it.”

“He’s not eager to move with destroying the filibuster,” she added. “He’s eager to get things done for the American people, but he’s also not going to stand by and prevent forward moving progress from happening. So that’s what people heard from him last week.”

Wallace rightly points out the obvious, “If you’re talking about abuse of the filibuster over the last two years, the Democrats were in the minority, so they were the ones abusing it.”

Could it be that the radical transformation of the U.S. government under the Biden Administration has become too much even for anti-Trumper Chris Wallace?

We learned nothing from this interview. From the get-go, Psaki was in defense mode. She struggled to provide cover for an administration whose real motive is to amass power for the Democratic Party and make it difficult for Republicans to ever win another presidential election.

We are witnessing the most flagrant power grab by a political party in American history. The Trump years left the Democrats emboldened. They paid no consequences for perpetrating a plot to frame then-President Donald Trump for crimes they knew were false, two bogus impeachments and so much more. Now that they control the White House and both chambers of Congress, they’re looking to consolidate that power so they can control the U.S. for generations to come.

Victor Davis Hanson: ‘We have become an absurd society obsessed with race’

Advertisements

Victor Davis Hanson is a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is a military historian, a columnist, a former classics professor, and one of the smartest conservative commentators ever.

In his latest column at American Greatness, he asks if America is (hopefully, finally) hitting woke herd immunity as two recent polls suggest. He begins:

Two recent polls suggest wokism is beginning to recede on a variety of fronts, from less trust in Black Lives Matter and more confidence in the police, to suspicion that the Capitol “insurrection” account is being used to unfairly suppress political expression while Antifa, increasingly, is seen as a terrorist organization whose violence has been ignored improperly by authorities.

There are tens of millions of Americans who either have been stung, or turned off by McCarthyite wokeness (and thus have anti-wokeness antibodies). More have been vaccinated from its latest virulent strains by their own values of judging people as individuals, not as racial or gender collectives. So lots of Americans have developed peremptory defenses against it. The result is that daily there are ever-fewer who are susceptible to the woke pandemic. And it will thus begin to fade out—even as the virus desperately seeks to mutate and go after more institutions.

Peak wokeness is nearing also because if it continued in its present incarnation, then the United States as we know it would cease to exist—in the sense that 1692-93 Salem or 1793-94 Paris could not have continued apace without destroying society. Woke leftism exists to destroy and tear down, not to unite and build. It is not designed to play down and heal racial differences, but to accentuate and capitalize on them.

Dr. Hanson says “the shark was jumped” with last week’s cancellation of Dr. Seuss books.

But what are to be the new standards of Trotskyization as we go forth? Can the Governor of New York be excused for months of policies that led to nearly 15,000 unnecessary deaths, but not for inappropriate kisses and touching of women? Or will he, as an Emmy-winning woke official, be exempt from punishment for both types of transgressions?

There are no logical standards that dictate who is and who is not canceled. For now, all we know about the rules of wokeness is that living leftists are mostly not canceled by the woke mob for the thought crimes that ruin both the non-Left or the generic dead.

There is a price to be paid for “wokeness.”

Wokeness is siphoning off billions of dollars from a productive economy through a sort of value-subtracted tax. We are spending a great deal of labor and capital for merit to be replaced in college admissions, in hiring, in grants, in publication, in the selections of awards, and in movies and videos, in everything—as racial, ethnic, and sexual identity considerations replace meritocratic, literary, artistic, and technological criteria, rather than just augment, them.

Americans also are investing lots of capital in preempting wokeness—writing/saying/acting in ways that are not productive, but simply defensive. Diversity oaths, and diversity applications, pledges, and statements take some time to read and digest. It will not be long before insurers will sell “woke insurance,” the premiums adjusted upward for those more conservative and of the wrong genealogy. It won’t be long before we all carry cards certifying that “At no time, did I say, hear, or think anything . . . .”

Our economy will soon mimic the totalitarian ones of old. Our commissars are like those of the old Red Army—ordering Soviet commanders’ counter-offensives during the Great Patriotic War to ensure that tank battalions were advancing ideologically correctly rather than just tactically or strategically soundly.

