Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Media Gone Wild (Over Trump!)


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Oct 20, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/10/20/media-gone-wild-over-trump—p–n2597771/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Media Gone Wild (Over Trump!)

Source: AP Photo/Ben Gray

If you really, really miss Donald Trump, MSNBC may just be for you! Biden is cratering, fuel prices are skyrocketing (hey, anybody seen Greta Thunberg?), hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are pouring across our border, and the murder rate keeps hitting historic highs. But the establishment media can’t stop talking about TRUMP.

So for my friends in the media, here are a few thoughts on your Trump obsession.

Rep. Liz Cheney, daughter of Dr. Evil, has become an unlikely hero among the Can’t-Get-Enough-Trump media — because she can’t stop talking about Trump either.

Cheney says:

— Jan. 6 was dumb (true: As David Cole says, “What was supposed to happen?”);

— Trump is hurting the GOP (true: He endorsed Stacey Abrams and says his voters won’t come out in 2022 and ’24 if Republicans don’t make the “Presidential Election Fraud of 2020” their No. 1 issue); and

— Trump is lying about the Arizona recount (also true).

But then she had to add: Oh, and now I’m for gay marriage! Isn’t Bush the greatest?

Is there a political party for people who think Jan. 6 was dumb, notice that we don’t have a wall, and can read an election report, but still say Bush is a male bimbo and pretty much everything liberals said about him was true?

“Trumpism Without Trump” is the winning formula. We’re keeping the policies, but getting rid of the 8-year-old.

The main lesson out of the Arizona election hand recount a few weeks ago isn’t about the election at all. It’s that media misinformation is a serious problem in a democracy.

We got some very confusing messaging on the results of the recount. First, there were headlines all over saying it resulted in Biden winning again. I didn’t really care one way or another, except then Trump started going around claiming that the hand recount clearly showed … HE WON!

It’s a simple yes-or-no question: Did Trump win Arizona or didn’t he?

This turned out to be an epistemological puzzle. You see, both sides are gigantic liars, so whom to believe?

In this instance, the media were telling the truth, because the truth favored them, and Trump was lying, because it didn’t favor him.

But thanks, media, for so debasing yourselves with idiotic lies over the past five years — e.g., Russian collusion, the “Access Hollywood” tape, Trump’s remarks on Charlottesville — that I had to look up a basic fact question for myself because I simply couldn’t trust you.

Trump lost Arizona. The hand recount was conducted by a hardcore conservative Christian, Doug Logan, famed for his integrity, and who was, therefore, viciously attacked by liberals. The recount was ordered up by Trump Republicans in the Arizona legislature. It was paid for by Trump supporters.

If you don’t believe Logan, right-wingers, you won’t believe anyone, except the guy who promised to build a wall; bring manufacturing home; and end anchor babies, the carried interest loophole and the war in Afghanistan — but didn’t do any of those things.

Logan’s hand recount of the ballots resulted in Biden receiving 99 more votes and Trump receiving 261 fewer votes. The report is here in black and white.

When Trump says, We have conclusively proven that we won, he’s just doing the salesman thing he always does, telling you that a used car is a fantastic deal, an amazing car, runs like a top!

But the transmission just fell out.

I’m telling you, it’s a humdinger!

Yeah, and we have a big, beautiful wall. Thousands and thousands of miles.

File this under: At Least He Was Thinking of Us, Briefly.

The New York Times reported this week:

Trump’s Pentagon Chief Quashed Idea to Send 250,000 Troops to the Border

“Top national security aides to former President Trump also talked him out of launching military raids against drug cartels inside Mexico.”

Typical Trump. He talks a good game, then one person raises an objection and he says, OK, I’ll just tell my supporters I wanted to do it.

Of course, the Times’ take is: Isn’t he awful? Yes, New York Times, because he didn’t do it. Not because he said he would.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Horowitz: The $cience of remdesivir vs. ivermectin: A tale of two drugs


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | October 18, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-the-cience-of-remdesivir-vs-ivermectin-a-tale-of-two-drugs-theblaze-2655321861.html/

A tale of two drugs. One has become the standard of care at an astronomical cost despite studies showing negative efficacy, despite causing severe renal failure and liver damage, and despite zero use outpatient. The other has been safely administered to billions for river blindness and now hundreds of millions for COVID throughout the world and has turned around people at death’s doorstep for pennies on the dollar. Yet the former – remdesivir – is the standard of care forced upon every patient, while the latter – ivermectin – is scorned and banned in the hospitals and de facto banned in most outpatient settings. But according to the NIH, a doctor has the same right to use ivermectin as to use remdesivir. And it’s time people know the truth.

Although the NIH and the FDA didn’t officially approve ivermectin as standard of care for COVID, it is listed on NIH’s website right under remdesivir as “Antiviral Agents That Are Approved or Under Evaluation for the Treatment of COVID-19.” It is accorded the same status, the same sourcing for dosage recommendations, and the same monitoring advice as remdesivir … except according to NIH’s own guidance, remdesivir has a much greater potential for severe reactions in the very organs at stake in a bout with acute COVID.

Now, let’s take a closer look at the details.

As you can see, they admit that remdesivir causes renal and liver failure! One of the symptoms is “ALT and AST elevations,” which are indications of liver damage. Is that really the drug you want when someone is at risk for a cytokine storm and thrombosis? They even have a monitoring requirement for these side effects. Also, it does have some drug interactions as well.

Now, let’s move on to the ivermectin side effects.

Notice how the NIH is essentially saying it has no side effects by the fact that it prefaces the section by noting the drug is “generally well tolerated,” a distinction not accorded to remdesivir. Then it proceeds to list the same boilerplate GI and nausea warnings on every drug under the sun. There are almost no drug interactions and ZERO specific guidance for monitoring!

Just looking at the NIH’s own table, why in the world would remdesivir be the expensive mandatory standard of care and ivermectin, buttressed by 64 studies, be relegated to hemlock status even for patients about to die and with no other options?

Yes, we get the message – every one of those studies is supposedly low-powered, a fraud, and all the thousands of doctors turning people around on ivermectin are some how frauds even though they have nothing to gain and everything to lose from pushing it. But if that is our standard for ivermectin, it raises the obvious question about remdesivir. How could remdesivir not only be approved but made the standard of care when it has negative efficacy in trials, has a negative recommendation from the WHO, and, by the NIH’s own admission, causes liver and kidney failure?

Even if the medical establishment dismisses the preponderance of evidence and reality of the past 18 months, with ivermectin saving so many people, just from a safety standpoint, why would they not allow people to at least try something this safe while forcing on them a dangerous drug like remdesivir? In addition, these are the same hospitals that administer Olumiant, which has a rare FDA black box warning for blood clots, even though these very patients are at high risk for a pulmonary embolism and other clotting disorders?

In other words, there is no way anyone can justify the war on ivermectin (and every other cheap treatment that has been and will be proposed) as being rooted in anything related to medicine and science. If that were the case, the medical establishment would be dead set against remdesivir and Olumiant. Moreover, to the extent remdesivir has any efficacy that is worth its risk, it would be outpatient during the viral stage. There is quite literally no scientific way remdesivir can work in the pulmonary inflammation stage. Unlike ivermectin, which tones down inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1beta and IL-10 as well as tumor necrosis factor alpha, remdesivir has no anti-inflammatory qualities.

However, remdesivir does have a lot of political science behind it. Aside from having the weight of Big Pharma pushing it (and it was concocted by UNC-Chapel Hill, curiously the same institution at the center of the coronavirus gain-of-function research), hospitals get a 20% bonus for using it!

Gee, is there any wonder hospitals will fight patients in court – including those whom they already recommend to remove from life support – to not even try ivermectin as a last resort?! So much for the desire to flatten the curve of hospitalizations. They want people in the hospital! If they really cared about the run on hospitals, they’d promote treatments that work early and outpatient so that nobody would need to come to the hospital.

For more information, watch this devastating contrast of ivermectin vs. remdesivir.

Here’s one other strong piece of evidence that this is not about any shortcoming of ivermectin, but stems from unrelenting war on anything off patent that might work, in order to run interference for expensive, dangerous, and ineffective tools of big pharma. Let’s go back to that NIH chart of potential antiviral drugs for COVID. There is actually a third one on that list aside from remdesivir and ivermectin.

Nitazoxanide, much like ivermectin, is a (potentially) cheap off-patent anti-parasitic that has been praised for years as a very safe, broad-spectrum anti-parasitic mechanism and is written about glowingly in studies. And it actually has an even longer and more direct precedent of research and clinical use against viruses than even ivermectin. It is the standard of care for norovirus and rotavirus in Brazil and has shown promise against not just flus and hepatitis, but coronavirus colds, SARS, and MERS. This research has been known even in the media for well over a year! Gee, we have an antiviral that is so safe it’s given to young kids for viral diarrhea and has been known to work against coronaviruses. Yet our government has refused to pursue any meaningful research for 18 months!

Originally, it was as cheap as ivermectin, but one company seems to have bought it up, and now it is prohibitively expensive in the U.S. However, were the government to promote it, this off-patent drug could easily be mass-produced for pennies on the dollar and costs just a few dollars for a full regimen in Mexico and Brazil.https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=BMDC5574376707

Notice that, just like with ivermectin, the NIH prefaces the side effects section on nitazoxanide by saying it is “generally well tolerated” and then proceeds to list the boilerplate of typical minor side effects that are disclosed for every drug under the sun. Anyone merely looking at this NIH page alone can see how the government and medical establishment’s treatment of remdesivir vs. every other therapeutic that has been tried is built upon control, greed, and something much darker than that. Now, just remember, these are the same people who will look you in the eye and say the shots are 100% effective and carry zero risk. It’s all in the $cience.
What is self-evident from the NIH’s disclosure, which was updated as late as July 2021, is that ivermectin and nitazoxanide work for a lot more than just parasites. It’s primarily the political parasites that fear that those drugs.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Iowa conservatives introduce gold standard bill to fight the dangerous COVID mandate


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | October 15, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-iowa-conservatives-introduce-gold-standard-bill-to-fight-the-dangerous-covid-mandate-theblaze-2655316302.html/

There is nothing free-market about “private” businesses joining in the violation of the Nuremberg Code. In fact, the entire concept of a rushed therapeutic that wanes quickly and causes a shocking number of known and unknown injuries never would have gotten off the ground under the free market. Socialism, subsidization, monopolization, government using taxpayer funding to create, market, coerce, censor, and reshape society with the shot — all the while being exempt from legal liability — are the only reasons why any business even under 100 employees, much less a larger business, would be mandating it at this point. The only effective, prudent, fair, and free-market position is to use equal and opposing force to restore the balance of the free market. It’s show time for the state legislatures.

Legislative bodies throughout the country are meeting over the next few weeks to debate measures that would counter the mandates being illegally promulgated by the Biden administration. Most GOP-controlled states are going to take some form of action, but the question is whether they will take the right action or be intimidated by the visceral response of the big business and health care cartel that has become a giant arm of government tyranny. Several Iowa lawmakers have put together a bill that is the gold standard of what other red states should adopt this coming week.

The crux of the bill, Iowa SF 193, sponsored by Sens. Guth, Johnson, Schultz, Whiting, and Carlin, categorically bans all human rights violations in relation to “Pfizer” government mandates. It prohibits an employer from failing or refusing to hire, discharge, penalize, or otherwise discriminate against an employee with respect to compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based on the employee’s vaccination history or the refusal of the employee to receive a vaccine or provide proof of immunity. It provides a cause of action in court to anyone discriminated against, along with a prescribed remedy of back pay plus 10% from the employer.

This is what we do in the context of every other form of discrimination, including when employers legitimately terminate problematic workers. So, until we get rid of all those laws and the EEOC at the federal level, we don’t need to hear about “the free market.”

Next, rather than providing an exception to this rule for hospitals and health care settings, this bill specifically bans any discrimination against health care workers or discrimination on the treatment side for patients in a health care setting. It spells out every form of medical professional, including medical students and residents. Importantly, this bill bars any health care provider licensing authority from denying or revoking a license to any applicant because they decline the shot.

At this point, it is abundantly clear that the shots provide no more protection against transmission than not having the shots, which makes any form of any mandate unjustified, even if we are to believe one can govern another’s body. For example, in health care settings, where health organizations are arguing that they must protect cancer patients who didn’t get the shot, those patients are at least as likely to get the virus from a supposed vaccinated person as from an unvaccinated person, especially if the latter individual already had the virus. Moreover, research has consistently shown that people within 14 days of the first or second shot are the most vulnerable to catching COVID because of the suboptimal levels of antibodies. Having thousands of health care workers suddenly get the shots within a period of a few weeks would expose those patients to the most risk in health care settings.

Another important provision of the Iowa bill is that it bars all insurance companies from discriminating against those who don’t get the shot. This means they cannot reject; deny; limit; cancel; refuse to renew; increase the premiums for; limit the amount, extent, or kind of coverage available to; or otherwise adversely affect eligibility or coverage for the group health policy, contract, or plan for health insurance.

We’d all love to live with a market in which any providers can offer any insurance plan they wish. But that ship sailed with Obamacare. The only things worse than full socialist mandates are half-manipulated mandates, which induce totalitarianism in addition to socialism. Thanks to Obamacare, we cannot start our own insurance companies because of the actuarily insolvent mandates. Yet the same government that pushed universal coverage now gets to manipulate the government-sponsored “private” monopoly companies to bar coverage for large groups of people based on zero scientific evidence. Repeal Obamacare, and then we will remove this provision. Until then, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Next, the bill bars any owner or manager of a public accommodation from discriminating in services against someone who has not taken the shot. Again, this virus has been used as an excuse to prohibit all landowners from evicting anyone, including those who are disruptive, destructive, and late on rent. We will not allow the socialists to use their control over the “private” sector to suddenly encourage them to discriminate against people with no cause. I’m fine with ending most discrimination laws. But if we are going to have them, the worst outcome is for government to manipulate a perfectly perverse standard of who is subject to them and who is exempt from them. When businesses can deny services or employment to those with HIV or with certain sexual behaviors, or thwart Obamacare, Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, OSHA, and ADA regulations, then come back to me about “the private sector can do what they want.”

More provisions of SF 193 include the following:

  • A prohibition on including someone’s immunization status on their driver’s license.
  • Expansion of the exemption process for vaccine requirements in schools related to existing vaccines.
  • Anyone administering the vaccine must obtain written consent from the patient prior to reporting the administration of the vaccine or immunization to the statewide immunization registry.

At present, all private businesses over 100 employees are on the hook for a looming federal mandate to require a shot that the government has essentially created and manipulated with taxpayer funding that the free market never would have sustained. Both government and the pharmaceutical companies are exempt from liability. This is not free market; this is fascism. As such, for any state to merely pass a neutral law without providing equal and opposing force to prohibit (rather than exempt from) the federal mandate is not an exercise in free market ethos but in submission to totalitarianism.

How come none of these business and health organizations cried bloody murder about “rights of the private sector” when governors placed the ultimate regulation on them – a crippling shutdown or cumbersome capacity mandates? In this case, they are not regulating affirmative expensive compliance measures – just simply a dictate to apply existing discrimination and health privacy law to where it’s needed most in order to counter Nuremberg violations by the federal government. Private business owners don’t need to lift a finger and spend any time or money on this. Just don’t harass your workers. “Well, we’re scared of COVID,” they are saying. In that case, you have the shot, so what do you care about someone else not getting it?https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=BMDC5574376707

The private sector or free market did not conjure up the riskiest and leakiest shot in history or mask-wearing; it was all induced by the federal government through fear, intimidation, misinformation, threats, and censorship. In the case of big business and health care, there has been downright collaboration with the federal government at every stage – a violation of the ultimate antitrust principles. Therefore, every state has an obligation to interpose between the federal coercion and the safety of the people. Allowing every business in every state to remain a conduit for that federal tyranny is not respect for private rights. It’s collaboration with a very dark tunnel of tyranny. We don’t want to discover what’s on the other side.

Richard D. Land Op-ed: How badly have we lost our way?


Commentary By Richard D. Land, Christian Post Executive Editor | Friday, October 15, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/how-badly-have-we-lost-our-way.html/

lost
Unsplash/ Mário Krav?ák

How badly have we lost our way? It is an important question that many Americans, including this one, can no longer avoid asking just because we intuitively know we are going to be profoundly depressed with the answer.

Yes, we have lost our way as a nation in foundational ways. It will be difficult to find our way again without divine intervention. The moral compass of a significant number of our fellow citizens has been desensitized and demagnetized. Is it a plurality, a majority, or just a significant minority?

Does that really make much of a difference? I don’t think it does, really, because whatever the percentage is, it is enough to vitiate and blunt the basic Judeo-Christian morality upon which this nation was founded, and to which a majority of its citizens aspired to achieve. Eventually, even many of the blind spots resulting from their human frailty were confronted by the foundational ethos embedded in the founding document, their sine qua non as a nation, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”

That is indeed a revolutionary credo that has impelled the nation to an evermore expansive understanding of the depth and breadth of that truth.

Tragically, somewhere along the way, America veered seriously off course and we are now confronted with a collapse into full-blown paganism.

What triggered this lugubrious conclusion? I have seldom been both as shocked and saddened as I was after reading the Rev. Rebecca Todd Peters’ op-ed in USA Today, “Faith Guided Our Decision on 2 Abortions.” Rev. Peters identifies herself as a Presbyterian minister (John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and Peter Marshall, among others, would find that statement astounding considering the op-ed’s content.)

The Rev. Peters also states that she is “a wife and a mother of two” and that she has “also had two abortions.”

She immediately follows this by asserting, “I did not make my abortion decision despite my Christian identity and faith, but rather because of it.”

As my heart sank and my spirit was distraught, my mind immediately went to the first chapter of the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. There Paul describes the ever-downward spiral of human sin where one of the most distinguishable things about sin is its ability to generate ever greater sin and depravity (Rom. 1:18-32).

After all, the Apostle Paul confronted a Roman society that was as depraved, if not more so, than our own era. Even the pagans noticed and were offended. Seneca observed that it was an age “stricken with the agitations of a soul no longer master of itself.” Tacitus opined that “the greater the infamy, the wilder the delight.”

As the masterful New Testament scholar William Barclay so discerningly observed of the people of that time, “He has so erected an altar to himself in the center of things that he worships himself to the exclusion of God and man.”

Before we go any further, let us be clear — “Waterford crystal clear.” The Reverend Peters does not represent any historic form of the genuine Christian faith — Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

The Roman civilization into which the Christian faith was birthed out of Judaism was one in which the life of the child was discounted and devalued perhaps more than ever before or since until the modern pro-abortion era in the West. Abortion was common, as was infanticide.

Will and Ariel Durant in their multi-volume The Story of Civilization report that when a child was born it was placed in front of the father. If the father picked up the child and acknowledged it, the baby lived. If the father turned away, the child was literally abandoned. This abandonment was commonplace.

The only real difference between then and now in the extreme pro-abortion regime in America is that in Rome it was the father who had absolute power of life and death over their child, and in modern America, it is the mother who wields such absolute power. By the way, the Durants reported that after the first girl was safely delivered in a family, 99 out of every 100 subsequent girl babies were discarded to die.

The Jewish civilization was the only ancient civilization in the Mediterranean Basin which did not routinely practice infanticide and abortion.

It was into this pro-death, anti-child milieu that Christianity burst forth in the first century AD with a courageous and uncompromising pro-life message. As Michael J. Gorman has pointed out in Abortion and the Early Church: “Writers of the first three centuries laid the theological and literary foundation for all subsequent early Christian writing on abortion…three important themes emerged during these centuries: the fetus is the creation of God; abortion is murder; and the judgment of God falls on those guilty of abortion.”

In fact, the Didache, the first widely acknowledged post-Apostolic teaching of the early church (circa 134 AD) vehemently condemned abortion and declared that it was beyond the pale for those identifying themselves as followers of Jesus Christ.

For the Reverend Peters to assert that “without a doubt…the two decisions we made to have children were far more morally significant than the decision to end two pregnancies” is quite literally blasphemous. Morally significant for whom? The two babies she killed would undoubtedly have pleaded with their mother to let them live.

We are talking about two babies, her babies, and she says killing them can be “a moral good.” Every abortion stops a beating human heart. In this case — two of her babies’ beating hearts.

In Paul’s analysis of the moral degeneracy of Roman civilization, he declares the downward spiritual spiral of degradational sin produces people “without natural affection” (Rom 1:31). The Greek root of that phrase is Storgē(astorgos), a special word in the Greek language, standing for “mother love” or “family love.”

In first-century Rome, as in 21st century America, the natural love a parent has for a child was in serious decline — a decline evidenced by Reverend Peters’ proud declaration of her “moral” decision-making. The Christian church, in all its historic traditions, until the last half of the 20th century, would rightly have declared the Rev. Peters’ theology “apostasy.” 

In another part of the New Testament, the Apostle Paul warned of those bearing at least the name “Christian” and the consequence of teaching false doctrine leading to their consciences being “seared” or cauterized as if by “a hot iron” (I Tim 4:2).

I fear that the Rev. Peters is emblematic of far too many Americans who have had their consciences seared and deadened by the child sacrifice of at least 65 million of our unborn citizens.

The contrast with those who still have a sensitive and accurate moral compass was illustrated for me in a particularly dramatic way just a few days ago. Fox newscaster Ben Domenech was reporting on the resurgent pro-life movement while noting that America has one of the most radically extreme pro-abortion legal regimes in the world, keeping gruesome company with Communist China and North Korea.

In the course of his report, he began to relate an episode recounted by the remarkable Whittaker Chambers in his even more remarkable memoir, Witness. Chambers and his wife were Soviet Communist spies operating in the U.S. Chambers later became a Christian, turned away from Communism, exposed Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy, and authored a memoir, Witness, which had a huge influence on a large number of people, including Ronald Reagan.

Chambers records that in 1933 he and his wife discovered that they were pregnant. Realizing that this would be very different considering they were both Communist spies in America, Mrs. Chambers went to make arrangements to abort the child. When she came home a few hours later she was very subdued and quiet.

Chambers explained, “My wife came over to me, took my hands, and burst into tears.’

“‘Dear heart,’ she said in a pleading voice, “we couldn’t do that awful thing to a little baby, not to a little baby, dear heart.’”