If that sounds overly dramatic to some, Dr. Hanson reminds us that at the height of the riots last May and June, then-President Donald Trump considered bringing in federal troops to maintain order. It was then that “280 former generals, admirals, and national security officials signed a letter warning that if Trump” were to do so, “he should be considered a dictatorial threat.” The letter read, “There is no role for the U.S. military in dealing with American citizens exercising their constitutional right to free speech, however uncomfortable that speech may be for some.”

Yet when Democrats insisted on bringing in 25,000 National Guard troops after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, this “group remained mute.”

No society can long exist if it believes that its own founding principles, its customs and traditions, its very origins are evil and must be erased. Tearing down statues of Abraham Lincoln, and redefining 1776 and 1787 as 1619, are many things, but one thing they are not is coherent. Trump was considered nutty when he warned that the statue topplers would go from Confederate monuments to Washington and Jefferson—and then when they did just that he was further ridiculed for being prescient.

Who were the long-dead men who devised a system whose natural and eventual fruition is what attracts indigenous people from Oaxaca, the destitute from Somalia, or the politically oppressed from Vietnam? If evil white people founded an evil system solely for their own evil purposes, why would anyone nonwhite dare risk his life to eat from the alluring fruit of the inherently long-ago poisoned tree?

If Americans are to accept that their Declaration of Independence and Constitution were frauds, abject falsifications of the real unspoken founding of 1619, then again what is to replace them? Whose statues are to rise, which books are we to be authorized to read, whose science are we to turn to?

“Everyone has feet of some clay,” Dr. Hanson reminds us. “Is there no adultery, or unkind treatment of women or plagiarism in the past of Martin Luther King, Jr? No violence or criminality in the life of Malcolm X? Did Cesar Chavez never send his goons to the border to beat back illegal aliens? Was Margaret Sanger only a sometimes advocate of eugenic abortion? Are the written biographies of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to be freed of anti-Semitism and petty corruption? Is Louis Farrakhan an ecumenical leader in the way FDR was not? Was JFK really our first feminist?”

Are we to look to those who erased our supposedly awful past for guidance?

Is it to be the architect of the 1619 Project? Long ago the ecumenical Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote that “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world . . . The descendants of these savage people pump drugs and guns into the Black community, pack Black people into the squalor of segregated urban ghettos and continue to be bloodsuckers in our community.”

Last summer, he points out, “Hannah-Jones bragged that, yes, it would be ‘an honor’ if the summer rioting—700 police officers injured, 40 deaths, and billions in property damages and hundreds—be called henceforth ‘the 1619 riots.'”

She also said, “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence. … Any reasonable person would say we shouldn’t be destroying other people’s property, but these are not reasonable times.” He wondered if the Times considered Hannah-Jones “inflammatory?”

Moreover, he asks how we “ascertain who is and is not white or black or brown?”

Most illiberal societies in the past that tried such stigmatization of race, ethnicity, or religion did not end so well—from the Ottomans and the Third Reich to the former Yugoslavians, Rwandans, and Iraqis. One eighth, one fourth, or one half makes one a person of color—or not color? Shall we seek knowledge of one-drop of tell-tale bloodlines from the archived jurisprudence of the antebellum South?

If Peruvian George Zimmerman had only used his matronymic, and Latinized his first name, then would a Jorge Mesa have become a sympathetic character who lost a fair fight with Trayvon Martin rather than reduced by the New York Times to a strange category of “white Hispanic” hoodlum, with the additional odor of a Germanized patronymic.

Why does class bow to race, since the former seems to trump the latter. If we forget percentages for a moment, and also forget that we are individuals, not anonymous cogs of vast racial wheels, in absolute numbers, there are roughly (in some studies) more poor white people—both those earning incomes below the poverty level and those with no income at all—than all other commensurate poor minorities combined. Were these supposed to be the targets of Barack Obama’s “clingers” remarks, or Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables,” John McCain’s “crazies,” or Joe Biden’s “dregs,” “chumps,” and “Neanderthals”?

Predicating wokism on race is a tricky business, even if one could define and identify race, quantify its role in determining class status, and convince millions that it is moral to judge people by how they look.

Like the Salem witch trials and the McCarthyite hysteria, when wokism fades, we are likely to see its real catalysts revealed. And they will not be found to be misplaced idealism, nor heartfelt desire for a more ecumenical society, but mostly the age-old, narcissistic destructive road to career enhancement, fueled by customary ancient fears, envies, and hatreds.

Here’s The Good News About the House’s Passage of The Biggest Democratic Power Grab in History

Advertisements

Before shuttering the Capitol building on Wednesday night due to threats of “danger” from unhinged Trump supporters on Thursday (sarcasm), the House passed H.R. 1, the ironically named “For the People Act,” by a vote of 220-210. It is impossible to overstate the damage this legislation, if it were to pass the Senate, would do to this once-great nation.

The stated purpose of H.R. 1 is:  “To expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes.” The full text of H.R. 1 can be viewed here.

The real purpose of the bill is to make permanent many of the changes made to state voting systems and procedures ostensibly to facilitate voting in the age of COVID-19.

One of the most notable features of H.R. 1 is that it strips states of the right to set their own standards for how elections are to be conducted. Election laws would be determined at the federal level.

Under this bill, states would be required to promote the use of mail-in voting, to offer online applications for voter registration, and to provide automatic and even same-day voter registration.

H.R. 1 would all but eliminate voter ID laws. It would prohibit states from “requiring identification as a condition of obtaining a ballot.”

Another provision, Section 1621, would require the “uniform availability of absentee voting to all voters.” Every voter will have the option of casting an absentee ballot by mail. A state may not attach any conditions to this right.

In addition, “ballot harvesting” would be allowed in every state.

In other words, all of the practices that handed victory to the Democrats in the 2020 election would become law.

If this legislation passes, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for Republicans to ever win another election.

Suffice it to say, the passage of H.R. 1 would radically change the way the U.S. conducts elections. The implementation of these practices will be a recipe for massive fraud.

Election fraud, as we’ve learned the hard way over the past several months, is relatively easy to perpetrate, but difficult to prove.

I said there would be some good news and there is indeed!

Unless the Senate votes to abolish the filibuster, 60 votes would be required for this bill to pass the upper chamber. That would mean that ten Republicans would have to vote for it – which is not going to happen.

I don’t even think Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT) or Susan Collins (R-ME) would go for this.

Oddly, ending the legislative filibuster would only require a simple majority, or 51 votes, to pass. There are currently 50 Democratic senators in addition to Vice President Kamala Harris who would be available to cast the deciding vote.

(Note: Please scroll down for an explanation of the filibuster.)

The extremely good news is that two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have both publicly and unequivocally stated their opposition to ending the legislative filibuster.

Shortly after H.R.1 was introduced in the House, a representative of Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema told The Washington Post’s White House reporter, Seung Min Kim, that “Kyrsten is against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about eliminating the filibuster.”

Up until now, conservatives have been counting on Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia to save us from being overrun by leftist lesiglation. Manchin won re-election in 2018 in a state that went overwhelmingly for former President Donald Trump, by nearly 40 points in 2020 and over 41 in 2016.

In the past, Manchin has expressed his opposition to ending the filibuster, but recent statements have left Republicans wondering.

However, Politico reported (on the same day Sinema’s spokesperson made the announcement above) that Manchin was “emphatic” that he “will not vote to kill the filibuster.” Asked if there were any scenario in which he would change his mind, the senator replied: “None whatsoever that I will vote to get rid of the filibuster.”

Perhaps he had gotten wind of Sinema’s announcement by that time.

Either way, the Arizonan’s remarkable decision came as welcome news to all of us who have feared the radical agenda now being promoted by the left.

Sinema’s and Manchin’s opposition to abolishing the filibuster will not save us from the Democrats’ entire agenda, but it should stop the most radical parts of it.

Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of democracy. If H.R. 1 were to become law, voter fraud will become easier than ever and the U.S. may never hold an honest election again. This bill represents a clear and present danger to the integrity of U.S. elections.

Brief Explanation of the Filibuster:

The Senate website defines the filibuster as an “informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.” This device is meant to prevent the party in the Senate minority from being completely overpowered by the majority party.

Currently, with a 50-50 balance of power in the Senate, Democrats control the upper chamber by the slimmest margin possible.

Current Senate rules require a minimum of 60 votes to pass legislation. Some Democrats have hoped to abolish the filibuster so that only a simple majority of 51 votes (50 Democratic senators plus Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote) would be necessary to advance their progressive agenda.

Prior to the election, the Indivisible Project, a movement dedicated to advancing the election of progressive candidates, explained why this is bad news for Democrats:

It’s simple: none of the progressive issues that Democratic candidates and congressional leaders are discussing today will become law unless we do something about the filibuster.