As Domenech’s voice broke and he teared up, he quoted Chambers’ response: “A wild joy swept me. Reason, the agony of my family, the Communist Party and its theories, the wars and revolutions of the 20th century, crumbled at the touch of the child.”

Whittaker Chambers and his wife, while then atheists, had not had their consciences seared and neither has Mr. Domenech. The current struggle over killing our unborn babies at horrific rates will reveal just how cauterized and desensitized many Americans’ consciences have become as a consequence of having been submerged in the ever-burgeoning culture of death.

I pray to God that we have not been so fatally, morally impressed as a people that we cannot be convicted and moved “at the touch of the child.”

Aldous Huxley once observed, “The propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that the other set of people are human.” Our unborn babies are human beings and God has a plan and purpose for each one of them and I tremble for my country when I think of the massive child sacrifice of our children which we have already allowed to be perpetrated.

Dr. Richard Land, BA (Princeton, magna cum laude); D.Phil. (Oxford); Th.M (New Orleans Seminary). Dr. Land served as President of Southern Evangelical Seminary from July 2013 until July 2021. Upon his retirement, he was honored as President Emeritus and he continues to serve as an Adjunct Professor of Theology & Ethics. Dr. Land previously served as President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (1988-2013) where he was also honored as President Emeritus upon his retirement. Dr. Land has also served as an Executive Editor and columnist for The Christian Post since 2011.

Dr. Land explores many timely and critical topics in his daily radio feature, “Bringing Every Thought Captive,” and in his weekly column for CP.

Ryan Bomberger Op-ed: Big education has zero tolerance for informed and involved parents


Commentary By Ryan Bomberger, Exclusive Columnist | Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/voices/big-education-has-no-tolerance-for-informed-and-involved-parents.html/

loudon county parent school board protest
People hold up signs during a rally against “critical race theory” (CRT) being taught in schools at the Loudoun County Government center in Leesburg, Virginia on June 12, 2021. “Are you ready to take back our schools?” Republican activist Patti Menders shouted at a rally opposing anti-racism teaching that critics like her say trains white children to see themselves as “oppressors.” “Yes!”, answered in unison the hundreds of demonstrators gathered this weekend near Washington to fight against “critical race theory,” the latest battleground of America’s ongoing culture wars. | AFP via Getty Images/Andrew Caballero-Reynolds

Our shocking slide into the surreal world of leftist leadership has led to this: American parents are now the enemy. Big Education and a weaponized Department of Justice are going after the very people who should have the most say in public education. School boards and public school administrators, like in Loudoun County, Virginia, where I live, have faced unprecedented informed dissent from parents of every background. Instead of acting like public servants, they act like the petty gods of Mount Olympus recklessly wielding their (unconstitutional) power as they try to strike down (e.g. silence, fire, dox and demonize) anyone who dares to challenge their rule.

But like typical progressives, they’re the victims. They’re more than deserving of the outrage and peaceful protests by American parents. We’re fed up with the pollution of our children’s minds with LGBT pedophilia and porn, racism, colorism, anti-capitalism, religious bigotry, anti-free speech, and other anti-American propaganda.

I don’t advocate violence in any form. I fully advocate parent-led education and fully oppose government-led indoctrination. My wife and I withdrew our school-aged children from Loudoun County Public Schools. I won’t be silenced by those who think parents have no right to help shape what our children learn in schools funded by our tax dollars. We now homeschool all of our children and are passionate about school choice. Sorry, Terry McAuliffe. Not sure why you “don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” There are no schools without students. There are no students without parents. Parents are the primary educators, the primary influencers, and the primary individuals who have to deal with the emotional and psychological fall-out of public education’s increasingly destructive liberal indoctrination.

The National School Boards Association, bolstered by the leftist news establishment’s false narratives, has called for President Joe Biden (whose children didn’t attend public schools) to sic the Department of Justice on dissenting parents, now grotesquely labeled as domestic terrorists.

Let me introduce you to some of the parents leading this fight in my county. These are passionate individuals who never would’ve thought they’d be forced into such a battle. These are everyday moms and dads who defy the fake news caricatures. I’ve shared the stage with each of these remarkable women and men. So, I’ve asked them why they’ve chosen to get involved.

Meet Xi Van Fleet.

Xi fled communist China. She knows, firsthand, about the suppression of basic human rights like life, free speech, and religious liberty. She knows what unlimited government control looks like. “Many black/brown/Asian parents speak up against Critical Race Theory. The Left always uses the Trump card to divide Americans and to discredit those who dare to push back on their radical agenda,” Xi explains. I asked her why it matters if you use someone’s “preferred” (and made up) pronouns. “This is not about pronouns,” she says. “The radical Left is altering reality and forcing us to conform. The goal is not to help transgenders. The goal is to control everyone else.”

Meet Joe Mobley.

Joe is another Loudoun county parent. He’s a podcaster and describes himself as an “uncloseted conservative”. One of the viral videos with his informed dissent focused on the insanely sexually explicit “diversity” books offered by the school district to young children (see it here.) I asked him about the most shocking thing he learned since getting involved in fighting LCPS [Loudon County Public Schools]. “LCPS’ willingness to openly lie, even when the truth is a matter of public record. Like saying CRT isn’t in our schools while CRT Develop Planning is a line item in the budget,” Joe explains. “Media Matters says we’re billionaire-backed professional activists. I can assure you I am struggling to stay in the fight for my family, community, and country. I have a real job that is extremely demanding and important, I’m active in my church. We are about to have our fourth child under seven. The only support I have is emotional support from my family.”

Meet Patti Hidalgo Menders.

Patti is the president of the Loudoun County Republican Women’s Club (the largest in Virginia). For some reason, it’s only a problem when a conservative is involved politically. On the Left, it is a standard operating procedure. Her parents fled communist Cuba; they were branded “enemies of the state.” Now, Patti has become the enemy of Big Education as she was blacklisted by a private Facebook group made up of former and current LCPS teachers and board members who wanted to target her publicly. She’s also a mom of six boys, one of whom is still a student at LCPS.

I asked her why she’s involved. “If parents don’t get involved, then the school boards will continue to dictate what is best for their children. I do not coparent with the government. I do not coparent with the school board. This Loudoun County school board continues to listen to special interest groups and equity consultants instead of listening to the parents and the children/students. Parents need to take a stand!”

Meet Michael Rivera.

Michael is yet another Loudoun County parent, with two children in LCPS. He’s a public safety professional who is deeply concerned about the safety of children’s minds in public education. “Students may not have the intellectual wherewithal to ‘fight’ per se but we can educate our children. As a result of the indoctrinating topics being proliferated, our job as parents got harder,” he explains. “We need to explain things to our children by stating and explaining reality and facts. That explanation includes ugly facts about the history of the United States. We need to give our children evidence and truth so they can debate and refute radical political ideologies. In the end, our children will be independent thinkers, but it is our job as parents to guide them down the right paths.”

Michael opposes the blatant CRT principles being pushed on students in government schools. “I’m not white, but I prefer not to lead with that fact. There is absolutely NO good that comes from reinforcing judgment of others solely by color. We know for a fact that it is illogical and was a false proposition during the awful years of slavery and oppression of blacks. I look to all of the successful minorities in America and only see progress for all. How ironic and ludicrous is it that wealthy, powerful, successful black Americans are trying to destroy the very [capitalist] system that allowed them to be who they are?”

Meet Shawntel Cooper.

Shawntel is a working, fighting mom. She is a no-nonsense warrior for her children who doesn’t mince words. Her speeches at school board meetings are straight fire! I asked her if she’s the parent fake news keeps talking about that wants to oppress black and brown people (insert eye-rolling and laughter here). “I’m black, and I’m very happy with my natural skin tone. I have noticed a lot of flip-flopping with the school system stating they are not teaching CRT. But then they changed the name to Culturally Responsive Framework anti-bias with the same curriculum they lied about. I was taught to never listen to rumors but check the facts before assuming. I’ve seen so many people marching for BLM, and we all witnessed BLM didn’t do a thing for those communities they encouraged [activists] to burn down. When I saw the shooting and looting, I knew then and there it was a political move to keep racism alive.” 

Meet you.

The great thing about these parents, who apparently threaten Big Education and the Biden administration, is that they not only peacefully oppose the destructive policies being passed, but they also offer detailed alternatives. There are lots of great teachers and administrators in the public education system. My wife was a private and public school teacher for thirteen years (and continues as a homeschool educator). But Critical Race Theory, Feminist Theory (FemCrit), Queer Theory and other radical ideologies have been supplanting actual education for years. And the National Education Association (herehere and here) and the American Federation of Teachers (herehere and here) insist on this radicalization.

As a parent, are you willing to be silent while our children’s minds become experimental grounds for forced political activism?

There are resources to help inform and equip you like Fight for SchoolsParents Defending Education, and Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). There is a battle going on for the very heart and soul of our youth who are daily bombarded with dangerous and divisive ideologies. We must have zero tolerance for schools marginalizing parents and pretending our voices don’t matter. It’s a struggle parents cannot lose. It’s a struggle America must win.

Ryan Bomberger is the Chief Creative Officer and co-founder of The Radiance Foundation. He is happily married to his best friend, Bethany, who is the Executive Director of Radiance. They are adoptive parents with four awesome kiddos. Ryan is an Emmy Award-winning creative professional, factivist, international public speaker and author of NOT EQUAL: CIVIL RIGHTS GONE WRONG. He loves illuminating that every human life has purpose.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Kill Back Better


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Oct 13, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/10/13/kill-back-better—p–n2597416/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Kill Back Better

Source: AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast

This isn’t a Chicago story. It’s a Democratic Party story.

Kim Foxx, the state’s attorney for Cook County and darling of MSNBC, has managed to increase murders in Chicago to astounding levels even at a time when we’re all getting used to astounding crime figures. Nationwide in 2020, murder and non-negligent manslaughter were up 29.4%, according to the FBI. That’s more than double the previous record of 1968, when murders increased by 12.7%.

Under the careful management of Foxx, murders in Chicago were up 55%. To put this in perspective, last year, there were nearly as many murders in Chicago (population: 2.7 million) as in New York City and Los Angeles combined (total population: more than 12 million).

Perhaps you’ve heard about the Wild West shootout in the Austin neighborhood of Chicago two weeks ago? One group of gang members shot up the house of rival gang members at around 10 in the morning. They blasted the house with more than 70 rounds, using handguns that had been modified into automatic weapons. Their rivals fired back from inside the home, in a gun battle that lasted so long, it was still going on when the police arrived.

All of this took place in full view of police street cameras, as well as the first officers on the scene.

Of the four initial shooters, one was shot dead at the scene and left behind. The other three took off in two (stolen) Dodge Chargers. One gang member drove to a medical center, dumped his wounded comrade, then led police on a car chase ending in a fiery crash. The other Charger turned up nearby, in flames.

Police arrested the two gang members from the hospital, as well as the three gunmen inside the home.

Foxx refused to bring charges against any of them on the grounds that it was “mutual combat.” At this point, the Chicago PD’s only option may be to resubmit charges on environmental grounds — polluting the air with lead.

Who knew that when Foxx talked about not prosecuting the small stuff, she was talking about murder and mass shootings? In today’s Chicago, the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre is legal.

Foxx’s bullheaded refusal to prosecute in this case was a shock to everyone in the country, except anyone living in Chicago. This is nothing new for the Democrats’ favorite DA. The police ought to put together a calendar of Foxx’s Released Murderer of the Month.

In July it was the murderer of Chrys Carvajal, a 19-year-old National Guardsman who was gunned down when he stepped out of a house party over Fourth of July weekend. Three eyewitnesses and video evidence led the police to a notoriously violent 38-year-old gang member.

Foxx refused to bring charges, claiming there wasn’t enough evidence.

August’s Murderer of the Month shot at a guy, missed him, but managed to hit two little girls sitting in the backseat of their family’s car after returning from church. Six-year-old Aubrey Broughton took a bullet through her lung, was rushed to the hospital and survived. But another bullet lodged directly in the heart of Aubrey’s sister, 7-year-old Serenity, killing her.

Again, the police investigated, found the suspect’s vehicle, evidence inside the car, and cellphone records pointing to a 24-year-old parolee.

Foxx refused to bring charges. (On the other hand, she did remind Serenity’s parents that she too, is a “mother,” so that was nice.)

Serenity’s mother complained that the police and prosecutors are “just bickering.” That was her assessment of the situation — not that Chicago has a prosecutor who won’t prosecute murder. This may explain why — in addition to George Soros’s $2 million donation — Foxx was reelected last year.

September’s Murderer of the Month was the killer of 18-year-old Manuel Porties Jr., who showed up for a fist fight and instead was repeatedly stabbed in the neck after being knocked to the ground. Naturally, the killing was captured on cellphone cameras of bystanders.

Foxx refused to bring charges against Porties’ killer, on the grounds that it was — again — “mutual combat.”

Due to the popularity of drive-by shootings and a “snitches get stitches” ethos, there’s already only about a 20% chance of being arrested if you commit murder in Chicago. Those are pretty good odds for taking another human life.

But even if the police catch you and present the prosecutor with video evidence, eyewitnesses, cellphone signals or a dead 7-year-old girl, Foxx is there to ensure that you will NOT go to prison. At this rate, Foxx might eventually kill off every living human being in Chicago.

But as I said, this is not a story about Chicago. Kim Foxx is a dangerous nut, but she’s not a random dangerous nut. She is the Democratic Party’s beau ideal of criminal justice.

Liberal moneybags George Soros has spent millions of dollars installing criminal-friendly prosecutors around the country. (Back before it was “anti-Semitic” to mention Soros’ pro-murder campaign, The New York Times ran an article boasting of the old prune’s role in electing inert prosecutors, like Foxx.)

A few hundred thousand dollars dumped into a minor DA’s race is more than enough to decide an election. Soros has spent millions. Foxx was Soros’ first success in electing DAs who would refuse to put another black man in prison.

They’re cool with dead black teenagers and dead 7-year-olds. The only black lives the Democrats care about are the lives of black criminals.

MSNBC, mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, was ecstatic the night Foxx won the election that would make her Cook County’s top prosecutor, with Lawrence O’Donnell giddily interviewing the pro-criminal Foxx. She was triumphantly interviewed again that weekend by Al Sharpton.

When has any prosecutor’s election drawn such celebration? When has it even drawn notice?

There is not a Republican in the nation who is not required to publicly state his position on Donald Trump. How about asking Democrats to take a position on Soros’ campaign to install nolle prosequi prosecutors? Apart from Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, will any Democrat in the country criticize Foxx?

No, of course not. As dead bodies pile up in Chicago under Kim Foxx, remember: This is the criminal justice “reform” Democrats want for the entire country.

Churches key to advancing ‘next Great Awakening’ by fixing broken families, marriage experts say


Reported By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter | Friday, October 01, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/books/churches-key-to-next-great-awakening-by-fixing-families-book.html/

THE VIEWS OF THE AUTHOR, AND THOSE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THOSE OF WHATDIDYOUSAY.ORG.

Endgame
The front cover for the book “Endgame: The Church’s Strategic Move to Save Faith and Family in America” by J.P. De Gance and John Van Epp, which was released Sept. 6, 2021. | J.P. De Gance and John Van Epp

For years, Duval County, Florida, and its biggest city, Jacksonville, were known for having among the highest divorce rates in the state. And then something happened.

Various faith-based groups, including the Culture of Freedom Initiative, now called Communio, coordinated efforts with dozens of local churches to try and counter the tide of failed marriages.

The results were telling: From 2015 to 2017, Duval County saw its divorce rate drop by 28% and Jacksonville saw a 24% drop in its divorce rate.

Now Communio President J.P. De Gance wants to expand the initiative to help kickstart “the next Great Awakening in our country” by joining professional counselor John Van Epp, developer of the Relational Attachment Model series, to champion stable homes and families nationwide.

De Gance and Van Epp have come together to author the book, Endgame: The Church’s Strategic Move to Save Faith and Family in America (released on Sept. 6).

According to the authors, the way to save the declining American family is to have churches across the country more actively pursue family and relationship ministries.

“The message of the book is simply this,” they write. “Churches in America have the opportunity and responsibility to build relationship ministries and outreaches into their congregations and communities — congruent with their faith — that speak to the needs of singles, couples, and families, and, as a result, will grow their churches and transform their communities.”

The Christian Post interviewed Gance and Van Epp about their new book, including topics regarding how broken families are the leading reason why churches are in decline, why the Church is key to reviving the family unit, and advice to pastors on how to make sure their family ministries are strong. The following is an edited transcript from that interview: 

CP: Why did you decide to write this book?

Van Epp: Both of us have a history of working with organizations in the community marriage movement, so nonprofits. Churches were not directly involved, per se.

A lot of times, faith-based people were working with nonprofits to try to impact their communities to lower divorce rates, improve quality of relationships in general, and almost all were doing it with government funds. And we both had different involvement. 

Our frustration with all of that was as much good as it could accomplish, it never could change mainstream trends. And we came to believe, independent of each other, that it’s only, truly the Church in America that has the potential, the opportunity, and we believe the responsibility, to truly impact marriage and family trends, and dating trends, especially.

Not only among their people, but to reach out into the community and to step off the campus and into the community to build a relationship and offer that kind of content that will then warm people up to the Gospel of Jesus, but will also truly impact trends that are ultimately eroding the transmission of faith in America. So we believe the breakdown of the family is breaking down faith in America as well.

De Gance: My work before connecting with John was a combination of working with nonprofits that were secular and faith-based, but then we also did end up working with churches.

This is with our work in Jacksonville, Florida, which lowered the divorce rate substantially, and it was through trial and error that we recognized “wow, the church can be a huge change agent for marriage.” Not only because the church can affect its own membership, but we recognize that churches had the power to affect the community in a way that other NGOs can’t.

We recognized churches have the ability to affect their membership, we also realize that they can go way outside of their membership and affect their community, inviting folks in.

We need to have a call to action for the church to save the family.

CP: In the book, you wrote, “I had come to Washington to help save the country. But what if the best way for me to contribute to ‘saving the country’ didn’t involve Washington at all?” Do you believe too many people focus too much on using the federal government to change the country, and not enough on other ways? 

family, parents, children
Unsplash/Jude Beck

De Gance: Yes, absolutely. We have gotten away from our Tocquevillian past where problems were solved by voluntary civil society, by men and women working in their own communities, working through their churches to change real outcomes.

While politics is very important — I’m not dismissing it as important, and politics can change the culture, there have been examples of that — too many times, people of faith conclude that the best way to do it is “there ought to be a law” or “let’s come to Washington and lobby for changes,” when there’s a lot of work we can do, without getting anybody’s permission, right now, working in our church, working in our community.

Van Epp: Our government and our Constitution, we believe in separation of church and state, but some of what is happening in relationships, or you might even say a lot of what goes on in relationships, does have a true spiritual dimension.

The Church needs to speak to both the practical skill side of how to build and maintain relationships in healthy ways. So they need to have that kind of well-rounded understanding, but they bring to it the values, the consistent values of faith and a spiritual dimension that truly brings ultimate fulfillment in whether its romantic dating relationships, or ultimately marriage and family relationships, and that’s something that our government really can’t do.

If we become too dependent on [the government], which we believe is what has happened and we shirk our responsibility, then ultimately, the trends will not stay consistent with faith values and will head toward unhealthy, which is definitely what has happened in America.

CP: You argued in the book that the “collapse of the family is the major driver of the decline of Christianity.” Some say that things like the occasional major Church scandal or secular public education curriculums are the major drivers of Christianity declining in America. Why do you believe is the decline of the family instead of those other commonly claimed factors? 

De Gance: This is a big challenge with polling organizations who try to understand the reason why faith is declining by just simply asking people, “Hey, why don’t you go to church?”

The way surveys are drawn up, the respondents will give a left brain rationalization as to why they don’t do something. You got to dig deeper to get the underlying emotional cause of it.

We show that once you control for family structure, if you look at a millennial, and you look at a baby boomer, they go to church at almost the exact same rate. If I know one thing about both people, it’s that if they grew up in a home of continuously married parents, there’s almost no difference whatsoever.

So what that means is, if family structure was the same for millennials as baby boomers enjoyed, then millennials would be going to church as frequently as baby boomers. And, to me, family of origin just settles any questions on correlation and causation. 

The data overwhelmingly shows that church attendance varies significantly based on family structure, it’s the family structure that’s changed over the last 60 years and most folks who are trying to solve the problem of faith, are focusing on what we call “the smoke.” The symptom of the fire, the real fire is in the collapse of marriage and the home.

Van Epp: Look at how much money is spent on youth ministry. Because you think, “Hey, if we really just focus on this generation of young people growing up and really impact them, then we’re going to change the trajectory of their life because we’re going to infuse in them faith and faith values.”

And yet, with all of the emphasis of anywhere from $2 billion at a minimum, to up to maybe $6 billion a year spent on the youth industrial complex, from Christian college campuses, Cru and Navigators and InterVarsity, all the way down to staffing and churches, and look at that, it didn’t seem to make a dent in the trend line of each generation, from the baby boomers to the present, each generation moving by about a 10 percent increase away from faith, becoming more religious nones.

So we’re not trying to criticize investment in the youth, but point out that that was not correcting the problem. And what JP just mentioned, by just keeping the family, the parents married, and a young person growing up in an intact family, you have no decrease over the last three generations, you have no decrease in involvement in church. So therefore, that family structure seems to be the transmission belt of faith.

We have several chapters we call “the decoupling effect.” … Marriage was really viewed as a package deal socially, and what was coupled to marriage was sex, life partnership and parenting.

Of course, all through history, somebody had sex, a baby or partnership outside of marriage. But socially, it wasn’t until the ’60s decoupled those three things and they became really viewed as not only independent of marriage but personal rights.”

Fatherlessness also is highly related to the breakdown, the erosion of the transmission of faith.

De Gance: There’s significant evidence that the inability to attach to a father is a huge ingredient to expressions of agnosticism and atheism.

So we start to track that those young adults in our research with the right brain people, who said they reported being the most emotionally unattached or uninterested in church, also overwhelmingly reported having something other than a good relationship with their father.

While we all know there are good single dads or unmarried dads that are out there, on the aggregate, statistically speaking, an unmarried father is generally an uninvolved father and an unattached father. And that might be the secret ingredient as to why the collapse of marriage is destroying fatherhood, which is destroying faith.

CP: You noted in the book that while most pastors believe their churches have a strong family ministry, few actually do. What are some of the warning signs for pastors that they do not, in fact, have a strong family ministry at their church?

marriage, rings, couple
Unsplash/Samantha Gades

De Gance: First is, do you have a skills-based ministry where people are taught the skills to have a good marriage and good relationship and that those skills are practiced?

So a lot of times churches and pastors confuse preaching and teaching with practice.

Is your relationship and marriage ministry exclusively wrapped up in sermons or in just a witness talk or are you giving people the chance to practice the interpersonal skills that make marriages flourish?

[Often, churches have] the virtue of marriage down. They hold up marriage, they might champion marriage, in basic teaching, but the skills of marriage are non-existent. There’s almost this idea that faithfulness to the Gospel just begets great marriage skills and the reality is, as John noted, the decoupling effect over the last 60 years has created a lot of wounds in our culture and in our hearts and in our families.

And it’s more important than ever that the Church is teaching the skills to have a great relationship. Helping singles discern a good spouse, a good partner, to have the right cadence of relationship so that they can move into a healthy marriage. It’s so important for them — those who are married — early in their marriage to be taught and to practice the skills to have a good marriage.

The reality is, is the ingredients for a great marriage and a great relationship are known and knowable and are able for all of us to practice.

So if I am talking to a pastor, I would ask the question, “how are you helping your people know the skills of relationship health and practice them on a regular basis?”

Van Epp: Very simply, what JP just said, I would add that I have a relationship series that actually involves sermons. It’s a six-week series. It’s described in the book as called The RAM series, but churches license it, they get it, and they do it, and it has sermons, but it also involves everybody in the church.

However, I do think a lot of lead pastors lean a little bit toward being what I call “series junkies.” So once you do a really great series, as soon as you’re done, or even before you’re done, the big question is, “OK, what’s the next big series we want to do?” And they just bounce off of one. So a lot of churches do something about relationships, and then leave it.

So a real warning sign is, is healthy dating, healthy marriage content and skills-based content, part of your ongoing calendar every year?

Let’s look at the real practical side of things, let’s look at money. Does your budget have any money that is allocated on a consistent basis every year to marriage ministry and to help the singles with their dating relationships?

Because we’ve got to go upstream and help people long before they actually get married. And we’re not just talking money for the youth, let’s put that aside. We’re talking specifically for adult single dating and marriage family ministry. Is there really money in the budget?

Your wallet talks.

De Gance: We need, as a church, to recognize that even before the pandemic, the number of people getting married every single year was down 31% since the year 2000. It’s dropped 61% since the year 1970.

We can either keep doing what we’ve always been doing. If we do that, the last one out should turn the lights off, because that’s the direction the Church is heading if we don’t wrap our hands around the flight from marriage.

CP: What do you hope readers take away from you book?

Van Epp: My hope is that in reading the book or if they do the [RAM series] that it does kick off a real paradigm shift of their priorities going forward into the next 10 to 20 years.

We’re not talking about something that we think can be fixed in just a couple of years. We could make a huge impact if we get lots of churches involved, in working together in a particular community, like what Jacksonville had, they had over 90 churches working in the city of Jacksonville and over a three-year period, they made a huge dent of over 23 percent drop in divorce rate. If churches really work together.

My hope for the book is that it’s truly embraced by the Church in America, both Catholic and Protestant alike.

De Gance: We are not cultural fatalists. Anybody reading the book should be incredibly hopeful that healthy marriage is written into the human heart. And solutions to this are possible, and it’s the church that has the solution.

I always tell people, the fact that 85 percent of churches are spending nothing in this area is actually really great news. It means family and marriage has been in a free fall over the last 50 years and the church hasn’t yet entered the ring for real battle.

If churches actually became strategic, applied best practices, and reached out to their communities to renew relationships and marriages, we could see the next Great Awakening in our country in the decades ahead. And that’s what I hope pastors, and church leaders would conclude.

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter or Facebook

Richard D. Land Op-ed: Hardcore porn: The mortal enemy of humanity—women and men


Commentary By Richard D. Land, Christian Post Executive Editor | Friday, October 01, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/hard-core-porn-the-mortal-enemy-of-humanitywomen-and-men.html/

Pulling the Plug on Pornographic Websites!

Seldom, if ever, have I been more dejected at having been proven right about my prediction for over three decades now about the catastrophic impact the spiritual and emotional cancer of hard-core internet pornography would have on all levels of our culture.

Imagine my surprise when I began to read my copy of TheNew York Times on September 25, 2021 (I should confess I have been reading TheNew York Times every day since age 18. Considering how far the former “paper of record” for the country has fallen from its former glory, it is more of an addiction than a search for knowledge).

There, on the top fold of the editorial page was a column by Michelle Goldberg, “Sex Positive Feminism is Falling Out of Fashion.”

Ms. Goldberg reports what I suspect was a very surprising development to her. She reports philosopher Amia Srinivasan’s experience while teaching students at the University of Oxford about “second-wave anti-porn activism.” Ms. Srinivasan assumed that her Oxford students (late millennials and early Gen Z’ers, who have been immersed in a porn-saturated culture, as were their parents, would “find the anti-porn position prudish and passé.”

On the contrary, they seemed to be channeling the spirit of Andrea Dworkin in their responses. Responding to the massive and impassioned response of her students, Ms. Srinivasan said, “The warnings of the anti-porn feminists seem to have been belatedly realized.” Somewhere Ms. Dworkin and her supporters are saying, “I told you so.”

The responses of the Oxford students are revelatory. They overwhelmingly affirmed the belief that porn bears “responsibility for the objectification of women,” the “marginalization of women,” and “sex and violence against women.” One young man in the Oxford class expressed doubt about whether “sex that was ‘loving and mutual’ was even possible.”

How indescribably sad, and yet how predictable. When one looks at descriptions of the content of online porn (I would not advise anyone to view the actual product—you don’t want those images burned into your consciousness), it is impossible not to see it as grotesquely anti-woman.

Real feminists who understand what hard-core porn really is would picket every “adult” bookstore and porn outlet in the country if they had the courage of their convictions. And women are not the only victims. The average age of first exposure to hard-core porn for American males has dropped from 17 to 11 with the advent of the internet. Now, every home in America is just one of two clicks way away from having material that was previously confined to the worst areas of the worst cities in America ooze up into their hearts and minds through the internet.

Hard-core internet pornography is analogous to an electronic river of malignant and toxic emotional slime running just under the surface waiting to be uploaded into the hearts and minds of Americans, young and old alike.

While pornography does exploit and objectify women, it also victimizes young men. Millions of these boys and young men are receiving their sex miseducation from internet porn. Having been exposed and too often addicted to this twisted view of human sexuality, they are daily having their ability to become the husbands and fathers they desire to be stunted, twisted, and destroyed. 

Hard-core internet pornography has poisoned the basic building block of human relationships, the man-woman interaction that produces marriage and families. When I hear the responses of Ms. Srinivasan’s Oxford students, my heart breaks for both the male and female students as they testify to how pornography has shaped their interaction with each other.

Those of us who came of age before the tsunami of hard-core internet porn engulfed us have a difficult time understanding the world which this has created for millennials and Gen Z’ers. I continue to be haunted by a story related to me by a women’s dean at a prominent liberal arts college. She expressed to me how painful it was to have a steady stream of young women come for counseling with the lament that they felt extremely pressured to have casual sex and that they just “wanted sex to mean something”! How unspeakably sad.

I believe that internet porn is the Madison Avenue ad campaign that promotes sexual immorality and creates the market for sexual slavery. I believe that Satan has figured out that the most powerful weapon in his arsenal in his incessant attempts to degrade and defile humanity is hard-core internet pornography.

One measure of the level of his success is that vulgar and leud terms for sexual intercourse are now routinely used to describe acts of hostility and aggression and exploitation. The devil has taken the relationship that God intended to be the most giving and loving relationship between husband and wife and has deformed it into synonyms for the exact opposite.

It is well past time for Christians of all denominational persuasions to covenant together to seek to reclaim God’s gift of gender and sex and to redeem them for the purpose for which God gifted them—to make of the two one flesh, a knowing and a being known beyond the human capacity of speed to describe.

Let us be about our Heavenly Father’s business.

Dr. Richard Land, BA (Princeton, magna cum laude); D.Phil. (Oxford); Th.M (New Orleans Seminary). Dr. Land served as President of Southern Evangelical Seminary from July 2013 until July 2021. Upon his retirement, he was honored as President Emeritus and he continues to serve as an Adjunct Professor of Theology & Ethics. Dr. Land previously served as President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (1988-2013) where he was also honored as President Emeritus upon his retirement. Dr. Land has also served as an Executive Editor and columnist for The Christian Post since 2011.

Dr. Land explores many timely and critical topics in his daily radio feature, “Bringing Every Thought Captive,” and in his weekly column for CP.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: New study shows denial of ivermectin is a crime against humanity


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | October 01, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/horowitz-new-study-shows-denial-of-ivermectin-is-a-crime-against-humanity-theblaze-2655204407.html/

“How can I get hold of ivermectin in case I get sick?” is probably the most common email inquiry I receive daily. It’s a shame we didn’t make this safe, Nobel prize-winning drug as available as we do needles in San Francisco for the injection of dangerous drugs. Perhaps we can ask the Mexican cartels to get into ivermectin production.

In all seriousness, given the data behind ivermectin, it is shocking how our government refuses to even embark on a study. In the meantime, insurers refuse to cover it and pharmacists refuse to dispense it — and that’s if you can get hold of a doctor willing to prescribe it.

Until now, despite dozens of studies and doctors all around the world with no financial gain at stake vouching for its efficacy, our government has balked at ivermectin because, it claims, the studies are too small. Well, the Argentinian Provincial Ministry of Health just published the results of a retrospective study of a trial of over 21,000 participants. The results were unmistakable among those participants above age 40, all non-vaccinated. Overall, when adjusting for confounding factors like less healthy people joining the ivermectin group, those in the ivermectin group had a 66% lower ICU admission rate and a 55% lower mortality rate than those in the control group. Anyone in the ivermectin group was treated with a dose of 0.6mg per kg of weight one time a day for five days.

This is just the latest study, but the key is to look at the preponderance of the evidence. A meta-analysis posted earlier this week of 65 total studies netted the following pooled results.

As the author notes, while many of the studies are small sample sizes, taken together, “The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 65 studies is estimated to be 1 in 403 billion.”

So many people, including actor Louis Gossett Jr., are human testimonies to ivermectin being more than a theoretical statistical benefit. They are alive today, even after having used it at a late stage. The war on ivermectin and the embargo against early treatment are truly a crime against humanity.

Ultimately, it’s important to keep in mind that this has never been about any one treatment. Imagine if along with making ivermectin cheap and available;

  • our government had helped empower people to raise their vitamin D levels and
  • exercise more rather than gaining a ton of weight over the pandemic.
  • Imagine if our government had encouraged doctors to treat this early and often with a cocktail of several drugs plus made the monoclonal antibodies available for everyone the minute they came out, over one year ago,
  • in addition to the successful nasal irrigation techniques using povidone-iodine sprays.

Well, then the reduction in mortality would have been closer to 100%.

Vitamin D alone could have saved anyone who has gotten seriously ill recently, a year and a half after our government should have been encouraging people to take high-dose supplements. There are now at least 113 studies vouching for the correlation between high vitamin D levels and positive outcomes. The results of a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of eight vitamin D studies showed that the risk of COVID mortality for people with D levels at 50 ng/ml is close to zero.

Then, of course, there is exercise and obesity. Weight is such a strong factor in determining risk of serious illness that BMI is now being used as a way of vetting people for eligibility for the monoclonal antibodies. Yet our government encouraged a lifestyle that caused obesity to skyrocket. The rates have gone up so quickly that, according to the latest CDC data, 16 states now have obesity rates of 35% or higher, an increase of four states in just one year.

Rather than encouraging people, in addition to seeking early COVID treatment, to pound vitamins, exercise, and eat right — which would induce a cascading confluence of benefits in every other area of health and wellness — they placed all of their eggs in the vaccine basket. Now what do they have to offer those people getting infected despite taking on so much known and unknown risk from the shots?

Finally, more than any one drug or therapeutic, it’s about the art of practicing medicine, which involves having a competent doctor prescribe the right course of action for the right patient for the given symptoms at the right time. Every primary care doctor should have been encouraged, rather than discouraged, to treat this virus early with their respective patient workloads. Each drug alone might have a 30%-60% efficacy rate, but a good doctor putting it all together achieves close to 100% success.

Drs. Brian Tyson and George Fareed posted a summary of their patient outcomes after treating thousands of COVID patients in Imperial County, California, since last March. Out of 6,000 patients they treated, they never lost a patient who came to them within the first week of symptoms. What Dr. Tyson explains is so simple, yet eloquent:

“We started seeing inflammation, so we used anti-inflammatories,” Dr. Tyson explains. “We saw blood clots, so we used anti-coagulants. We saw patients having trouble breathing, so we used asthma medications. … It wasn’t just one drug. It was the art of what we see and how those patients responded to what we gave them.” As Tyson notes, if you are not in favor of early treatment, that’s fine, but why do you have to attack others who try to treat the virus? “If I’m wrong, people are still going to die,” asserted Tyson. “But if I’m right, how many thousands of lives would have been saved?”

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Brush Up on Your Voodoo!


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Sep 29, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/09/29/brush-up-on-your-voodoo—p–n2596706/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.com.

Brush Up on Your Voodoo!

Source: AP Photo/Dieu Nalio Chery

Great news! For the millions of U.S. immigrants who really wanted to immigrate to Haiti, but couldn’t get in … Guess what? The country you’re living in is about to become Haiti. This will also come as good news to the GOP’s top-dollar donors, whose sole political thought is: HOW DO WE WIN THE BLACK VOTE? (Next goal: Reverse the rotation of the Earth.)

Apparently, it’s absolutely humiliating for people who live in 100% white neighborhoods to belong to a party that appeals to white people. Consequently, for several decades now, the GOP has slobbered over Colin Powell, Alan Keyes, Condoleezza Rice, Allen West, Michael Steele, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, John James, Tim Scott, Candace Owens, Herschel Walker and so on.

I, too, slobbered over some of these fine black Republicans. But unlike the Masters of the Universe, I noticed, after the first half-dozen or so, that the GOP is never going to win more of the black vote. (The GOP’s donor class is dying of embarrassment right now, horrified that their party appeals to white people, aka “the only swing voters in the country.”)

For the last half-century, African Americans have given approximately 90% of their vote to the Democrats. (Hispanics: 70%; Asians: 70%) But the Hamptons-Manhattan-Palm Beach Brain Trust is focused like a laser beam on increasing the GOP’s minority vote. Somehow they’ve made billions of dollars, but cannot grasp, if their lives depended on it, that every election outcome is determined by the white vote.

QUIZ: What is the one demographic Trump lost in 2020 compared to 2016? Answer: White men.

[For more on Republican donors’ neurotic obsession with the black vote, see “Adios, America!,” Chapter 16, I Wrote This Chapter After Noticing How Stupid Rich People Are.]

With hordes of Haitians pouring across our border — because a certain lying conman didn’t build a wall — this weird compulsion of the donors will only get worse. Before Republican geniuses start proposing “enterprise zones” for Haitians, maybe they should take a look at Haiti.

Haitian President Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier (1957-1971) began his regime by killing off or exiling the educated elite for being too light-skinned, then expropriated the peasants’ small parcels of farmland, leading, like night into day, to mass starvation. Result: Haitian peasants adored him! Even after a regime of mass murder and widespread starvation, followed by Duvalier maneuvering his teenaged son into the presidency, the Associated Press reported in 1980 that “the Duvalier family’s support comes from the dark-skinned peasants of the countryside.”

Downside: insane execution squads, malnutrition, illiteracy and chaos. Upside: Duvalier persecuted light-skinned Haitians and embraced voodoo.

GOP donors: What if we offer them school vouchers?

George Mason economics professor Garett Jones has a vitally important article posted on the Evonomics website right now titled, “Do Immigrants Import Their Economic Destiny?”

He asks whether immigrants bring cultural attitudes, religious beliefs, a work ethic, etc. that will kill “the golden goose of first-world prosperity.” Phrased otherwise, do immigrants make “the countries they move to a lot like the countries they came from?”

Ann’s answer: Duh.

Jones’ answer: Duh — with a lot more data and analysis.

He cites a study by economists Diego Comin, William Easterly and Erick Gong of Dartmouth, New York University and Middlebury College, respectively, published in the American Economic Journal, showing that the descendants of people who were the most technologically advanced in 1500 A.D. today live in countries vastly richer than countries populated by the descendants of those not as technologically advanced in 1500 A.D.

The New York Times described the results of the study thus: “As it turns out, technology in A.D. 1500 is an extraordinarily reliable predictor of wealth today.”

Forget 1500. How’s Haiti been doing for the last 50 years? A report by the Council on Foreign Relations describes Haiti as “the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.” And that’s despite more than $13 billion in international aid in the past decade.

Let’s just hope they bring their Satan-worshipping voodoo! As Haitians worldwide descend on our country, it’s worth mentioning that their homeland is often described as “90% Catholic and 100% voodoo.”

While The New York Times (which hates our country and wants it destroyed) burbles giddily about Haitian voodoo — “a healing-based religion,” “an affirmation of national pride,” “a vibrant but gentler faith,” “equal parts happening and psychoanalysis” — other news outlets have produced vivid accounts of the actual ceremonies.

Quote:

“(A) group of men and women dressed in white circled a pole. … A few hours later, the drumbeat had intensified … A few of the women grabbed live chickens and whirled them in the air before ripping the heads off with their teeth. Then, with their hands clenched like claws and their chins dripping with blood, the women jumped up and down, screeching, ‘Ke-ke-ke, Ke-ke-ke.'” — Times-Picayune (New Orleans), 1994

Quote:

“Suddenly, the woman’s body jerks upright. She spins wildly, arms and legs flailing, and her eyes roll back in her head until only the whites show. Two men rush to her side and support her in their arms. A yellow kerchief slips off her head and her shiny, straightened hair tumbles down.

“Body rigid, muscles taut, she stomps the ground with her bare feet. She whips her head from side to side, eyes stretched wide, sweeping the room with a fierce gaze …” — The Ottawa Citizen, 2000

You can read more about these “vibrant” rituals in the book “Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Contemporary Americans.” Or just wait for them to show up in your neighborhood.

If you thought moving 100,000 Somalians into Minnesota posed challenges to assimilation, that will be a pleasant dream compared to the multitudes of Haitians Biden is letting into the country right now.

C. Douglas Golden Op-ed: Watch: Psaki Manages to Embarrass Herself and Biden with Stunning Answer


Commentary By C. Douglas Golden  September 28, 2021 at 8:54am

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki fields questions at a White House news briefing on Monday, where she had to answer for a comment from President Biden on Friday that discouraged the prime minister of India from taking questions from the media. (Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

On Jan. 24, just days after President Joe Biden took office, official CNN Democrat brown-noser Brian Stelter shared a chyron from his television show on Twitter.

“Psaki Promises to Share ‘Accurate Info’ (How Refreshing),” it read. The insinuation, of course, is that there wasn’t any accurate info from the Trump administration — but don’t worry, help was on the way!

Now, as it turns out, there’s a caveat to that refreshing promise: Psaki will be sharing “accurate info” (if often incomplete or misleading), but if President Joe Biden is going to be sharing information, your questions had better be “on point.” If they’re on a topic he doesn’t like, he’s not going to answer. (Psaki herself will probably promise to “circle back” to whatever the question was at a later date.)

On Friday, Biden met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Before their meeting, however, the president badmouthed the U.S. media and counseled Modi not to take any questions.

“The Indian press is much better behaved than the American press,” Biden told Modi. “I think, with your permission, you could not answer questions because they won’t ask any questions on point.”

That didn’t seem quite so refreshing, particularly after an incident with U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson earlier in the week when Biden’s staff shooed away reporters in the Oval Office.

Psaki was called on the carpet by the Washington press corps on Monday, given that reporters weren’t happy at the president telling the Indian prime minister to avoid taking questions. The White House press secretary tried to recontextualize — and made the problem worse in the process.

“I think what he said is that they’re not always on point,” Psaki said.

“Now I know that isn’t something that anyone wants to hear in here, but what I think he was conveying is, today he might want to talk about COVID vaccines, some of the questions were about that,” she continued.

“Some of the questions are not always about the topic he’s talking about in that day. I don’t think it was meant to be a hard cut at the members of the media, people he’s taken questions from today and on Friday as well,” she added.

Another reporter — CBS News Radio’s Steven Portnoy — followed up, saying, “It happened that he was sitting next to prime minister of India, the world’s largest democracy, when he said that. It also followed the incident on Wednesday when he was sitting next to the prime minister of Great Britain. Is the president reticent to take questions when he’s sitting next to a foreign leader in the Oval Office? Can we expect him to do that in the future?”

“Steve, he took questions earlier that day on Friday. He’d already taken questions that day. I think that was the context of his comments,” Psaki said. “And he’s taken questions standing next to a foreign leader many, many times in the past, and will continue to.”

There was also one other problem with Biden’s remark, as Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich noted.

“The president said that the Indian press was better behaved than the U.S. press, but the Indian press is ranked 142nd in the world, according to Reporters Without Borders, for press freedoms,” she asked.

“How does he say that about the U.S. press compared to the Indian press?” she asked.

“Well, I would just say to you that, having now worked for the president, serving in this role for nine months, having seen that he’s taken questions from the press more than 140 times, including today and Friday, that he certainly respects the role of the press, the role of the freedom of free press,” Psaki said.

“We ensure that we have press with us, of course, when we travel, that we have press with us for sprays in foreign capitals, and we will continue to. I think that should speak to his commitment to freedom of press around the world.”

It’s worth noting that Psaki had all weekend to work on her answer to this. She knew full well this was going to be one of the things she had to answer when she walked into the Brady Press Briefing Room in the West Wing of the White House. The best the press secretary and her team could come up with: You guys need to start asking the kinds of questions the president wants to hear. Talk about what he’s talking about. See, this is why he never takes questions from the press. Focus, people!

It was an embarrassment — to Psaki and the president. And even the shamelessly pro-Biden press corps had to know it.