If [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell expects to be the Grim Reaper of progressive policies, the scythe he’ll use is the Senate filibuster. Unless we change the rules.

Jonathan Turley: Letter sent by Dem Reps to block conservative media ‘is not just chilling, it’s positively glacial’

Advertisements

I never saw it coming. The sheer brazenness of the Democrats’ latest attempt to silence conservative media outlets, such as Fox News, Newsmax and One America News Network was breathtaking.

A Monday press release on Rep. Jerry McNerney’s website reported that he and fellow California Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo, both senior members of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, had sent letters to “12 cable, satellite, and streaming TV companies urging them to combat the spread of misinformation and requesting more information about their actions to address misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and lies spread through channels they host.”

Nearly half of Americans get their news primarily from TV. However, not all TV news sources are the same. Some purported news outlets have long been misinformation rumor mills and conspiracy theory hotbeds that produce content that leads to real harm.

Misinformation on TV has led to our current polluted information environment that radicalizes individuals to commit seditious acts and rejects public health best practices, among other issues in our public discourse.

This letter comes ahead of Wednesday’s House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee hearing on traditional media’s role in promoting disinformation and extremism.

Companies receiving letters include AT&T, Verizon, Roku, Amazon, Apple, Comcast, Charter, Dish, Cox, Altice, Alphabet, and Hulu.

Copies of the letters can be viewed here.

The announcement for the hearing read:

The prolonged severity of the COVID-19 pandemic and the attack on our Capitol on January 6 have driven home a frightening reality: the spread of disinformation and extremism by traditional news media presents a tangible and destabilizing threat. Some broadcasters’ and cable networks’ increasing reliance on conspiracy theories and misleading or patently false information raises questions about their devotion to journalistic integrity. We look forward to hearing from media experts about what is being done and what more can be done to address this growing problem moving forward.

At the Wednesday hearing, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) told colleagues: “Partisanship and polarization in media has [sic] been building for years, but these more recent events reflect a point of frightening escalation. Media companies have increasingly set aside journalistic standards to chase audience share and higher profits.”

Unfortunately, Doyle is not referring to the networks that brought you the Russian collusion hoax and Ukrainegate, or those that covered up the Hunter Biden laptop story shortly before the election. He is referring to Fox, Newsmax and OAN.

If you’re starting to feel like you’ve fallen down the rabbit hole, you’re not alone. The left has just taken the gloves off in their war against conservatism.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), the ranking member on this committee called McNerney and Eshoo’s letter “a one-sided affront to a free press.”

“In all my time on this committee, there’s never been a more obvious and direct attack on the First Amendment,” the congresswoman said. “Condemning the Jan. 6 attack and upholding truth and facts, it’s a shared, bipartisan goal. If the majority was really interested in a meaningful dialogue, you wouldn’t schedule a hyper-partisan hearing to shame and blame. You wouldn’t be sending letters pressuring private companies to block conservative media outlets.”

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley who is, by the way, a Democrat, attacked the letter as well. “From the perspective of free speech and the free press, the letter is not just chilling, it’s positively glacial. I admit that I may be a relic in my views, but I continue to believe the greatest protection against bad speech is better speech.”

In an op-ed published on The Hill last week, Turley wrote: “Increasingly, free speech in the United States is described as a danger that needs to be controlled, as opposed to the very value that defines us as a people.”

It makes no difference if one party holds the majority in both chambers of Congress as well as the White House. The Democrats’ attempt to shut down free speech is unconstitutional. Pressuring cable, satellite, and streaming TV companies to drop conservative networks they happen to disagree with is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

If Trump administration officials had introduced a plan to eliminate CNN and MSNBC, he would have been impeached a third time and immediately convicted by the Senate.

Unfortunately, we can no longer count on the Supreme Court to even hear the case, much less stand up for the Constitution.

Republicans have submitted too frequently to Democrats. Will they capitulate or will they stand strong against the Democrats’ flagrant abuse of power?

Will the networks themselves stand up for their right to exist?

Will the American people finally wake up to the reality that this is a massive power grab by a party that seeks total and permanent control over the U.S.?

America is in crisis.

We’ve all heard the old Ben Franklin story. He was allegedly asked, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?

Franklin replied, “A democratic republic, if we can keep it.”

Can we keep it?