For whatever reason, Brian Stelter hasn’t weighed in on how refreshing that answer was. Perhaps he missed it.

C. Douglas Golden, Contributor

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.

@CillianZealFacebook

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Do the Vaccines Work or Don’t They? Democrats Need to Decide.


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Sep 22, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/09/22/the-real-antivaxxers—p–n2596335/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Do the Vaccines Work or Don't They? Democrats Need to Decide.

Source: AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes

As with Robert Frost’s two paths diverging in the woods, the COVID pandemic has hit a fork in the road.

Back in 2020, when the virus first presented itself, anything could be forgiven. Trump could shoot hydroxychloroquine up his butt; Fauci could sneer at masks, then a week later demand that we wear 17 masks; governors could order everyone to stay home, while they cavorted at parties, restaurants, hair salons and protests.

The lies, hypocrisies and idiocies were all stuffed in our burlap bag, as we bounced along Coronavirus Road.

Then, in a triumph of Western medicine, A VACCINE APPEARED! That’s when our path in the woods diverged into the sane and insane.

It’s pretty clear now that the vaccines work, with few side effects — although our public health experts would really do us a solid if they’d stop lying about there being no side effects. At a minimum, the vaccines prevent serious illness and death. They’re even more effective than the flu vaccine, and that’s pretty good.

Between widespread natural infection — something else it would be nice if authorities would stop lying about — and mass vaccination, COVID IS NOW OVER. It wasn’t “the flu” in 2020, but it is in 2021.

Liberals sulked as people began getting vaccinated and living their lives again, but then seized on the delta variant to announce: Let’s lock down again!

The very people demanding that everyone get vaccinated are the same ones telling us vaccines don’t work all that well, so maybe we’d better just keep wearing masks, quarantining, working remotely and staying home from school.

Do the vaccines work or don’t they? If they work, we’ll thank you to stop bossing us around now.

Going further into crazy town, liberals decided to pretend that Anthony Fauci was not an escaped mental patient.

Our most visible “public health” authority continues to issue lunatic pronouncements like a third world despot: The vaccinated must wear masks! Children should be vaccinated! Even 2-year-olds need to be masked! Everybody has to get a third vaccine shot! (That last bright idea led a couple of experts from the Food and Drug Administration advisory panel to resign in protest, followed by the panel unanimously voting to recommend booster shots only in certain cases.)

Apart from just coming out and telling us he doesn’t believe the vaccines work, Fauci is telling us he doesn’t believe the vaccines work.

This is the nut, you will recall, who knowingly lied to the public at the outset of the pandemic for what he, Anthony Fauci, in his sole discretion, decided was a higher cause. Without a scintilla of scientific evidence one way or the other, he condescendingly announced that masks don’t work against COVID — simply for the greater good of preventing a mask shortage.

What if he considers it a greater good for Anthony Fauci to keep appearing on TV? Like an aging football star who dreams of being back in high school, Fauci longs to be in the spotlight.

Except we have vaccines now! So thanks, but we’ve heard enough from you, Fauci.

Also, we know things that we didn’t in 2020.

A Bridge Too Far

We now know, for example, that COVID is bad, but it’s not Ebola. Eighty-year-olds have survived it. Trump survived it. The 800-pound Chris Christie survived it. And that was before we had all the therapies we have now. Or, come to think of it, any idea what we were doing at all. (Remember the mad rush for ventilators?)

We know that cases are good; deaths are bad. The media frantically report “cases” only because their panic porn attracts readers, so who cares if it’s irrelevant?

As long as you don’t die, which would be bad, a COVID infection is nature’s vaccination shot! As multiple studies have shown, immunity from prior infection is stronger and more durable than that from vaccination.

Infections are especially good if you’re already vaccinated. Then you’ll have super-immunity. You won’t die of COVID — although you might die with COVID, especially if you’re old or sick or have just taken a massive dose of fentanyl.

Like George Floyd. Remember? He had COVID when he died. But unlike Floyd, the media will broadcast your death as a cautionary tale to again harangue us to wear masks and get vaccinated. How dare you not get a vaccine and put the vaccinated at risk!

But the vaccinated aren’t at risk. You know why? Because the vaccines work.

We also know that COVID poses virtually no risk to young people. We knew this early on, and for some reason ignored it, but by now the evidence is overwhelming.

Since COVID landed on our shores, 95% of dead the U.S. have been 50 or older. Nearly 80% of the dead were 65 or older — and not only are they heavily vaccinated, but they make up only 16% of the population. The 64.5% of the population under age 50 — in its entirety — has a 5% chance of dying from COVID.

Combine the minimal risk of death to young people — less than the flu during a normal flu season — with what we now know about the strong immunity from prior COVID infection, and, throughout 2020, we should have been putting little kids into giant, Japanese-size classrooms and encouraging young people to blow beer foam in one another’s faces, get drunk and make out with strangers. Our entire under-30 population would be immune.

Remember the college kid on spring break when COVID first hit the news in February 2020, who had his life destroyed for nonchalantly telling a TV interviewer, “If I get corona, I get corona”? If only we’d listened to him instead of Fauci!

Jason Whitlock Op-ed: When it comes to abortion, Megan Rapinoe and Sue Bird have misguided priorities


Commentary by JASON WHITLOCK | September 21, 2021

Read more at Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/whitlock-when-it-comes-to-abortion-megan-rapinoe-and-sue-bird-have-misguided-priorities/

Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Alphabet Mafia and sports power couple Megan Rapinoe and Sue Bird have loaned their names, reputations, and expertise to the abortion-rights debate. The soccer and basketball superstars joined 500 other female jocks in signing a friend-of-the-court brief presented to U.S. Supreme Court justices deliberating a Mississippi law that would ban the killing of fetuses who have lived more than 15 weeks inside a woman’s womb.

According to Reuters news agency, the athletes argued in their brief that ending the growth of babies inside the womb has helped the growth of women’s sports. Quoting directly from the brief, Reuters reported: “The physical tolls of forced pregnancy and childbirth would undermine athletes’ ability to actualize their full human potential.”

Do we really look that Stupid

The brief failed to mention that the physical toll of abortion undermines a baby’s ability to actualize his or her full human potential. Pregnancy, according to 500 female athletes, is now an issue about the growth of sports, not the growth of babies.

Rapinoe, a star on the U.S. women’s national soccer team, said in a statement: “As women athletes and people in sports, we must have the power to make important decisions about our bodies and exert control over our reproductive lives.”

Rapinoe is engaged to Bird, a guard in the WNBA. Rapinoe and Bird, two birthing people, cannot create a child through scissoring, strap-ons, digital penetration, or other forms of same-sex intimacy. Short of rape, they have complete control of their reproductive lives. Their need for an abortion is quite remote unless they changed their minds after intentionally inseminating themselves with male sperm.

Their passion for the abortion issue strikes me as odd. It’s the equivalent of me issuing a statement on skinny-jeans rights. The issue is of no importance to me given my fast-food lifestyle. But here we are in modern America. Professional athletes and other pampered celebrities are the smartest, most informed people on the planet. Their ability to kick, dribble, and throw a ball gives them remarkable insight into abortion rights, criminal justice reform, police-involved shootings, insurrections, and viral videos capturing alleged instances of oppression and systemic racism.

LeBron James struggles to write tweets and Instagram posts at a grade-school grammar level, but he is one of America’s foremost public intellectuals and authoritative voices on racial discrimination. LeBron, the new Muhammad Ali, once analogized his reaction to learning the N-word was scrawled on the back gate of his $20 million mansion in a predominantly white neighborhood to Emmett Till’s mother opening the casket of her murdered 14-year-old son.

Money and fame are the sworn enemies of self-awareness. Today’s athletes have zero self-awareness and even less humility. They don’t know what they don’t know. There’s no reason for them to seek answers. Their handlers, their corporate sponsors, and rigged social media apps provide them all the answers they need.

Let me know the next time Rapinoe, James, or Colin Kaepernick take a public position that isn’t supported by Twitter groupthink. They’re not rebels. They’re voices for the establishment — Big Tech, global corporations, corporate media, and the Democratic Party — pretending to be anti-establishment radicals. The establishment is pushing for radical change, a great reset. Rapinoe, James, and Kaepernick are useful idiots of the establishment.

Do you know how stupid you have to be to reduce the issue of abortion to the growth of women’s sports? Ignorance is the Devil’s best friend. Dishonesty is his spouse.

I keep saying that a lot of what the left supports is satanic. Rapinoe’s stated support of abortion rights is exhibit A, B, C, and D. What else would cause a person to prioritize the growth of sports ahead of the growth of a child?

Technology has given human beings more control over reproductive issues than at any time in the history of mankind. Condoms, contraceptives, and abortions before week 15 give us a lot of control over our reproductive lives. It’s mind-boggling to hear an accomplished athlete argue that abortions after 15 weeks are an infringement on reproductive control. You can’t reach Rapinoe’s level of athletic success without being disciplined and without making sacrifices. Abstinence, requiring men to wear a condom, birth control pills, and female condoms are all highly effective ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies. They’re not foolproof solutions. But they’re better than standing before the world and writing a letter that says protecting the growth of sports is far more important than protecting the growth of life.

That argument is insanity that borders on wickedness. It’s an argument a dumb jock would make at the behest of her handlers. Megan Rapinoe is a dumb jock. She thinks we’re all dumb, too. And worse, she thinks applying discipline, restraint, and sacrifice are behaviors we should use in pursuit of athletic greatness and avoid in our reproductive lives. For Rapinoe, sports are a higher priority than life.

Daniel Horowitz Op-ed: Now that vaccinated people need the monoclonal treatments, Biden admin and media attack the treatment


Commentary by DANIEL HOROWITZ | September 20, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-now-that-vaccinated-people-need-the-monoclonal-treatments-biden-admin-and-media-attack-the-treatment/

For those of you who couldn’t believe that the government’s war on ivermectin and every other treatment was rooted in a sinister motivation, its new attack on the monoclonal antibodies should indelibly cement the terrifying thought in your mind. The government and the media are now using the same attack pattern on the monoclonal antibody treatment that they used on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin now that it has become popular with people desperate for treatment – vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.

On Sept. 14, the Biden administration announced that the feds would be cutting the number of monoclonal treatments per week in the southern states and reallocating them as part of a broader plan to start rationing the treatments. For example, in Florida, HHS issued an allocation for the week of Sept. 13 of 3,100 doses of BAM/ETE treatments and 27,850 doses of REGN-COV. As Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said in a press conference last week, this would effectively reduce Florida’s allocation by 50%. The federal agency did this without any warning or indication that there was a shortage.

Then, last Thursday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki explained the move as follows“Our supply is not unlimited and we believe it should be equitable.” HHS then followed up with an explanation of the policy of “equity.”

But wouldn’t you focus on where it’s needed at a given time rather than blind “equity”? Also, Biden promised just days earlier during the announcement of his vaccine mandate to boost monoclonal distribution by 50%.

Well, here is the answer to the enigma: In that same announcement, Biden warned, “If these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as president to get them out of the way.” Is the federal takeover of the monoclonals his ace in the hole? And why wouldn’t the government just produce more? We have spent trillions of dollars on welfare, shutdowns, and vaccines that failed so miserably that people who already got the shots still need the monoclonals! So why not put the funding into the monoclonals?

Well, if you are trying to ascertain the motivation of government always watch carefully for its stenographers in the media to follow up with the psy-ops on the general public, which will reveal the true messaging. Once you read this New York Times article, you will see clearly that this is really not about “equity” or some concern over supply. In an article titled, “They shunned COVID vaccines but embraced antibody treatments,” the NYT essentially frames the monoclonals as some right-wing solution that is only for those who didn’t want to get the vaccine.

Some Republican governors have set up antibody clinics while opposing vaccine mandates, frustrating even some of the drugs’ strongest proponents. Raising vaccination rates, scientists said, would obviate the need for many of the costly antibody treatments in the first place. The infusions take about an hour and a half, including monitoring afterward, and require constant attention from nurses whom hard-hit states often cannot spare.”It’s clogging up resources, it’s hard to give, and a vaccine is $20 and could prevent almost all of that,” said Dr. Christian Ramers, an infectious disease specialist and the chief of population health at Family Health Centers of San Diego, a community-based provider. Pushing antibodies while playing down vaccines, he said, was “like investing in car insurance without investing in brakes.”

Except it’s simply not true. The vaccines are no longer working, especially for those who got them early on — particularly the elderly — and many of the people who got them badly need treatment. As Gov. DeSantis reported, the majority of those seeking monoclonals are vaccinated, a fact I have verified in the facility closest to me in Baltimore. Here are the statistics the Florida government publicized at last week’s press conference:

At our Broward site, 52% of the patients that have received treatment have been vaccinated, 69% of those over 60 that have received treatment at the Broward site had been vaccinated. In Miami Dade almost 60% of everybody that’s been treated at the Tropical Park site has been vaccinated. And 73% of the patients treated at the state site in Tropical Park that are over the age of 60 have been vaccinated.

So again, it’s the exact opposite of what the media and the Biden administration are saying. The vaccines cost a fortune and failed. Now these same people need treatment. The same government officials rationing the monoclonals have already scared 99% of doctors away from prescribing and pharmacists from filling cheap off-patent drugs that have cured the few people who can access them. The monoclonals are made by the cool kids at big pharma and are approved by the government. Except our government paid them off up front and then refused to even make the public aware of their existence. Thus, even things produced by big pharma are now attacked, so long as they actually work and people begin successfully using them.

It’s so cute to watch the government and media suddenly become concerned about expensive treatments after spending billions on the vaccines. There is a simple solution, and that would be mass production of ivermectin and encouraging all physicians to treat everyone early with it and other cheap drugs. But now that the government has essentially banned them, the monoclonals are the only show in town. This is where the Biden administration wants to place Americans they don’t like into a death trap.

Texas Montgomery County Judge Mark Keough warned that this is not about a lack of supply. “The manufacturer has confirmed supplies are ample but due to the Defense Production Act, the White House and its agencies are the only entities who can purchase and distribute this treatment,” wrote Keough on Facebook.

With the war on any and all forms of early treatment, ask yourself this question: Does our government really want the pandemic to end?

Eric Erickson Op-ed: The Progressive Freakout


Commentary ByErick Erickson | Sep 18, 2021 | DailyWire.com

Read more at https://www.dailywire.com/news/erickson-the-progressive-freakout/

A demonstrator holds up a banner saying "We've Only Just Begun" during the second annual Women's March in the borough of Manhattan in New York City, U.S. on Saturday, January 20, 2018.
Ira L. Black/Corbis via Getty Images

Recent data from the Cooperative Election Study shows 20% of atheists have participated in a march or protest, compared with 6% of white evangelicals. Forty percent of atheists have contacted a public official, compared with 24% of white evangelicals. Fifty-two percent of atheists have donated to political candidates, compared with just 26% of white evangelicals. Pull back further, and the divide between progressives and conservative evangelicals shows the former, not the latter, more actively involved in protest and politics.

As progressivism secularizes, politics becomes religion. Virtue signaling replaces a Christian ichthus fish on the back of a car. Outrage becomes a signal for identifying heretics. If one is not outraged, one just might be a heretic to secular, progressive zealots.

This past weekend, college students took to stadiums across America to experience the joy of fellowship and football. Across television networks and social media, progressives decried the activity as unsafe. Outdoor festivities again became superspreader events in ways mass protests and ransacking small businesses did not during the riots and protests surrounding George Floyd’s death in summer 2020.

The Supreme Court let a Texas law stay in place because the plaintiffs in the case sued the wrong people. The Supreme Court refused to halt the law because the Court does not stop laws. The Court only stops people from enforcing the laws. When the wrong people are sued, the Court has no power to stop them. Progressives insisted, despite the dereliction of duty by the plaintiffs, that the Court should stop the law anyway. While four justices would have done so, they would have deviated from legal precedent.

Undeterred, instead of blaming the plaintiffs for their collective screw-up, progressives assailed the Supreme Court, Texas, former President Donald Trump, conservatives, and babies. They fixated on the worst-case scenario — rape. According to progressives, women who are victims of rape will have to carry their babies to term and face untold psychological trauma. They patently ignored that Texas cannot stop a woman from traveling to another state to terminate her child. Nor did they care to point out that rape accounts for, at most, 1% of abortions. To listen to the commentary on television, one would think rape and pregnancies therefrom happen constantly. Meanwhile, one doctor admitted to killing dozens of children in the run-up to the law taking effect, none because of rape, but rather because of the mothers’ convenience.

As the remains of a hurricane went up the East Coast, sending flooding with it, progressives freaked out about climate change. Never letting a crisis go to waste, politicians and supposed experts paraded onto television screens across America demanding Americans give up their way of life to stop storms. Storms will not be stopped by a battery-powered car. One would be hard-pressed to realize that from the media coverage.

Podcaster Joe Rogan received ivermectin from his doctor. The inventors of the drug received a Nobel Prize for ivermectin’s contribution to human progress. The drug has saved billions of people from blindness and parasitic infestation. It is also used in livestock, and a few people have tried to ingest dosages meant for horses. Rogan, however, got it from his doctor. Some doctors believe the well-documented anti-inflammatory properties of ivermectin can help prevent or combat the so-called cytokine storm whereby COVID-19 triggers a release of inflammatory proteins called cytokines into the bloodstream. The Food and Drug Administration has discouraged ivermectin prescriptions pending further study.

Progressives freaked out about Rogan and his doctor while assailing Texas for getting between a woman and her doctor. All of the freaking out is theater. In the postmodern age, one demonstrates one’s commitment to a particular truth or cause through performance. The screaming and wailing on social media and television is performance designed to both signal one’s commitment to a supposed truth and identify the heretics who choose not to perform.

As progressives continue making secularism a religion, the ritualistic outrage will get more intense, but this will also help discredit the progressive cause. Most people don’t have time for outrage these days as they struggle to get by thanks to progressives closing schools and causing inflation with massive spending binges.

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at http://www.creators.com.

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.

Jason Whitlock Op-ed: Nicki Minaj exposes MSNBC’s Joy Reid as a high priestess in Alphabet Mafia cult


Commentary by JASON WHITLOCK | September 17, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/whitlock-nicki-minaj-exposes-msnbcs-joy-reid-as-a-high-priestess-in-alphabet-mafia-cult/

The Alphabet Mafia owns Joy Reid, the black MSNBC cultural overseer at the Rachel Maddow plantation.

Soldiers in the alternative lifestyle wing of the BLMLGBTQ+ Alphabet Mafia captured Reid four years ago when a Twitter user unearthed her homo-hostile blog posts from the late 2000s. Massa Maddow and the other heads of the Alphabet Mafia families — including Don Obama, Don Pelosi, Don Soros, and the don of all dons, Xi Jinping — made Reid an offer she couldn’t refuse.

They threatened to chop off her TV career if she maintained the beliefs she developed as a Christian. After initially claiming a hacker framed her as a Christian, Reid eventually disavowed her religious upbringing and admitted that membership in the MSNBC cult was too lucrative to justify hanging on to outdated moral codes.

She packed her bags and moved into Massa Maddow’s big house, landing a coveted timeslot and the important role of overseeing black culture and thought. Reid is a giant symbol of the rewards awaiting black women and their male idolaters for abandoning their religious views in favor of evangelizing for the Democratic Party and the Alphabet Mafia.

Joy Reid has no discernible broadcasting skill. Broken glass is smoother than her delivery. Her ideas and point of view are Twitter-deep. Al Sharpton has better hair than the endless array of weaves Reid has imported from Xi Jinping’s private stock. Yet Joy Reid earns a seven-figure salary and talks to America during prime time. No wonder women have lost all respect for men. Can’t you envision Joy Reid, Jemele Hill, and Don Lemon on a girls’ night out laughing at Judas?

“Girl, Judas settled for 30 pieces of silver. He thought he got the bag. If you gonna sell out, get the bag for real, for real.”

I bring all this up because this week, Joy Reid has had to earn her salary. There’s trouble in the big house. The rapper and singer Nicki Minaj disobeyed the Commission. She publicly expressed vaccine hesitancy, which pissed off the don of all dons and the other heads of the Great Reset families.

Via Pravda, I mean Twitter, Minaj shared a story about a man allegedly having a bad reaction to the vaccine. His testicles allegedly swelled, he became impotent, and his fiancee dumped him. This all allegedly happened in Trinidad, where Minaj’s family hails from. Minaj said she’s still researching and debating whether to get the vaccine. She advised her 22 million followers to pray and make sure they’re comfortable with their vaccine decision — not bullied.

It’s an extremely reasonable position to take … unless you’re a member of the Hollywood cult and Alphabet Mafia. Cult members are instructed to avoid thinking and prayer. They’re told to follow and obey. The Commission ordered Reid to lash Minaj in front of other cult members. On Tuesday, Reid promptly attacked Minaj on MSNBC. Minaj fired back via social media, setting off a week-long war that included air support from Fox News host Tucker Carlson (Team Nicki) and CNN’s Don Lemon (Team Joy) and Comedy Central’s Trevor Noah (Team Joy).

Carlson’s support of Minaj sparked the typical Alphabet Mafia response: “Carlson is racist, and if a racist says water is wet, then water is really dry.”

Minaj stood firm, tweeting: “Right. I can’t speak to, agree with, even look at someone from a particular political party. People aren’t human any more. If you’re black and a Democrat tells you to shove marbles up your ass, you simply have to. If another party tells you to look out for that bus, stand there and get hit.”

Last night, from the front porch of Massa Maddow’s big house, Reid blasted Minaj for garnering the backing of conservative pundits. Reid labeled Carlson and the Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro as anti-vax, right-wing bomb-throwers. I believe Carlson is vaccinated. Shapiro is a strong proponent of the vaccine. Reid has been instructed to frame anyone who is hesitant about mandating the vaccine as a racist Trump supporter. Reid doesn’t think. She does what she’s told. She’s owned by the Alphabet Mafia. The fact that black people, the most obedient members of the Democratic Party, are America’s most vaccine-hesitant is lost on her. She took to the airwaves Thursday night and ranted about how Carlson and Shapiro are using Minaj (the way Massa Maddow uses Reid).

They need and crave authentic members of the culture, hip-hop culture,” Reid told her viewers. “Let’s just be clear, (Carlson and Shapiro) look down on that culture and hate that culture and would never, ever, ever support someone like Nicki Minaj other than to pull her on to their team. Case in point, Laura Ingraham once criticized President Obama for just meeting with Ms. Minaj, citing the profanity in her lyrics. But they need her right now. And let’s not forget the freak out the right had over the WAP lyrics by Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion, or Lil Nas X for giving the devil a lap dance in a music video. The right has no use for people in the culture until they’re useful for the purposes of hurting people in the culture.”

Little Nasty X-rated, the rapper, built a following among young children with the song Old Town Road. He’s now making music videos featuring prison sex, prison shower scenes, and descending to hell to ride the devil’s rod, and Joy Reid is on national TV proclaiming it a culture worth defending.

Joy Reid is a high priestess in a satanic cult. She went from homo-hostile blog posts to a Jesus-hostile television show.I hope it’s worth the money.

CHRIS PANDOLFO and LEON WOLF Op-ed: Cash, COVID, and cover-up, part 3: ‘You will have tasks that must be done’


Commentary by CHRIS PANDOLFO and LEON WOLF | September 16, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/cash-covid-and-cover-up-part-3-you-will-have-tasks-that-must-be-done/

Click here for part 1 of this series: Cash, COVID, and cover-up, part 1: The questions we should have asked of Fauci about the origins of COVID-19

Click here for part 2 of this series: Cash, COVID, and cover-up, part 2: The gain-of-function controversy

On Jan. 27, 2020, EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak sent an email to Dr. David Morens, a subordinate of Dr. Anthony Fauci at NIAID, that contained a not-very-subtle warning. Fauci had not yet been appointed to former President Donald Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force and was thus largely unknown to the public at large at this point. Daszak would later become perhaps the most prominent public scientific figure in the world to denounce the lab-leak theory.

He was also, perhaps not coincidentally, the link between U.S. taxpayer dollars and research funded at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — it was through his EcoHealth Alliance that the WIV had received NIAID grants.

As the coronavirus pandemic was emerging in Wuhan and scientists began looking for the source of the outbreak (some of whom were considering the possibility that the virus might have leaked from the WIV), Daszak alerted Morens to a rather explosive fact: The NIAID had, in fact, been funding the WIV indirectly. Not only that, Daszak provided Morens with a handy list of talking points that Fauci could use, if he saw fit, if he was asked about what, exactly, the NIAID had been funding at the WIV.

“Great info, thanks,” Morens replied. “[Dr. Fauci] doesn’t maintain awareness of these things and doesn’t know unless program officers tell him, which they rarely do, since they are across town and may not see him more than once a year, or less.”

It is reasonable to assume that, prior to this point, Fauci may not have personally known that NIAID had funded research at the WIV that any reasonable person would have concluded constituted gain-of-function research. However, he certainly knew after this heads-up from Daszak — who was aggressively shaping the public message even this early in the pandemic.

+++++++++

The first officially reported human cases of COVID-19 were identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, although there is evidence the virus was circulating and infecting people at the Wuhan Institute of Virology before December. At the beginning of the month, patient zero, a 55-year-old man from Hubei, went to the hospital with pneumonia-like symptoms. Though the outbreak would later be traced to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, patient zero had not been there. In the next few weeks, more patients would present themselves to the hospital with similar symptoms, and on Dec. 8, 2019, the Wuhan City Health Committee and the World Health Organization reported that 41 people had been tested and confirmed positive for a new viral disease that would come to be called COVID-19.

Reports of this novel coronavirus were of immediate interest to Drs. Fauci, Baric, Daszak, and the other virologists, researchers, and public health officials who had dedicated their lives to studying, controlling, and preventing infectious disease. Their jobs, after all, were to guide the public response to a pandemic. But the circumstances surrounding the outbreak of the virus, and the possible, though unproven, connection of its origins to dangerous gain-of-function research — which those involved had an ideological and financial stake in — created a conflict of interest that perhaps motivated their public statements and compromised their official response to COVID-19.

To say that the government has not been voluntarily forthcoming about its response to the COVID-19 pandemic would be to engage in massive understatement. Only a bevy of repeated FOIA requests filed by media and nonprofit organizations, combined with the incessant prying of the DRASTIC internet sleuths, have uncovered as much information as we now have. And what we have represents only a small fraction of the total: enormous portions — perhaps the majority — have been redacted, including entire lengthy emails.

We, ordinary members of the public, remain largely in the dark about what these men and women did and said to each other as they scrambled to formulate a public response to the largest public health emergency in recent memory. For that matter, it seems that another key person appears to have been kept in the dark: former President Donald Trump, who was, if you will recall, the boss of virtually all the government officials involved in these communications. And yet, one searches through these hundreds of pages of released emails in vain for any indication that the president was consulted or even informed about deliberations that were occurring regarding how his administration would handle what would come to be his defining crisis.

While we might know but little of the full picture, what we do know does not look good. In the early days of the pandemic, a group of scientists led by Fauci, Farrar, and Daszak held a number of teleconferences and meetings, over which there remains a blanket of almost total secrecy. The end result of these initial teleconferences is that all the participants would emerge to publicly declare the lab-leak theory a conspiracy, including some (like Dr. Kristian Andersen), who had just days earlier announced that the virus looked potentially engineered.

In the months following these internal discussions, Fauci, Dasak, and other public officials and influential members of the scientific community would coordinate a messaging campaign to discredit the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the Wuhan lab. Discussion of the lab-leak theory would be shut down in public spaces by their repeated insistence that such questions were conspiracy-theory, fringe ideas that promote disinformation during a global pandemic.

They instead advanced the hypothesis that COVID-19 had natural, or zoonotic origins — that the virus began in some animal host, possibly bats or pangolins, and evolved to become transmissible among humans. This became the prevailing narrative accepted by the media, and those who questioned its truthfulness were smeared as conspiracy theorists and in some cases de-platformed by tech companies for contradicting the opinions of respected, scientific experts and organizations — read: the views endorsed and promoted by government officials like Fauci.

Here is how the plan unfolded.

+++++++++

The chain began in late December 2019. On Dec. 31, 2019, at 8:16 a.m., Dr. Baric emailed Daszak with the subject line, “RE: have you heard any news on this? maybe as many as 27 cases with 7 severe in wuhan—ards like pneumonia.” The email contained an update from ProMed, an email list that provides readers all over the world with crowdsourced disease alerts, on the latest news regarding an emerging pneumonia-like disease reported in Wuhan.

Daszak, a zoologist, was the leader of the only U.S.-based nonprofit organization researching coronavirus evolution and transmission in China. He is also a strong proponent of and fundraiser for gain-of-function research. For years, his organization has received federal funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health and its sub-agency the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to support research on bat coronaviruses conducted in China. He was on friendly terms with Wuhan researcher Dr. Shi Zhengli, as well as NIAID Director Fauci, and had contacts with both of their colleagues.

He replied to Baric indicating that his EcoHealth colleague Hongying Li was feeding him information on the pneumonia cases in what appeared to be real time. Daszak’s emails were made public as part of a records request from U.S. Right to Know.

On Jan. 6, 2020, Daszak replied to an email from Erik Stemmy, the program officer for the Respiratory Diseases Branch Division of Microbiology and Infections Diseases at NIAID, indicating that he had some off-the-record information on the viral outbreak in China. Chinese scientists on Jan. 12 published the genetic sequence of the virus causing the outbreak. EcoHealth Alliance analyzed the Chinese data and determined the virus was related to SARS. Daszak wrote another email to Stemmy informing him that the new virus is “close to SARSr-CoV Rp3 that we published from our past NIAID work. This came from a Rhinolophus bat in S. China.” He added that Baric was “already working to reconstruct and rescue the virus in the lab from the sequence, so he can do further work on it.”

It would appear that Daszak had early access to information Shi’s research team wouldn’t make public until Jan. 23, when they reported the genetic sequence for SARS-CoV-2 was 96.2% similar to a previously discovered bat coronavirus called RaTG13. Daszak confirmed as much in another Jan. 9 email exchange with NIAID senior scientific adviser Dr. David Morens, who had emailed Daszak asking if he had any “inside info on this new coronavirus that isn’t yet in the public domain.”

“Yes — lots of information and I spoke with Erik Stemmy and Alan Embry yesterday before the news was released,” Daszak replied. “Erik is my program officer on our coronavirus grant specifically focused on China.” These emails were obtained by Judicial Watch.

Later in a Jan. 27 email, Daszak sent Morens talking points on EcoHealth Alliance’s work with the Wuhan lab for Fauci to mention “when he’s being interviewed re. The new CoV.” He highlighted that NIAID had been funding research at the Wuhan lab through EcoHealth Alliance for “the past 5 years” and that the work involves identifying “cohorts of people highly exposed to bats in China” and determining “if they’re getting sick from [coronaviruses].”

Daszak also pointed out the “results of our work,” which included the discovery of “SARS-related CoVs that can bind to human cells (Published in Nature), and that cause SARS-like disease in humanized mouse models.” He was referring to Baric and Shi’s 2015 collaborative gain-of-function study.

From the beginning, Daszak sought to influence the messaging around his work in China, casting it in the most positive light.

“Great info, thanks,” Morens replied. “[Dr. Fauci] doesn’t maintain awareness of these things and doesn’t know unless program officers tell him, which they rarely do, since they are across town and may not see him more than once a year, or less.”

The early work of scientists to identify SARS-CoV-2 and trace its origins inevitably attracted the attention of the media. Science magazine published an article on Jan. 31 detailing those efforts, covering Shi’s work and leaning in to the emerging hypothesis that the virus occurred naturally in bats and made the leap to infect humans. The article also briefly discussed “conspiracy theories” linking China’s coronavirus research to weapons research. At the time there were unsubstantiated claims that China engineered the virus at the Wuhan lab as a bioweapon, but soon the “conspiracy theory” label would be expanded to any suggestion that the virus originated in the lab, no matter how credentialed those promoting the idea were or how carefully they avoided drawing conclusions.

The Science article did note that there were concerns about the Wuhan lab’s security and gain-of-function research. Dr. Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University and a critic of gain-of-function experiments, was quoted suggesting that data on SARS-CoV-2 was “consistent with entry into the human population as either a natural accident or a laboratory accident.”

The mere suggestion that it was possible for COVID-19 to come from a laboratory accident drew immediate, fierce attack from Daszak.

“Every time there’s an emerging disease, a new virus, the same story comes out: This is a spillover or the release of an agent or a bioengineered virus,” Daszak told Science. “It’s just a shame. It seems humans can’t resist controversy and these myths, yet it’s staring us right in the face.”

This unjustified, angry reaction to a reasonable point was a prelude to what was to come.

+++++++++

At 8:43 p.m. on Jan. 31, the Science article was emailed to Dr. Anthony Fauci, who in turn forwarded it to several of his NIH colleagues and associates, including Dr. Jeremy Farrar, the director of the London-based Wellcome Trust megacharity, and to Dr. Kristian Andersen, a respected virologist at Scripps Research. Fauci’s emails were made public via a Freedom of Information Act Request from BuzzFeed News.

Andersen, who had studied the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2, wrote back praising the article but adding an astounding claim: He had analyzed the genetic sequences from China and determined that “some of the features (potentially) look engineered.” He told Fauci that “after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory,” before adding that “those opinions could still change.” According to reporter Nicholas Wade, Eddie is Edward C. Holmes of the University of Sydney, Bob is Robert F. Garry of Tulane University, and Mike is Michael Farzan at Scripps Research.

Andersen would later walk back what he said privately, claiming that he and other scientists strongly considered the lab-leak possibility before evidence convinced them that the natural origins theory was more likely.

But in that moment, Fauci was told the unanimous opinion of several well-respected virologists was that the virus causing a growing pandemic was possibly engineered. The fact that the viral outbreak happened just 20 miles away from a laboratory conducting coronavirus research, research his agency may have funded, put him into action.

The next morning, Saturday, Feb. 1, Fauci sent an urgent email to NIAID principal director Hugh Auchincloss, writing, “It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on … read this paper as well as the e-mail that I will forward to you now. You will have tasks today that must be done.” Attached was a copy of Baric’s and Shi’s 2015 collaborative gain-of-function study, which stated in its acknowledgements that it was funded by NIAID and exempted from a moratorium on funding for gain-of-function research that was in effect at the time. Fauci also forwarded the study to the Wellcome Trust’s Farrar. Fauci told Farrar the study was “of interest to the current discussion.”

Auchincloss replied a few hours later: “The paper you sent me says the experiments were performed before the gain of function pause but have since been reviewed and approved by NIH. Not sure what that means since Emily is sure that no Coronavirus work has gone through the P3 framework. She will try to determine if we have any distant ties to this work abroad.”

NIAID was tied to that work. Documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that NIAID awarded a 10-year grant to Peter Daszak to study bat coronaviruses in the East, and that between 2014 and 2019, $826,300 had been sub-awarded by EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Did NIAID fund an experiment at the Wuhan lab that engineered this new SARS-like virus? This would be the question on Fauci’s mind as he prepared for a teleconference later that day with well-known and highly respected global virologists to discuss the emerging pandemic.

+++++++++

The teleconference was organized by Jeremy Farrar, who like Fauci is an enormously important gatekeeper of billions of dollars for medical research. Information to be discussed on the call would be “shared in total confidence and not to be shared until agreement on next steps,” a Feb. 1 email blast Fauci received explained. Farrar would lead the conference and present the “introduction, focus, and desired outcomes.” Andersen would be summarizing what he and the other virologists had analyzed about the virus. What was said exactly is unknown, as an email summary of the call was redacted, as well as notes taken by Ron Fouchier, the Dutch scientist who authored a highly controversial gain-of-function study in 2011.

What is known is that following this conference call, the public campaign against the lab-leak theory intensified. Many of the participants who voiced concerns that the virus looked engineered abruptly changed their positions.

Andersen, for example, was recruited by Daszak to consult on drafting a “statement in support of the scientists, public health and medical professionals of China.” Just four days after writing to Fauci about the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 virus looks “engineered,” Andersen in a Feb. 4, 2020, email recommended to Daszak that the statement “be more firm on the question of engineering.”

“The main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to the virus being somehow engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case,” he wrote, reversing his position.

Farrar, meanwhile, was contacted by NIH Director Francis Collins on Feb. 2 about the need to get in touch with World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “Let me know if I can help get through his thicket of protectors,” Collins wrote to Farrar, copying Fauci on the email. “Really appreciate us thinking through the options …,” he said in another email, before a redacted line.

Later that day, Farrar emailed Fauci and Collins, writing: “Tedros and [WHO representative in China Dr. Bernhard Schwartländer] have apparently gone into conclave … they need to decide today in my view. If they do prevaricate, I would appreciate a call with you later tonight or tomorrow to think how we might take forward.” At the end of the email, Farrar wrote “meanwhile” and included a link to a ZeroHedge article published that day that reported on claims that COVID-19 was engineered in the Wuhan lab.

The very next day, Tedros delivered a speech to the WHO executive board stating the need to “combat the spread of rumors and misinformation.”

“We have worked with Google to make sure people searching for information about coronavirus see WHO information at the top of their search results,” Tedros said. “Social media platforms including Twitter, Facebook, Tencent, and TikTok have also taken steps to limit the spread of misinformation.”

On that same day, ZeroHedge was banned from Twitter for publishing a “coronavirus conspiracy theory.”

The campaign was beginning to work.

Meanwhile, Daszak worked in the background to recruit more colleagues and associates to sign his statement, which was intended to authoritatively discredit the lab-leak hypothesis. In emails, Daszak wrote that he wanted the statement to “not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person” but rather to be seen as “simply a letter from leading scientists.” He also emphasized how important it was “to avoid the appearance of a political statement.”

Baric, a leading gain-of-function researcher, was also consulted for the draft, but Daszak told him it would be best if he didn’t add his name to it “so it has some distance from us and therefore doesn’t work in a counterproductive way.” Baric agreed in reply, writing, “otherwise it looks self-serving and we lose impact.”

Likewise, Andersen did not sign the final product. He later claimed in a since-deleted tweet that he didn’t attach his name to the letter “because I (+ coauthors) found it premature to conclude there was no lab leak without carefully analyzing available data first.” He has never explained why it was not “premature” for him to help draft the statement.

The completed statement was published in the Lancet on Feb. 19 with 27 prominent public health scientists signing on to condemn “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

The importance of this event cannot be overstated.

The Lancet letter was instrumental in shaping the media narrative condemning all discussion of the lab-leak theory as conspiratorial, fringe, and otherwise harmful. To quote a landmark Vanity Fair article about the investigation into the origins of COVID-19, Daszak’s Lancet letter “effectively ended the debate over COVID-19’s origins before it began.”

Farrar, also a signatory of the Lancet statement, was working behind the scenes to discredit the lab-leak hypothesis, too. A spokesman for his office told the Daily Mail in June that Farrar recruited five scientists to author a letter to the scientific journal Nature Medicine that would argue for the natural origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Two of those scientists, Andersen and Holmes, attended the Feb. 1 teleconference and had before that conference believed the virus looked “potentially” engineered.

Incredibly, Farrar admits to the fact that he signed the Lancet letter even though, by his own estimation, he was “50-50” on the question of the lab-leak theory after the Feb. 1 teleconference with Fauci, and he further admits now that he cannot definitely make a statement one way or the other. Perhaps most astonishingly, Farrar’s memoir “Spike,” which discusses his ruminations at length about the lab-leak theory, fails to even mention the Lancet letter or his signature on it.

Not content with relying on the Lancet letter, the scientists who were involved in the mysterious Feb. 1 teleconference launched other avenues of attack. On Feb. 26, 2020, Emerging Microbes and Infections published another influential article titled, “No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2.” The paper was written by Shan-Lu Liu, Linda J. Saif, Susan R. Weiss, and Lishan Su. Christian Drosten, Germany’s leading COVID-19 expert and a participant in Farrar’s conference call, sits on the editorial board for EMI. This paper, if possible, represented an even more obvious exercise in wagon-circling and hiding conflicts of interest.

Lishan Su, it should be noted, was a colleague and coworker of Dr. Ralph Baric at UNC up until 2020, a fact not mentioned in the paper even though the primary purpose the paper served was to exonerate Baric and his work. Even more astonishingly, Baric was consulted beforehand about what the paper should say. According to emails unearthed by U.S. Right to Know, Baric was provided with an advance copy of the paper by Su and asked for comments and revisions.

Perhaps understanding how bad such an arrangement would look, Baric responded to Su’s request that he review the paper by saying, “sure, but I don’t want to be cited in (sic) as having commented prior to submission.” Su agreed to keep Baric’s name out of the paper, and Baric agreed to redline the paper that would exonerate him. Bizarrely, Baric attempted to claim in one comment that the SHC014-MA15 virus that he created with Shi decreased the pathogenicity of the virus, rather than increased, as it clearly did. Baric’s comment confused the authors of the EMI paper, who ultimately rejected that particular edit.

The paper was finished on Feb. 13, 2020, and Shan-Lu Liu, who also serves as EMI’s editor-in-chief, wrote a bizarre email recommending publication of what he described as “timely commentary… perfectly written” from himself to … himself.

Unsurprisingly, the paper, which never disclosed Baric’s involvement, was published a couple weeks later.

But between the time the article was finalized and the time it was published, the paper’s authors privately expressed doubts to each other about its conclusions, even as EMI was rushing to expedite publication of the commentary and waiving customary publication fees. Shan Lu acknowledged to Weiss in a Feb. 16 email that they “could not rule out the possibility” that the virus escaped from the lab, which led to changes to the paper that focused on refuting the idea that the virus had been engineered in a lab, as opposed to merely having escaped from the lab. But some of the papers’ authors continued to harbor doubts about this possibility, as well.

On Feb. 16, Weiss emailed Shan-Lu Liu, still expressing her “doubt” that the virus was engineered in the lab, but noting regarding the distinctive furin cleavage site, “lineage B Bat viruses generally do not have the furin site.”

Five days later, Shan Lu responded, “Susan, I completely agree with you, but rumor says that furin site may be engineered. Importantly, the virus RNA sequence around the furin site (288 nt), before and after, has 6.6 % differences, but with no amino acid changes at all.”

Weiss then responded, “Henry and I have been speculating- how can that site have appeared at S1/S2 border- I hate to think to [sic] was engineered- among the MHV strains, the cleavage site does not increaser pathogenicity while it does effect entry route (surface vs endosome) . so for me the only significance of this furin site is as a marker for where the virus came from- frightening to think it may have been engineered[.]”

None of these doubts or concerns would be mentioned when, five days later, the paper, “No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2,” was released.

+++++++++

On Mar. 6, Andersen emailed Fauci, Farrar, and Collins announcing that his letter had been accepted by Nature Medicine and would be published shortly. He encouraged them to provide comments or suggestions about the paper or its press release. Two days later, Fauci replied, “Nice job on the paper.”

This third article, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” was published March 17. Farrar’s name was not attached to it. “We do not believe any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” the authors wrote, in what would became the most-cited scientific document discrediting the lab-leak hypothesis. National media outlets seized on the letter, often referring to it as a “study,” as the final word on COVID-19’s origins. Anyone who offered a contrary opinion, including President Donald Trump, was dismissed as ignorant, anti-science, conspiracy-minded, and racist as far as the media were concerned. And they’d be censored on social media too.

The Proximal Origins letter was championed by opponents of the lab-leak theory.

Daszak used the letter in interviews and on social media to forcefully attack “conspiracy theorists” calling for investigations into the Wuhan lab.

Fauci, who by now was the chief spokesman for the White House at the daily coronavirus response briefings and the nationally recognized face of the government’s pandemic response, endorsed the letter on April 18 and publicly rejected the lab-leak hypothesis. Fauci did not mention that he was involved with the authors.

In an email after that press briefing, Daszak wrote to Fauci with glowing praise for his remarks.

“I just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Daszak wrote.

“From my perspective, your comments are brave, and coming from your trusted voice, will help dispel the myths being spun around the virus’ origins,” he added.

Daszak was thrilled because the most important and influential voice during the pandemic said that “science” had determined SARS-CoV-2 was not engineered in a lab. As far as he knew, the lab-leak theory was defeated. The United States government would support that conclusion in an April 30 statement endorsing the “scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.”

The actual evidence presented by the “Proximal Origins” paper, however, was almost farcically thin. The bulk of the paper discussed the basis for a possible zoonotic origin of the virus — which will be discussed in greater detail in subsequent parts of this series. As for the scientific evidence discrediting the possibility that the virus was engineered, Andersen and his fellow authors raised exactly two points.

First, the paper claimed, “While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal7 and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding7,11. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation.”

Stripped of dense scientific language, the authors essentially argue that, while SARS-cov-2 is extremely effective at infecting human cells, it is not as effective as it could be, and thus if someone was trying to engineer a virus that was as infectious as possible, they would have done better. This may or may not constitute “strong evidence” that the virus was engineered specifically as a bioweapon, but it ignores the fact that viruses are engineered by the scientists who perform gain-of-function research for a whole host of reasons, including to develop vaccines and treatment modalities. It also ignores the somewhat obvious fact that a person who was, in fact, seeking to create a bioweapon might want to maintain some plausible deniability that it was not, in fact, an intentional bioweapon.

Second, the paper claimed, “Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.” This contention, however, is definitely four words too short, because it fails to finish, “that we know of.” The idea that the genomic database — particularly of backbones that might have been generated in Wuhan — can be relied upon for completeness is absolutely ludicrous given what we know now. For just one example, the infamous chimeric virus created by Baric and Shi in their 2015 paper was “inadvertently” not uploaded to any databases until after the current pandemic began and people began asking uncomfortable questions.

But, while the actual contentions of the paper were laughably weak, they were hidden behind a patina of dense scientific lingo and an air of authority and certainty, which was enough to convince the media and social media companies.

+++++++++

There were still voices arguing that the lab-leak theory shouldn’t be dismissed. Trump drew fire for contradicting his administration with claims that he had seen evidence that COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan lab. When the media demanded the president offer proof, he said he was “not allowed” to share the evidence with them. Already antagonized by the president, the national media doubled down on their efforts to declare him a liar, as well as anyone who agreed with him.

In the months following, Fauci and other public health officials continued to dismiss the lab-leak theory as a conspiracy theory. In May, Columbia University virologist and Proximal Origins author Ian W. Lipkin thanked Fauci for his “efforts in steering and messaging.”

As summer drew to a close, the lab-leak theory appeared to be thoroughly discredited. Gain-of-function research was safe. In August 2020, NIAID awarded 11 new grants with a total first-year value of $17 million to 10 participants for a global network to investigate viruses and other deadly pathogens emerging in the wild. Kristian Andersen and Peter Daszak, who worked with Fauci on messaging about the origins of the coronavirus, were among the recipients of this funding.

Only recently, more than a year after the beginning of the pandemic, is discussion of the lab-leak theory permitted in the mainstream because proponents of the natural origins theory have been unable to prove their claims. In May 2021, several influential scientists including Dr. Ralph Baric, the leading coronavirus researcher in the United States, signed a letter in Science magazine calling for a full investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. The letter acknowledged that both the natural origins and lab-leak theories “remain viable” and that the two theories “were not given balanced consideration” at the onset of the pandemic.

Further demonstrating that discussion of the lab-leak theory is now officially acceptable, a declassified summary of a U.S. intelligence report on the origins of the coronavirus requested by President Joe BIden and released last Friday did not draw definitive conclusions but left open the possibility that the virus was leaked from the Wuhan lab.

Discussion of both theories should be welcomed, as it is of paramount importance to learn how the coronavirus pandemic began so that a future pandemic can be prevented or stopped before millions of lives are lost.

What is troubling is that there was no obvious, science-based reason for any of the officials and scientific experts involved to want to prevent public discussion of the theory last year after the onset of the pandemic. Preventing public discussion of alternate theories of the virus’ origin served no scientific purpose at all. It did not advance our understanding of the virus or how to treat it.

There is, however, a clear political purpose to preventing discussion of the lab-leak theory, one that served the interests of the scientists involved in promoting and funding coronavirus research in China and, to the shame of journalists responsible for holding the powerful accountable, one that went unscrutinized for more than a year as the pandemic raged.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Gray Lives Matter


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Sep 15, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/09/15/gray-lives-matter—p–n2595963/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Gray Lives Matter

Source: AP Photo/Steve Helber

My ancestors were Presbyterian abolitionists who fought on the Union side, but I get really ticked off when imbeciles take a sledgehammer to my country’s history.

Last week, with self-satisfied glee, savages tore down the 14-foot statue of Robert E. Lee designed by the French sculptor Antonin Mercie and installed in 1890 on land deeded to the state — in return for a promise that the Commonwealth of Virginia “will hold said Statue and pedestal and Circle of ground perpetually sacred to the Monumental purpose to which they have been devoted and that she will faithfully guard it and affectionately protect it.”

But Virginia’s supreme court ruled that the state had a “free speech” right to violate the deed. On that theory, no contract can ever be enforced. I have a free speech right to say that I will NOT deliver 20 pounds of bananas!

It’s not just “Southerners” who revere Lee, as his Wikipedia page implies. Franklin Delano Roosevelt called Lee “one of our greatest American Christians and one of our greatest American gentlemen.” Dwight Eisenhower said Lee was “noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.” Even Ulysses S. Grant called him “the acknowledged ablest general in the Confederate army.”

The son — not grandson — of a hero of the American Revolution, Lee graduated second in his class at West Point, then distinguished himself in the Mexican-American War. Lee’s reputation was so great that President Lincoln asked him to take command of the Union forces against the South. But Lee was a Virginian and felt compelled to take Virginia’s side, so he resigned from the U.S. Army.

(For my illiterate readers and anyone who gets his news from MSNBC: That makes Lee the opposite of a “traitor.” A traitor is someone who pretends to be on your side, while secretly working with the enemy, not someone who loudly announces, I quit. My friends and I are leaving.)

Among his accomplishments, there’s also the minor fact that Lee saved the country. Immediately after a bitter, bloody civil war, pitting brother against brother — four of Mary Lincoln’s five brothers fought for the Confederacy — the landscape littered with the dead, Lee ensured that the South would accept defeat.

When Lee surrendered at Appomattox, he was at the height of his powers, idolized throughout the South. The president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, wanted to fight on, telling his officers, “I think we can whip the enemy yet, if our people will turn out.”

But Lee, not Davis, held the hearts of his countrymen. When one of Lee’s own officers urged him to lead a guerilla war against the North, Lee remonstrated, “as a Christian people, there is now but one course to pursue. We must accept the situation; these men must go home and plant a crop, and we must proceed to build up our country on a new basis.”

He could easily have pulled a Trump and told his supporters, We got screwed! Take to the hills! They would have followed. Hundreds of thousands more lives would have been lost. The country might never have recovered.

But Lee said no, it ends now.

In his biography of Grant, Ron Chernow says the Union general believed that “had Lee resisted surrender and encouraged his army to wage guerrilla warfare, it would have spawned infinite trouble. … Such was Lee’s unrivaled stature that his acceptance of defeat reconciled many diehard rebels to follow his example.”

Thanks to Lee, we became a functioning country again within about 15 years, instead of becoming Serbia, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Rwanda and on and on and on.

After Lee’s surrender, Union soldiers saluted their defeated foes. Erstwhile warring officers embraced one another. One Confederate officer said: “Great God, thought I to myself, how my heart swells out to such a magnanimous touch of humanity! Why do men fight who were born to be brothers?” When told of Lee’s surrender, Lincoln ordered the Union band to play “Dixie.” Years later, Grant spoke of his deep affection for Lee’s army, second only to that for his own men.

Never has a civil war ended with such love between the former enemies. That’s our history, our country, our war — North and South, black and white.

The vandalizing of American history has absolutely nothing to do with black people or slavery. Lots of historical figures had slaves. Not only American heroes like Washington and Jefferson, but Kamala Harris’ ancestors — according to her own father. Barack Obama is the only president who might be descended from slave traders, a particularly repellent group, inasmuch as Kenya was a major player in the slave trade.

How about these white saviors demand a box on their Ivy League admission forms: “If admitted to Harvard, would you be willing to give up your place to a black person?” That will NEVER happen. Instead, we get: I went out and courageously defaced a Confederate statue! Because some things are more important than my personal comfort.

No, the moving force behind this frenzied destruction of American history isn’t black people suddenly offended by monuments that have been around for a century; it’s pushy newcomers, bitter that their ancestors had nothing to do with the creation of this country. After other people’s ancestors carved a nation out of the wilderness, they just kind of showed up. Now they go around obliterating anything that reminds them that this country was up and running long before they got here.

America’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, titles its report on Confederate symbols “Whose Heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy.” Yes, exactly, it’s not their heritage, so it must be destroyed. My ancestors fought on the Union side, but they were involved, and it matters to me.

MSNBC’s smirking Chris Hayes can get weepy about some ancient Roman ruin, and Rachel Maddow about a building in Warsaw, but I care about my history. These savages are smashing and graffitiing my antiquities.

How would they like it if we took a sledgehammer to “Piss Christ”?

Ann Coulter Op-ed” 9/11


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Sep 08, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/09/08/911—p–n2595560/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

9/11

Source: AP Photo/Richard Drew, File

In honor of the 20-year marker of the 9/11 attacks, I thought I’d run excerpts from a few of my post-9/11 columns.

One point I politely refrained from making 20 years ago: Why was the president of the United States reading “The Pet Goat” to a class of second-graders at the moment our nation was attacked?

I think the “Attack France” column (Dec. 20, 2001) holds up well, mostly because I’d rather be bringing in hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen right now than hundreds of thousands of Afghans. (Who knew the golden ticket to U.S. citizenship was being the country that hosted Osama bin Laden?)

But that column didn’t make the cut. In 2007, the magnificent Gallic made Nicolas Sarkozy the new president of France, and now we’re friends again.

Finally, for the sub-literate: After the defeat of Japan in World War II, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, leader of the occupation, put out a call to American Christians: “Send missionaries and Bibles!” Thousands of missionaries poured in. The same thing happened after the Korean War, with greater success than in Japan.

On this point, there was surprising unanimity. Even President Truman agreed with his nemesis MacArthur, who said: “[Democracy] will endure when it rests firmly on the Christian conception of the individual and society.”

Today, not even a Republican would say that. Good luck, America!

— “This Is War,” Sept. 12, 2001

[T]he nation has been invaded by a fanatical, murderous cult. And we welcome them. We are so good and so pure we would never engage in discriminatory racial or “religious” profiling. People who want our country destroyed live here, work for our airlines, and are submitted to the exact same airport shakedown as a lumberman from Idaho. This would be like having the Wehrmacht immigrate to America and work for our airlines during World War II. Except the Wehrmacht was not so bloodthirsty.

“All of our lives” don’t need to change, as they keep prattling on TV. Every single time there is a terrorist attack — or a plane crashes because of pilot error — Americans allow their rights to be contracted for no purpose whatsoever.

The airport kabuki theater of magnetometers, asinine questions about whether passengers “packed their own bags” … somehow allowed over a dozen armed hijackers to board four American planes almost simultaneously on Bloody Tuesday. Did those fabulous security procedures stop a single hijacker anyplace in America that day?

Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac.

We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.

— “Future Widows of America: Write Your Congressman,” Sept. 27, 2001

After the World Trade Center was bombed by Islamic fundamentalists in 1993, the country quickly chalked it up to a zany one-time attack and five minutes later decided we were all safe again. We weren’t. We aren’t now …

Congress has authority to pass a law tomorrow requiring aliens from suspect countries to leave. As far as the Constitution is concerned, aliens, which is to say non-citizens, are here at this country’s pleasure …

[T]he very nature of the enemy is that they have infiltrated this country and pass themselves off as law-abiding, peaceful immigrants. Their modus operandi is to smuggle mass murderers to our shores. But the country refuses to respond rationally. Rather, Congress is busily contemplating a series of “anti-terrorism” measures most notable for their utter irrelevance to the threat. …

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., has proposed that we take the aggressive step of asking aliens in the country to register periodically with the government so we know where they are. That’s already the law in Germany. Several of the hijackers in this attack lived in Hamburg, and they obediently complied.

The mastermind of the most vicious terrorist attack in the history of the world, Mohamed Atta, was in Florida on a “vocational status” visa — in order to attend flight school. Let’s say Atta had registered. Now what, Joe?

— “Build Them Back,” June 7, 2002

The reason liberals prefer a park to luminous skyscrapers [on the site of the World Trade Center] is that they are not angry. Liberals express sympathy for the victims, but they’re not angry. Instead of longing to crush and humiliate the enemy, they believe true patriotism consists of redoubled efforts to expand the welfare state.https://a7dc841daceec5d9069484a50746f032.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html#xpc=sf-gdn-exp-3&p=https%3A//townhall.com

Sen. Hillary Clinton proposed a school for the World Trade Center site and Sen. Charles Schumer, a park. Yeah, that’ll show ’em!

Meanwhile, the construction workers clearing away the rubble vowed they would work without pay to rebuild the World Trade Center. Of course, now that we have 14 cows, that shouldn’t be necessary. (In a genuinely touching story, a tiny cow-herding village in Kenya only recently got word of the attack on America and, this week, made a special present of 14 cows to the United States.)

The attack on the World Trade Center ripped America’s soul not only for the thousands of lives it snuffed out. Even if the towers had been empty, the destruction of those buildings would have been heart-wrenching. Skyscrapers are the hallmark of civilization, monuments to human brilliance and creativity. …

Mohamed Atta loathed skyscrapers. Newsweek reported that he viewed the emergence of tall buildings in Egypt as an odious surrender to Western values. The most fitting memorial to the victims of the World Trade Center attack is to build the most breathtaking skyscraper in the world on top of Mohamed Atta’s corpse.https://a7dc841daceec5d9069484a50746f032.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html#xpc=sf-gdn-exp-4&p=https%3A//townhall.com

— “This Whistleblower They Like,” June 13, 2002

In their enthusiasm to bash the Bush administration for its handling of the war — which Democrats consider an annoying distraction from the real business of government, which is redistributing income — the left has embraced FBI agent Coleen Rowley as a modern Joan of Arc …

[T]he gravamen of Rowley’s 13-page memo is essentially that FBI headquarters botched the Zacarias Moussaoui case (the 20th hijacker) by refusing to racially profile Muslims. …

[Specifically] she condemned FBI brass for refusing to authorize a search warrant for Moussaoui based on the following information: 1) he refused to consent to a search of his computer; 2) he was in flight school; 3) he had overstayed his visa; and 4) he was a Muslim.

Let’s see, which of these factors constitutes probable cause?

— Refusal to consent to a search? It is your right to refuse. Any other rule would allow cops to bootstrap their way into a warrant. “Hi, Zacarias, may we search your computer? No? That’s suspicious! Grounds for a warrant!” I don’t think so.

— In flight school? NO.

— Overstayed visa? NO.

— Is a Muslim? NOT ALLOWED. …

I happen to agree with her, but liberals don’t. So how did Rowley become the left’s new Norma Rae? … FBI headquarters rebuffed Rowley’s callous insensitivity to Muslims and denied a warrant request to search Moussaoui’s computer — and thus failed to uncover the Sept. 11 plot.

The FBI allowed thousands of Americans to be slaughtered on the altar of political correctness. What more could liberals ask for?

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Defund the World’s Police


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Sep 01, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/09/01/defund-the-worlds-police—p–n2595168/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Defund the World's Police

Source: AP Photo/Khwaja Tawfiq Sediqi

Why does the establishment think that whenever something is amiss anywhere in the world, we need to scramble jets and fly in to fix it?

There’s a girl in Sudan who can’t get treatment for a cut on her finger — but they will treat the boy! Fire up the missiles!

Naivete + hubris is a bad combination, like ignoring the label and mixing toilet drain cleaner and bleach.

For a thoughtful defense of Team America: World’s Policeman, we turn to the journal of consensus liberal opinion, The Atlantic. Peter Wehner, a George W. Bush speechwriter and renowned cheerleader for flinging our troops around the globe to wipe out poverty, misogyny, homophobia, badness and meanness, recently penned a piece announcing that he is hopping mad at President Biden for ending the war in Afghanistan after a measly 20 years.

Wehner begins by sneering that Biden is “a follower more than a leader.” Biden’s decision to end the war is opposed by: Donald Trump, Tony Blair, Bush, The New York Times, The New York Post, Fox News, MSNBC, the “intelligence community,” the generals, etc., etc.

Question: Who’s Biden following?

Then Wehner rolled out this huge expose: As vice president, Biden “argued that the United States does not have an obligation to Afghans who trusted the United States,” telling Richard Holbrooke, “We don’t have to worry about that. We did it in Vietnam. Nixon and Kissinger got away with it.”

Biden also “reportedly pushed back on the argument that America had a moral obligation to women in Afghanistan.”

I’m seized with admiration for the man.

Writing in The Dispatch, Paul Miller, director for Afghanistan and Pakistan on the National Security Councils for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, listed the many, many accomplishments of our military hanging out in Afghanistan for two decades.

First, he says, “The U.S. mission in Afghanistan accomplished some important successes. There have been no large-scale international terrorist attacks emanating from Afghanistan or Pakistan since 2001.”

There have been almost “no large-scale international terrorist attacks” period. Maybe Madrid in 2004. The 9/11 attack was a once-in-a-lifetime sucker punch.

But you know what there have been? Loads and loads of “home-grown” — i.e. “immigrant” — terrorist attacks, such as, off the top of my head:

— the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack (14 dead) committed by — who was it again? — Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook, two Pakistani immigrants, first and second generation; and

— the 2016 Pulse nightclub terrorist attack — aka “the second-deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history” (49 dead) — committed by Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, a second-generation immigrant from GUESS WHERE? … Afghanistan!

Speaking of home-grown, apple-cheeked, boy-next-door terrorists, who are the “Americans” still needing to be airlifted out of Afghanistan? Why can’t we have the names? The media want me to think they’re all Pat Tillman, but I have a sneaking suspicion they’re more in the mold of Omar Mir Seddique Mateen.

Second, Miller boasts: “The Afghan people broadly support the country’s new constitution.”

That’s true if “broadly” means “not at all.” Ninety-nine percent of Afghans say they want to live under Sharia law, according to 2013 polling by Pew.

And finally, for the killer argument, Miller says: “By virtually every metric of human development, Afghans are better off today than they were 20 years ago.”

Not to get bogged down in irrelevancies, but how about Americans? Are Americans better off today than they were 20 years ago?

The murder rate has soared, year over year, in each of the last two years; BLM riots caused billions of dollars in damage — and that’s just the amount covered by insurance; millions of illegal aliens are streaming into our country right now, as we speak, bringing disease and dysfunction with them; and criminals and homeless people control our streets — especially in any city lucky enough to have a George Soros-backed district attorney.

But who cares about our country? Let’s get back to Afghanistan!

Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser — one of his very first picks after winning the election by promising, among other things, to stop the permanent wars and get us out of Afghanistan — was on MSNBC last week, listing a parade of horribles that would flow from Biden’s decision to end the war Afghanistan.

(It’s a mystery why we didn’t get out under Trump!)

McMaster hysterically warned that the withdrawal will lead to another hostage crisis and televised mass executions: “We’re on fast-forward to 1979 in Tehran and a hostage crisis [when Iranian revolutionaries held 52 U.S. diplomats and citizens for 444 days] … Are we just going to stand on the sidelines and watch mass executions?”

I don’t like to make predictions, but McMaster has thrown down the gauntlet. I say: That won’t happen. There won’t be a Tehran-style hostage crisis or mass executions — at least nothing worse than our dear allies in Saudi Arabia do on a regular basis. Check back in a few weeks to see who’s right!

I will be right, because: 1) I’m already one week into being right; and 2) our generals are crazy. Remember when Fox News spent weeks promoting a general who said the missing Malaysian Flight 370 was hiding in Pakistan, waiting to be deployed in a future terrorist attack? (For a while, perhaps still, everything on Fox had to be about Islamic terrorism.)

Unfortunately, Trump thought surrounding himself with generals made him look macho, blithely unaware of who gets made a general these days, so we had to wait for Biden to keep Trump’s promise of bringing the troops home.

Out of either incompetence or malice — or both! — our generals have made a mess of the withdrawal. Obviously, the mistake made by Gen. Mark Milley, Biden’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in not expanding the role of Ibram X. Kendi in advising our armed forces. Instead of seeking Kendi’s counsel merely on “white rage,” Milley should have gone to Kendi for advice on military logistics.

Wallace B. Henley Op-ed: Who is sitting in the gates with Biden?


Commentary By Wallace B. Henley, Exclusive Columnist| Wednesday, September 01, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/who-is-sitting-in-the-gates-with-biden.html/

One gets the disconcerting sensation that leadership is absent from the gates of the nation.

“I’m not supposed to take any questions,” said the president recently at FEMA headquarters as he was briefed on actions to help those slammed by Hurricane Ida.

Wallace Henley
Wallace Henley, former Senior Associate Pastor of 2nd Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. | Photo by Scott Belin

A Fox News writer noted, “President Joe Biden has repeatedly implied that his handlers set the rules and determine when and where he’s allowed to take questions from the press, leading observers to ponder who is actually calling the shots behind the scenes.”[1]

And who is telling the president which reporters to call on at press conferences?

White House staffs often suffer the delusion that the voters elected them.

It is the way of hubris, and there is hardly a greater bastion of hubris than the White House. Every time presidents forget this, they vacate their seat in the gates and give it to the bureaucracy.

However, it takes a strong president to tell the gate-usurpers to get out of the way.

A wise leader will give due consideration to the advice of his or her staff. But a foolish leader loses functional leadership when he or she becomes a sycophant of aides, assistants, counselors, cabinet officers, functionaries, and all the other animals who inhabit the zoo of big agencies — the White House being the biggest animal house of all.

When the leader hands over his or her place in the gates to the functionaries, the Don Beard maxim becomes true. Don and his wife, Mary Kay, were important players in the founding, with Charles Colson, of Prison Fellowship. Both had served prison time, and both were thoroughly converted followers of Jesus Christ. They served with me in two churches where I was pastor.

Don had seen chaos in prisons he had inhabited, and, when things got wild in any institutional setting, would say, “the inmates are running this place.” Then he would turn serious, pointing out the need for strong leadership to arise and manage the situation.

Sadly, the Biden White House “inmates” seemed to have seized the gates of leadership, and the president has become the sycophant rather than the superior. If this be the case, there is chaos in the gates. Biblical history shows that whatever happens in the gates of leadership, for good and bad, determines what happens in the city, and what happens in the city dictates what happens in the nation.

The gates always are up for grabs. A Darwinian strain constantly runs through places of great power like the White House, in which the survival of the fittest becomes a wrestling match, or a shoving contest to see who can snuggle up closest to the president in the gates.

On top of all the other crises America faces, now comes this threatening issue about who controls the president. Who really sits in the gates of the nation at this precarious moment?

As I noted in a previous column, cities, in antiquity, were to be sanctuaries of order. They were walled off from the chaos outside. Mighty gates maintained the order of the city. But everything depended on who occupied the gates, and what they were willing, or could be bribed and cajoled to allow in. According to Isaiah 14, Lucifer’s aim is to “overthrow cities” to achieve his goal of bringing chaos to the world. That assault works its way incrementally through institutions crucial for the cosmos-order of society — families, churches, schools, businesses, civil governments right up to the White House itself.

To fend off the assault on the gates by hubristic bit-players, a leader must discern the pretentious from the principled advice that should be heeded. That leader must give attention to the character he invites into the gates with him or her because, as Proverbs 29:8 (MSG) puts it, “A gang of cynics can upset a whole city; a group of sages can calm everyone down.”

As a low-level presidential aide in the Nixon White House, I had the privilege of serving under two “sages.” One was Harry S. Dent, who at one point had been in Nixon’s inner circle. However, Harry ultimately found himself banished from that elite group. He later found the reason was because senior people said Harry was “too much of a ‘Boy Scout’.”

After leaving the White House, Harry, an able lawyer, went to Bible College, and became the leader of the Billy Graham Center in North Carolina. Harry was a “sage” and Nixon’s presidency might have been saved had the president insisted Harry was going to sit in the “gates.”

I also worked under the leadership of another great Washington “sage” — Dr. George Shultz. Our team had been charged by the president to help school systems in 11 southern states implement the largest school desegregation in history. Emotions were intense, chaos threatened, violence loomed. I traveled with Shultz in those states as he gave counsel to leaders in government, business, and education. I watched his wise and calm guidance put cooling streams on blistering landscapes. And by the way, school systems in all 11 states were peacefully integrated in the fall of 1970.

Richard Nixon had been smart enough to pull George Schultz into the gates of power with him.

Joe Biden, as any president, must seek good counsel, but because of his issues with aging — whether merely perceived or actual — he does need wise advisors, and he needs to be able to discern the hubristic from the truly humble public servants.

Pray that he will surround himself with “a group of sages.”


[1] Biden repeatedly implies he’s not in charge of when, where he can take questions from the press | Fox News

Wallace B. Henley’s fifty-year career has spanned newspaper journalism, government in both White House and Congress, the church, and academia. He is author or co-author of more than 20 books. He is a teaching pastor at Grace Church, the Woodlands, Texas.

For media inquiries, contact:  ChristianPost@pinkston.co

Bolling: Joe, you suck at this President thing


Aug 30, 2021

Jason Whitlock Op-ed: Bill Maher is traveling the slippery slope to a godly awakening about corporate media


Commentary by JASON WHITLOCK | August 30, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/whitlock-bill-maher-is-traveling-the-slippery-slope-to-a-godly-awakening-about-corporate-media/

Bearded conservative talk show host Bill Maher did it again. He turned his Friday-night HBO platform, “Real Time with Bill Maher,” into a smorgasbord of left-wing ridicule. He ended his show trashing the woke, arguing that the events in Afghanistan are an example of what real systemic oppression looks like. Earlier in the broadcast, he lamented the success of Fox News host Greg Gutfield’s comedic late-night show, suggesting the left had opened itself to satire by adopting talking points that sound like Onion headlines.

“Three-year-olds pick their own gender is an Onion headline,” Maher quipped.

In a fascinating moment of unintended irony, Maher griped that politics is becoming a new religion and that America would be better off if we talked less about politics. Maher is an atheist. In 2008, he released a documentary, “Religulous,” that mocked religious faith. He’s unwittingly becoming aware that the removal of religion from American culture creates a void that is filled by the idolatry of partisan politics. I’d love to be in the room when Maher finally realizes that unity among disparate humans can only be achieved through faith in God. I believe he’ll have that epiphany within the next 12 months. He’s too honest to remain in denial.

An honest man can only pretend to be a liberal Democrat for so long. And television is an uncomfortable platform for the last honest man. Each week, Maher sounds more and more like a short-time HBO employee. Nothing breeds honesty more than an expiration date. And honest people can’t work forever within modern corporate media. The restraints are too tight.

Bill Maher is his generation’s George Carlin, the pot-smoking culture critic who performed regular stand-up specials for HBO during the 1970s and 1980s. Like Carlin, Maher is as smart as he is funny. Unlike Carlin, Maher is too smart for the current iteration of HBO, a subsidiary of globalist telecommunications company AT&T since 2016. When Maher arrived at HBO in 2003, the network was at its creative and risk-taking zenith. At the time of Maher’s arrival, “The Sopranos” and “The Wire” made HBO the envy of television.

AT&T’s acquisition of HBO dulled the network’s edge. HBO is safe and corporate. It supports the social engineering the establishment is orchestrating. Maher is doing the best that he can, but you can’t tell the truth on HBO. Not the whole truth. Friday night was a prime example.

While complaining about the Biden administration’s catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, Maher expressed disappointment that the adults (Democrats) handled the pullout as poorly as he theorized the children (Republicans) would. This is becoming a regular theme for Maher. He argues that Democrats are mature, rational, and thinking adults and Republicans are immature, emotional, and unsophisticated children. Maher is too wise to believe this.

Thomas Jefferson and the nation’s founders identified America’s children at the outset. Politicians are kids. Whether Federalists or Anti-Federalists, Jefferson, George Washington, and the rest recognized the childishness of politics and politicians. The founders devised a system designed for the people to supervise the children elected to public office. The adults assigned the primary task of babysitting politicians are called journalists, reporters, pundits, the media, and the press. When the adults act like children, chaos and tyranny take root. When there is no credible supervision of politicians, the whole idea of self-government falls apart.

In 1787, Jefferson wrote a letter to Edward Carrington, a confidant of George Washington, stating the importance of journalism.

The people are the only censors of their governors, and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution…. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

The media has failed America. The mainstream media merged with global corporations, the Democratic Party, and government intelligence agencies. It no longer acts as an independent fourth estate in charge of supervising the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. Corporate media supervises Donald Trump and anyone else classified as an impediment to the Great Reset and the reshaping of America into an authoritarian regime similar to China.

From his $10-million-a-year HBO/AT&T perch, Maher cannot comfortably attack corporate media, the real children selling out America. He can insinuate the stupidity and dishonesty of the New York Times’ 1619 Project, but a full-on assault of the woke’s Pravda would be a suicide mission. It would bait #MeToo allegations.

The woke culture that Maher constantly rails against would not exist if the alleged adults did their job. The Times, CNN, MSNBC, Politico, ESPN, CBS News, the Washington Post all serve woke trickbait for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Maher thinks American oppression pales in comparison to Afghanistan oppression. He’s right. But for how long? We’re trending in the oppressive direction of all nations that govern without proper supervision of their elected officials. Power corrupts. There are no good guys in politics, only children in need of spankings by the press.

When the media refuses to discipline, politicians oppress and revoke freedoms. You must wear a mask. You must take a vaccine. You must tolerate violations of privacy for your own safety. It’s a slippery slope. Things change quickly.One day, the people shouting “I’m with her” and “believe all women” and “Sharia law is misogynistic” turn into the same people defending the execution of an unarmed, 5’2″, 135-pound woman for posing a threat to the House of Representatives.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Teaching Psycho Flintstones About Women’s Equality


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 25, 2021

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Teaching Psycho Flinstones About Women's Equality

Source: AP Photo/Khwaja Tawfiq Sediqi

The universal panning of President Biden’s decision to finally leave Afghanistan is the mirror image of the one time the media loved Trump. Remember that joyous occasion? It was when he bombed Syria two months after taking office. Here’s a sampling of the mash-notes to Trump for sending 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles to strike a country 6,000 miles away from us.

The New York Post: “A New Sheriff in Town: Trump’s Strike on Syria”

New York Daily News: “KICK IN THE ASSAD! U.S. blitzes Syria with missiles to avenge atrocity.”

The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof: “Trump Was Right to Strike Syria.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York: “[It was] the right thing to do.”

And of course, MSNBC’s Brian Williams famously soliloquized the attack on his TV show that night, saying: “We see these beautiful pictures at night from the decks of these two U.S. Navy vessels in the eastern Mediterranean,” adding “I am tempted to quote the great Leonard Cohen: ‘I am guided by the beauty of our weapons.'”

The very Europeans who are so testy right now about Biden’s decision to end a war, were thrilled with Trump for bombing a country that posed no conceivable threat to us. France, Italy, Israel and the U.K. all sent their hearty support!

That’s quite a contrast from the remarks this week from former prime minister Tony Blair about Biden’s ending a war: “tragic, dangerous and unnecessary.”

I was, and remain, more pro-Afghanistan war and Iraq war than Donald Rumsfeld, but not so we could hang out for 20 years and teach them to respect transgenders.

Unfortunately, once we’d accomplished everything that could possibly be accomplished in Afghanistan, the war became a joint venture of the neocons and the feminists. Instead of punishing anyone who’d had a pleasant countenance upon seeing the World Trade Center collapse, our new mission became: Bring gender studies and gay rights to a Stone Age culture!

Now the media has put Biden on notice: If one Afghan girl gets below B+ in women’s studies, we’re going back in!

How did Afghans become our special charity case? Why not Burkina Faso? Twelve-year-old girls are regularly married off to men 65 or 70 years old in that paragon of modern living. Also in Niger, Sudan, Tanzania, Zambia and any number of barbaric societies around the globe.

No one weeps for those little girls.

(It may not be favoritism: The prodigious amount of child rape around the world is barely mentioned by the various international organizations on women’s rights because the fanatics writing the reports see no meaningful difference between official, widespread child-rape and men disrespecting their wives’ professions.)

There are loads of primitive hellholes we could make our 51st state. We’ve picked Afghanistan because that’s the country that harbored Osama bin Laden. CONGRATULATIONS, AFGHANISTAN! YOU WON THE LOTTO!

Now, all of America is supposed to be torn up about what one warring tribe will do to another warring tribe, in a country that’s been at war, more or less, for centuries.

They like it that way! Afghanistan consists of a medieval tribal society resistant to change. That’s their raison d’etre. Even under the helpful tutelage of American troops, our dear Afghan allies would not stop raping little boys. Naturally, given our obsession with cultural diversity, U.S. servicemen who objected to the buggery were cashiered out of the military.

More than a year before the 9/11 attacks, an article in The New Yorker quoted Afghans boasting, “In the nineteenth century, we beat the British more than once. In the twentieth century, we beat the Russians. In the twenty-first, if we have to, we’ll beat the Americans!”

They just want to be left alone (something a lot of Americans dearly wish our leaders would let us do).

We’re hearing horror stories about women having to be covered when they leave their homes now that the Taliban is back in charge. Yeah, that’s Sharia law. According to a Pew poll a few years ago, 99% of Afghans — including women — say they want to live under Sharia law.

Afghans were totally down with women’s lib as long as we were bringing them cool stuff, like airplanes, buildings, toilets and electricity, which we did — or you did, taxpayer, to the tune of about a trillion dollars. Now we’ve left and they’ve happily gone back to their old ways.

In all other contexts, we sacralize ancient cultures. We blush to our toes recalling our ancestors’ earlier attempts at “civilizing” American Indians by bringing them clothes, schools and Christianity. Today, we exhort them: Be yourselves!

As long as we’re not forcing something icky on primitive cultures, like Christianity, but, rather, something healthy, like gender-feminism, well, then … “We don’t want to fight but by Jingo if we do, / We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, we’ve got the money too!”


The Chamberlain moment and Biden’s present leadership crisis

By Wallace B. Henley, Exclusive Columnist| Monday, August 23, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/voices/the-chamberlain-moment-and-the-present-leadership-crisis.html/

Is the United States, in the wake of the Afghanistan crisis, in a “Chamberlain moment”?

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and concluded that he had Hitler figured out. As Chamberlain stepped off his plane in Munich in 1938, he was certain he was going to make history by out-talking Hitler.

But it was Hitler who had sized up Neville Chamberlain. The Nazi dictator saw Chamberlain as a naïve man who somehow squeezed everything under his ever-present cozy umbrella. Hitler concluded he could promise Chamberlain anything, then do as he pleased.

So, Der Fuhrer promised not to invade more territory, Chamberlain, back home, conducted an airport press conference wherein he announced that he and Herr Hitler had negotiated “peace in our time.” But Hitler made Chamberlain look like a fool. Even as Chamberlain was proclaiming that he had tamed Hitler, Hitler’s armies were blitzing the Sudetenland.

Rather than a cheering Parliament, Chamberlain faced an angry, jeering House of Commons. Leopold Amery, of Chamberlain’s own party, rose, and, borrowing words from Oliver Cromwell in 1653 with regard to another matter, cried out to Chamberlain: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing … In the name of God, go!”

When 40 members of his party voted against Chamberlain, and another 60 abstained, Chamberlain knew he had no choice, and left the ornate chamber where the House of Commons met.

Three days later, King George VI named Winston Churchill as prime minister in that crucial age.

In 2014, I co-wrote a book, God and Churchill, with the late Jonathan Sandys, Sir Winston Churchill’s great-grandson. (Tyndale House, 2015) Watching Jonathan’s determined attitude, biting wit, quick comprehension, capacity for persuasive as well as inspiring speech, I could see characteristics that compelled King George to ask Sir Winston to lead the country through the war.

On that day in 1940, Churchill said to Walter Thompson, his bodyguard, “You know why I’ve been to Buckingham Palace.” Thompson nodded and told Churchill he knew the task ahead would be immense. “God alone knows how great it is,” replied Churchill.

Jonathan Sandys was not a professing Christian when he began research on his great-grandfather’s spirituality. But as Jonathan studied with an open mind be concluded that God had brought Sir Winston to the leadership of Great Britain and its allies to stop Hitler’s mad romp through civilization. Later, Jonathan was so energized by this new awareness of God’s hand in history through his great-grandfather that he asked for believer’s baptism, and I had the privilege of conducting that service in Houston.

Back in England, Jonathan visited Churchill’s official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert. Gilbert encouraged Jonathan and told him there was much material that had never been explored. The more we worked on God and Churchill, the more Jonathan and I were in awe of the Lord of history.

In some ways, the task of national leadership is even greater now than Churchill’s era. The present hour demands the strongest and sharpest of leaders. The volatile enmities across the planet are much hotter even than that of Chamberlain’s and Churchill’s day. The weaponry available now are truly doomsday devices.

There is also a principle at stake here. Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians about an evil ruler — the antichrist — who will seek to bring global chaos so he can present himself as the only hope and acknowledged as the world’s leader. A key strategy in sparking and spreading the chaos is “lawlessness.” The only reason this madness has not already consumed the world is that there is a “restrainer” who holds it back (2 Thessalonians 2: 7).

Among other things, this illustrates the principle of hegemony in foreign relations. A “hegemon” is a group or geopolitical entity that has the strength to dominate others. One type of hegemonic nation is like that which Adolf Hitler sought to establish through his Third Reich: dominance for the sake of exploitation and destruction. The second type of hegemonic state is that which has the strength to restrain potential rogue nations.

I was a junior aide in the Nixon White House in the late Cold War period. The United States had been involved in Vietnam for a long time, and Nixon sought an end to that conflict. In 1972 Nixon was re-elected by a huge majority, sparking hope that he would have even greater strength to resolve the Vietnam problem. But then came the Watergate debacle and Nixon’s decision in 1974 to resign the presidency. There were many reasons why he felt it necessary to resign. However, Nixon revealed a compelling purpose in his resignation speech:

“In all the decisions I have made in my public life, I have always tried to do what was best for the Nation … In the past few days, however, it has become evident to me that I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress to justify continuing that effort. As long as there was such a base, I felt strongly that it was necessary to see the constitutional process through to its conclusion, that to do otherwise would be unfaithful to the spirit of that deliberately difficult process and a dangerously destabilizing precedent for the future.”

Now, in 2021, the question is this: Has Joe Biden’s image been damaged so severely through the events that have occurred in Afghanistan that he has the credibility and ability to lead a powerful nation midst the chaos of our times?

As Parliament had to grapple with the Chamberlain leadership issue, so must Congress now confront the Biden leadership issue. The fate of the United States and perhaps even global security in a nuclear age may be at stake.

Wallace B. Henley’s fifty-year career has spanned newspaper journalism, government in both White House and Congress, the church, and academia. He is author or co-author of more than 20 books. He is a teaching pastor at Grace Church, the Woodlands, Texas. For media inquiries, contact:  ChristianPost@pinkston.co

Op-ed: Woke Politics Backfire as NBC’s Olympics Coverage Hits Ratings Rock Bottom


Commentary by Cameron Arcand August 9, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/woke-politics-backfire-nbcs-olympics-coverage-hits-ratings-rock-bottom/

Go woke, go broke.

In this case, NBC was the middleman in an Olympics where many of the athletes were less than thrilled to be representing the United States.

On July 26, for example, there were only 14.7 million people watching primetime coverage — a 49 percent drop from the 2016 Olympics and a 53 percent decline from the 2012 Olympics, Fox News reported. These ratings are so poor that the network began re-airing commercials for advertisers at no additional charge.

The Monmouth University Polling Institute released a poll showing that 43 percent of Americans did not have much interest in watching the games whatsoever. Patrick Murray of the polling institute told Fox News that the reason might have been the politicization of the games by some athletes.

“The Olympic spirit is a bit dampened this year,” he said.

“The delay from last year and lack of spectators have taken the edge off the typical anticipation and excitement for this event. But the emergence of Black Lives Matter in the sports world has also led to a backlash among some Americans.”

Hammer throw competitor Gwen Berry made headlines when she turned away from the American flag at the Olympic trials and raised a clenched fist during the Tokyo Games.

“I’m just here to represent, man,” she said last week, CNN reported.

“I know a lot of people like me, a lot of athletes like me, a lot of people are scared to succeed or speak out. As long as I can represent those people, I’m fine.”

Berry also had an “X” written on her hand in protest during the final.

Fencer Race Imboden did the same thing, saying he did so in “support of athletes of color, Ending Gun violence, and all the athletes who wish to use their voice on the platform they’ve earned,” according to CNN.

Shot-putter Raven Saunders crossed her arms during her medal ceremony, explaining later that the “X” was “the intersection of where all people who are oppressed meet.”

Then there is U.S. soccer captain and social justice connoisseur Megan Rapinoe, who led the charge in kneeling in protest before her team’s games.

“It’s an opportunity for us to continue to use our voices and use our platforms to talk about the things that affect all of us intimately in different ways,” Rapinoe said, according to The Associated Press.

“We have people from Team USA, from all over the country, from all backgrounds, and people literally from all over the world for every other team so I obviously encourage everyone to use that platform to the best of their ability to do the most good that they possibly can in the world, especially as all eyes are on Tokyo these next couple weeks,” she later added.

Rapinoe and her team went on to finish a disappointing third in Tokyo.

While they certainly have the right to protest, Americans have the right to turn off the television when they feel their country is being insulted or disrespected.

There were many athletes who were extremely patriotic on the world stage, but the social justice warriors have become martyrs in the establishment media and have monopolized the coverage.

Cable television is already a dying medium, and wokeness could be the nail in the coffin.

Cameron Arcand, Contributor,

Cameron Arcand is a political commentator based in Orange County, California. His “Young Not Stupid” column launched at The Western Journal in January 2021, making Cameron one of the youngest columnists for a national news outlet in the United States. He has appeared on One America News, and has been a Young America’s Foundation member since 2019.@cameron_arcand

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Parenthood Has Driven Our Policy Elite Mad


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 04, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/08/04/parenthood-has-driven-our-policy-elite-mad—p–n2593603/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Parenthood Has Driven Our Policy Elite Mad

Source: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

There’s a disturbing trend among post-Trump populists to think that just because they’ve rejected the old GOP ideas about tax cuts and permanent war, they should also reject standard GOP ideas about big government social engineering projects. Currently, the most embarrassing of the allegedly populist right-wing enthusiasms is the pro-natalist position. The idea, in a nutshell, is that family formation is good for society, so why not create government programs that encourage family formation?

The main way the government could do that is by eliminating 90 percent of itself, but that’s not in the cards. So instead, Sens. Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio, The New York Times’ Ross Douthat, and “Hillbilly Elegy” author J.D. Vance, among others, want to pay women to have children. Vance recently suggested giving parents extra votes for each of their children, which I’m hoping was just a brilliant satire of political pandering. A slew of populist-conservative male icons, like Gavin McInnes and Mike Cernovich, are constantly haranguing young men to “put a ring on it” and start popping out kids.

One is left with the strong impression that these marriage and child boosters are people who are sorry they got married and had kids, so they have to turn their life’s greatest regret into the equivalent of landing at Normandy.

Human reproduction doesn’t require a P.R. team. Who would think that activities humans have engaged in for millennia require government incentives, except the unhappily married or those who consider heterosexual sex a horrible drudgery?

What was the worst calamity ever to befall this country? Nope, not the 1965 immigration act, but that’s a good guess. Not World War II or 9/11, terrible though those were. Not even the Jan. 6 ATTACK ON THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF OUR COUNTRY — NAY! DEMOCRACY ITSELF!

It was the government paying women to have kids.

During the most destructive period in American history, the rollout of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs, the federal government thought it would be a peachy idea to pay women to have babies. You’ll never guess what happened next!

Lots and lots of women started having babies — at a clip that didn’t allow time for acquiring a husband first.

Within a decade, the world had gone to hell, taking the black family down with it. While many blamed the implosion of the black family on African customs, slavery, the Middle Passage, Jim Crow and so on, a black demographer at the Rockefeller Foundation, Erol Ricketts, looked at the evidence.

It turned out the black family was thriving until the What-Could-Go-Wrong? Great Society programs of the 1960s. Based on nearly a century of U.S. Census reports, Ricketts found that between 1890 and 1950, black Americans married at higher rates than whites. (You’ll find this and other amazing facts in “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama.”)

The marriage rate for black women fell below 70 percent for the first time in 1970.

Today, we’d hold ticker-tape parades if 70 percent of black kids were being raised in intact families.

Why do some conservatives think we should do more of the exact thing that destroyed the black family — and did a number on all American families? The opposite of “Establishment Republican” shouldn’t be “moron.”

We’re told that tax credits, payments, subsidies — extra votes! — for having kids is “pro-family.” You know what’s “pro-family”? Life is pro-family. Any government intervention repeals the natural consequences of life, and is, therefore, anti-family.

But if we’re too afraid to let life take its course and want a government program to give us happy families, how about 30-to-life for adultery and divorce? Sending out a government check to those who manage the amazing feat of human reproduction is simultaneously dysgenic and small-bore.

Back in the 1960s, conservatives could only predict disaster from these allegedly pro-child policies. By now, we’ve been running the experiment for more than a half-century. We’re living the disaster. Paying women to have kids actively destroys families, which I believe is the opposite of “pro-family.”

Incidentally, the “pro-family” line is the exact same con open-borders Republicans ran on Christian groups when promoting “family reunification” policies in the 1990s, allowing endless waves of immigrants’ extended families to relocate to the U.S. and outvote the Christians. Whenever you hear about some great new government program that’s “pro-family,” reach for your gun.

National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru claims that paying women to have kids is less a government intrusion than “a way of helping them to live out what they already want.” In surveys, it seems, American women say they want more kids than they ultimately end up having.

This is why researchers distinguish between “stated preference” and “revealed preference.” For example, I think the ideal number of times to have fish every week is: two. But the number of times I actually eat fish each week is: zero. Please, conservatives, don’t help me by subsidizing fish.

It is simply asserted that it’s a terrible thing for a nation’s birthrate to fall below replacement level. But the only concrete downside to a declining birthrate is that the Social Security system will collapse without a never-ending supply of younger workers to fund it. Apparently, the government lied to us about a Social Security Trust Fund, and now the till is dry, requiring a constant influx of withholding taxes to keep the system afloat.

That’s a great way to govern: Create a new government program to paper over the failure of an earlier government program!

As a matter of psychology, it’s probably true that a people who are pessimistic about the future of their country won’t be keen on having a lot of kids. But the solution to that is to fix the country, not to pay people to simulate one single behavioral characteristic of optimists.

Commentary: As a former Muslim, I believe in faith in the public square


Commentary By Hedieh Mirahmadi, Exclusive Columnist| Thursday, July 29, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/as-a-former-muslim-i-believe-in-faith-in-the-public-square.html/

Hedieh Mirahmadi
Courtesy of Hedieh Mirahmadi

When I first became a Christian, I looked forward to a quiet life, basking in the love and beauty of having met my Lord and Savior.

Since I spent most of my adult life deeply engrossed in political battles over one issue or another, and serving my country in ways that were quite dangerous, the prospect of serenity was quite appealing. It was not more than three months that went by before the Lord gave me the vision for my ministry so others could experience the redemptive power of Christ.

At first, I wanted to ignore the call and pretend I didn’t hear it correctly. Starting a ministry and being public with my Christian faith meant I could be attacked or even physically harmed by Muslims seeking to impose the penalty of apostasy. It meant I was going back into battle. However, the Lord was relentless.

The inspirations came to me like a flood nearly every day, and then I heard the words, “Hedieh, you are battle-tested, combat-ready.” It made me laugh out loud because it was so true. My whole life and career were preparing me for this new mission to spread the Gospel at a time when being a follower of Christ is increasingly under attack. 

I have lived and worked in places where I escaped the outbreak of civil war, was shot at in the marketplace, and nearly lost my toes from frostbite because the heating in our compound turned off.  The Lord took all the inner fortitude and discipline of my past and combined it with the courage and strength that comes from being in relationship with Him.

He was using it all so I can serve the Kingdom. Whether it is writing columns and doing radio interviews, or witnessing to my hairstylist and speaking out at a School Board meeting, my faith in Christ is at the forefront of all that I do.  I often remember the Scripture, “Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops,” (Mathew 10:27).

Some would say my enthusiasm stems from being a relatively new Christian, but I beg to differ. I had the good fortune of listening to former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at church last week, and he made it so clear why all Americans should think of our faith in this way.

Mr. Pompeo talked about being an openly devout Christian during his time as Secretary of State, and how it informed all he did.  Though being asked ‘how does being a Christian impact your life?’ often had a negative connotation, that was irrelevant to him.  He responds with conviction and recounts his words that are clearly meant to inspire us:

“[Our faith] impacts everything you do; it informs every action that you take. It impacts how you think about the world, how you interact with people, and every day in your work life. Our founders believed deeply this was right and that the capacity to exercise our religion freely was important, and it mattered. …My oath was to the nation, I raised my right hand and swore that I would support defend the American Constitution, but I knew that if I did that with the Lord in my heart, I’d be more successful at delivering on that very outcome.”

Whether it was President Sisi in Egypt or Chairman Kim of North Korea, world leaders respected him for it, and there is nothing un-American or unbiblical about it. In his seminal speech in Cairo, he began the remarks saying, “I’m Mike Pompeo, and I’m an evangelical Christian.” His speechwriters tried to remove it, but he insisted on keeping it in.  He knew it was essential not because he wanted to talk about Christianity in a Muslim nation, but he wanted them to understand that the believers of Christ wanted good things for people everywhere and that it’s our responsibility to be faithful, no matter where we are. There is not one line that gets him more questions or comments about even to this day. Leaders of every faith, Christians, Jews, and Muslims worldwide, say they appreciated his honesty. They appreciated that he kept faith in the public square. They admired the discipline with which he practiced his faith. They appreciated his courage to talk about his values so they could better understand how our nations could work alongside each other to deliver better lives for people across the world.

Though some US officials criticized his openness, it never deterred him. Unfortunately, many government representatives wrongly interpret that the First Amendment prohibits talking about faith, but it does not. The freedom of religion is meant to protect the rights of people of all faiths to practice their religion without encroachment from the government. In my experience, it is a lack of religious conviction in our government officials that has led to disastrous policy decisions.

I will never forget being in a closed-door meeting at the White House during the Obama Administration, where a small group of us was invited to address the President on “countering violent extremism.” After nearly an hour of our passionate pleas and recommendations for stricter policies towards state sponsors of terrorism and other stringent measures, the President says he didn’t “get religion” and would not let people drag him into a war over it. Quite frankly, this sentiment explains why he did virtually nothing about the explosion of violence in the Middle East during his tenure. Suppose many of our senior US diplomats cannot appreciate the impact religion has on the way people live their lives and determine their priorities. How then can we properly represent our country as a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values?

Secretary Pompeo went on to say, “There’s no separation between faith and country because God governs in the affairs of men. Our success depends on virtuous people. Wherever that is— volunteering in the parking lot at church or serving in government. Our faith should form our character and inform our opinions.”

Being a Christian should be part of whatever we do. It’s not proselytizing; it is a belief that whatever religion someone believes in, they should be allowed to practice it freely. Hopefully, they will find the power of Christ revealed to them.   If our faith is not public and visible, how can we call others to faith in Christ? It is not just about being a good person.

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10:14)

I am eternally grateful for receiving salvation after practicing Islam freely in the US for decades.  I also cherish the freedom to share my new faith with others. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, forit is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes,” (Romans 1:16).

Hedieh Mirahmadi was a devout Muslim for two decades working in the field of national security before she experienced the redemptive power of Jesus Christ and has a new passion for sharing the Gospel.  She dedicates herself full-time to Resurrect Ministry, an online resource that harnesses the power of the Internet to make salvation through Christ available to people of all nations, and her daily podcast LivingFearlessDevotional.com.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: The Vaccine Karens


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 28, 2021 5:24 PM

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/07/28/the-vaccine-karens—p–n2593262/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org.

The Vaccine Karens

Source: AP Photo/Marta Lavandier

If I weren’t already staunchly pro-vaccination, the vaccine zealots would turn me against the COVID shot. The proof that they’re practicing religion and not science is their refusal to acknowledge the great heaping hunks of immunity a person gets from natural infection.

Obviously, you don’t want to contract COVID just to get all that boffo immunity, but lots of people have already been infected, so why can’t we count them the same as vaccinated?

The current research — and that’s all we have for the vaccines, too — indicates that natural immunity is not as good as vaccine immunity — it’s better! Study after study keeps finding that the previously infected have stronger, broader and longer-lasting immunity than people who’ve received the vaccine.

When the vaccinated, with their pipsqueak immunity, stop browbeating the already-infected, I’ll believe this is something other than a cult.

Why is the only proof of virtue — I mean, “Trusting the Science(TM) — a vaccination card and not a positive COVID test? Why don’t sports teams, concert halls and foreign countries accept proof of prior infection the same way they accept proof of vaccination?

Nope. Your prior infection is no good here! We are accepting ONLY vaccination cards.

Whatever that impulse is based on, it’s not “science.”

Despite earlier reports showing that antibodies declined rapidly after infection, in May of this year, scientists at the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, released a study showing that “robust” antibodies were still present at least 11 months after infection. (France accepts proof of prior infection not older than six months. If they trust the science, they’ll soon be accepting prior infection for a year.)

Then in June, the Cleveland Clinic produced a gigantic, perfectly controlled study finding that people who’d already had COVID received no benefit from vaccination.

The clinic had tested its 52,238 employees throughout 2020. At one point or another, 2,579 tested positive. By mid-December, 46% of the recovered COVID patients had taken the vaccine, but more than half (54%) had not.

Five months later, none of the previously infected had been re-infected — including the 1,359 who did not take the vaccine. (Among clinic employees who were vaccinated, but not previously infected, 15 got COVID.)

The authors concluded: “Our study … provid[es] direct evidence that vaccination does not add protection to those who were previously infected.”

Great news, right?

NO! This was terrible news for the vaccination Karens! Their position is: Everyone must get the vaccine. Even if you live alone on a mountaintop and eat leaves and beetles to survive, even if you’re a burbling infant, even if you’ve had COVID, YOU MUST GET THE VACCINATION!

In short order, the Cleveland Clinic was bullied into submission. The authors of the report issued what sounded like a retraction, but, on closer examination, was just a lot of airy nonsense.

E.g.: “This is still a new virus and more research is needed. …”

Duh. Same for the studies showing how fantastic the COVID vaccines are.

“It is important to keep in mind that this study was conducted in a population that was younger and healthier than the general population. …”

This study SUCKS. It only applies to the entire working-age population of the U.S.!

“In addition, we do not know how long the immune system will protect itself against re-infection after COVID-19. …”

Ditto for the vaccine.

“It is safe to receive the COVID-19 vaccine even if you have previously tested positive …”

Presumably, it’s also “safe” to use Gwyneth Paltrow’s healing crystals if you have previously tested positive. The question is: Do you need to?

” … and we recommend all those who are eligible receive it.”

Perhaps, someday, there will be a study establishing that the previously infected should get the vaccine, but your study didn’t, Cleveland Clinic. Everyone knows you’re only telling the previously infected to get vaccinated so the loons will leave you alone.

Just this week, a study out of the Emory University Vaccine Center, led by “world renowned immunologist” (as he is known) Rafi Ahmed, found “durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection.” And get this: The researchers also found that a natural COVID infection protects against a range of other coronaviruses, too.

What’s so impressive about these studies is that they are going against the woke mob. After a year of seeing scientists and scientific journals irredeemably corrupted, any study that won’t be cited in Teen Vogue carries extra credibility. Worse, the results support Sen. Rand Paul! Nobody’s going to lie about that.

This isn’t just a matter of policy not catching up to the science. The vaccine Karens positively disdain the previously infected. Instead of being treated like the superhumans that they are, recovered COVID patients are scorned, treated like smokers or AIDS victims. (No, sorry — the latter were revered as “angels.”) We’re simultaneously told that COVID is WILDLY contagious and … it’s your own damn fault for not wearing a mask, socially distancing or getting a vaccine.

The dismissal of people who’ve developed their own antibodies springs from the same totalitarian mindset of gun control activists: You cannot protect yourself! Your body cannot protect you! Only the government can protect you. Or, as Mussolini said: “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

This abject refusal to acknowledge the existence of natural immunity proves that the vaccine Karens don’t care about the health of their fellow human beings. They just want to boss us around.

Opinion: ‘Unmasking’ critical race theory


Commentary By Richard D. Land, Christian Post Executive Editor| Friday, July 23, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/unmasking-critical-race-theory.html/

Last week I shared a quote from a very important column “How Adherents See ‘Critical Race Theory’” by William A. Galston, a former Clinton administration veteran (1993-95) who is currently a fellow with the Brookings Institution (a liberal “think tank”) and a weekly columnist with the Wall Street Journal.

Richard Land
(Photo: The Christian Post/Katherine T. Phan)

I know Galston and have participated on various panels with him in Washington, D.C. I like Bill. He is liberal but he’s honest and a “straight-shooter” as we would say in Texas. That common sense, patriotic streak may be attributable to his having served a four-year stint in the United States Marine Corps when he was a young man. 

In that July 14th column, Galston concludes with the following observation:  “But, one thing is clear:  Because the Declaration of Independence – the founding document of the American liberal order – is a product of Enlightenment rationalism, a doctrine that rejects the Enlightenment, tacitly requires deconstructing the American order and rebuilding it on an entirely different foundation.”

It took the courage of a Marine to write that column in the face of a withering propaganda barrage in favor of critical race theory in the progressive media. After this week’s column, “A Deeper Look at Critical Race Theory,” it would be wise for Bill to employ a food taster at Capitol Hill receptions and D.C. dinner parties. Why? It is quite simple – he has told the truth to the progressive elites, and they often react viscerally and violently to such effrontery.

Galston “unmasks” CRT as a mortal threat to the American constitutional and judicial system and he does so in no uncertain terms. 

Having dived into the original sources, Galston reports several devastating facts about CRT.

  • First, “Critical Race Theory denies the possibility of objectivity.”
  • Second, CRT makes “race the center of our focus,” which is in direct opposition to Dr. King’s focus and vision. As such, CRT harshly critiques the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s as making only “symbolic” and “token” solutions for systemic racism. 
  • Third, Galston notes that CRT “is an explicitly left-wing movement inspired by the thinking of an Italian neo-Marxist Antonio Gramsci.”
  • Fourth, CRT’s founders “identified with Black Power movements much more than with those who were working for integration.”
  • Lastly, CRT “rejects the principle of equality of opportunity” and asserts that the real goal must be “equality of results,” measured by the “black share of income, wealth and social standing.” CRT rejects policies such as affirmative action as mere “diversions” meant “to make the mythology of equal opportunity plausible.” 

Galston concludes his exposé and critique by quoting Ibram X. Kendi, the author of the best-seller, How to Be an Anti-Racist, where he asserts that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” This would condemn America to a perpetually racist future in perpetuity. 

Bill Galston has committed the unpardonable progressive sin. He has told the plain, unvarnished, democracy-destroying truth about CRT. The counter-culture lynch mob will be out in force in full-throated rage.

We need more Americans and especially more progressives to display this kind of extraordinary courage and intellectual honesty.

I hope you will join me in applauding Bill Galston’s courage, and his intellectual honesty. Please also join me in praying for him in the days ahead, because the proto-fascists and black shirts masquerading as progressives will be out to destroy him.

Dr. Richard Land, BA (magna cum laude), Princeton; D.Phil. Oxford; and Th.M., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, was president of the Southern Baptists’ Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (1988-2013) and has served since 2013 as president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC. Dr. Land has been teaching, writing, and speaking on moral and ethical issues for the last half century in addition to pastoring several churches. He is the author of The Divided States of AmericaImagine! A God Blessed AmericaReal Homeland SecurityFor Faith & Family and Send a Message to Mickey.

MORE POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS July 22, 2021


Ann Coulter Op-ed: What’s Dumber Than CRT? CNN


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 21, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/07/21/whats-dumber-than-crt-cnn—p–n2592908/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org..

What's Dumber Than CRT? CNN

Source: AP Photo/Ron Harris

As we discussed last week, “critical race theory” is a subtle philosophical construct where the answer to everything is: THAT’S RACIST! Teachers hawking this glop are being defended by their journalist allies, who sneer that CRT critics are too stupid to understand the nuances of the theory. The Aristotelian ideal of this sneer was Elle Reeve‘s “special report” for CNN — pre-taped to eliminate any danger of Elle being contradicted by someone smarter, such as a 10-year-old.

CNN’s Brianna Keilar introduced the segment by asking her: “Do these vocal opponents of critical race theory actually understand fully what it is?”

(That’s what’s known as a “rhetorical question,” kids!)

Elle: “No.” [Bored] “And why should they? It’s an academic theory taught mostly at the grad student level. But what they think it means is teaching white kids that all white people are bad and racist. And so, of course they’re afraid of that.”

They’re afraid!!! Wait — remind me: Who’s banning books, again? Who’s flipping out about “microaggressions”? Who’s demanding that Big Tech censor people? Who’s demanding “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” from speech they don’t like?

Parents aren’t “afraid”; they’re incensed. They’re paying the salaries of people who spend all day telling their kids that America is racist. (Elle didn’t give that explanation. Perhaps it frightens her.)

The “vocal opponents” of CRT who “don’t actually understand fully what it is” seem to be mostly billionaire investment bankers — at least judging by the articles in the Daily Mail. Elle’s conclusion: A “theory” that consists of going around shouting “RACISM!” is too complex for those guys to understand.

The format of Elle’s pre-taped report consisted of her interviewing opponents of CRT … then nailing them with her brilliant comebacks! Except even with CNN doing the editing, the CRT opponents sounded perfectly reasonable, while Elle’s comebacks kept revealing her yawning stupidity.

Early in Elle’s report, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is shown saying, “Critical race theory says America’s fundamentally racist.” What a dope!

About 60 seconds later, Elle deferentially asks a hijab-wearing high school teacher to explain CRT. The teacher exclaims: “Race and racism is literally the building blocks of this country!” (Were I the editor of Elle’s piece, I think I would have cut that part of her answer.)

Next, Elle talks to a parent fighting CRT, who says: “Don’t force on our kids a particular worldview. Taking a wide brush and painting this country as structurally racist, it’s insane … it’s a lie.”

To this, Elle patronizingly informs the parent that America’s racism “isn’t distant history.” Her evidence of contemporary racism? “In the ’90s, the crime bill gave much more severe sentencing to crack cocaine versus powder cocaine simply because black people were perceived as doing crack cocaine and white people weren’t …”

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS? The reason crack penalties were so severe is because the Congressional Black Caucus demanded it. (And as long as I’m correcting Elle’s false facts, the crack penalties were passed in 1986 and 1988, not “in the 1990s.”)

Black churches, black leaders and black members of Congress were enraged by what the crack epidemic was doing to their neighborhoods. A 1986 New York Times article reported on “all-night vigils” held by the leaders of 60 black churches, who called the crack epidemic “a new form of genocide.” Urban League President John Jacob railed against communities “held hostage by crack dealers,” saying “drugs kill more blacks than the (Ku Klux) Klan ever did.” Running for president in 1988, Jesse Jackson spoke of the scourge of crack cocaine and told a cheering crowd, “When I become president, the drug pusher is in trouble.”

White supremacists — right, Elle?

This has been patiently explained roughly 1 million times. But why bother knowing stuff when smug arrogance is good enough for CNN?

Elle’s next big “gotcha” was even more embarrassing, if that is possible. She rolled out the old chestnut about blacks being considered “three-fifths” of a human being in our Constitution. Yes, she really did that.

Here’s her exchange with a college Republican:

COLLEGE REPUBLICAN: To paint the country as an inherently racist country from its founding I think is dangerous.

REEVE: The three-fifths compromise is written into the Constitution in which slaves are counted as three-fifths of a person.

SCORE!

How can you be in journalism and have no idea what the three-fifths clause means? No research is involved, Elle! Just read it.

The three-fifths clause means exactly the opposite of what Elle thinks it means. This was not a general statement on the slaves’ humanity: It was about congressional apportionment. The slave states wanted to count slaves as full “persons” in order to increase the number of their representatives in Congress.

If you adored slavery, you’d want the Constitution to count each slave as a full person — as 20 people! The slaves still couldn’t vote, but their slave masters would get more votes in Congress. It’s the same idea behind California’s demand that illegal aliens be counted when determining that state’s congressional apportionment.

I can’t even believe there’s anyone in America who needed that explained again. (Next time, I’ll just say: Get a home-schooler to explain it to you, Elle.)

It must have been embarrassing for everyone at CNN to watch this bimbo misstating well-known facts in a network “special report” that was supposed to show what cretins CRT critics are.

So how did the CNN hosts react? They were gobsmacked by the genius of Elle’s report!

JOHN BERMAN: That was so great.

KEILAR: Right?

BERMAN: I mean, that was just so great, and just the way the questions are asked. Just by asking simple questions you revealed so much. I mean, that was just fantastic.

ELLE: Thank you.

My idea of hell is being condescended to by an idiot, forever and ever, with no respite. In other words, watching CNN.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Critical Race Theory Is a Complex — Oh, Who Are We Kidding?


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 14, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/07/14/critical-race-theory-is-a-complex–oh-who-are-we-kidding—p–n2592557/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org..

Critical Race Theory Is a Complex -- Oh, Who Are We Kidding?

Source: AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File

One of the unintended consequences of teachers using COVID to refuse to do their jobs in 2020 is that their students suddenly had to take classes remotely — within earshot of Dad. A mother at a fancy New York City private school told me that the wokeness curriculum was nothing new, but mothers never made a fuss about it. Then the fathers overheard their kids’ remote classes — and all hell broke loose.

Now that the teachers’ anti-white agenda has been exposed (thank you, fathers of America!), the left is spinning a series of increasingly hilarious defenses of “critical race theory,” which is just a more boring version of the left’s usual hatred of Western civilization.

Their current position is that they simply can’t discuss CRT with you because it’s too complex and can only be understood by high-level graduate students after years of study.

Paul Begala on CNN: “It’s a graduate-level construct.”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper: “It started in the ’70s, as I understand, in sort of academic circles, law schools.”

“Dr.” Ibram Kendi — who is a “doctor” in the same sense that Jill Biden is — explaining his position on CRT:

“I’m not a legal scholar. So I wasn’t trained on critical race theory. I’m a historian. … Critical race theory is taught in law schools. I didn’t attend law school, which is where critical race theory is taught.”

Oh, cut the crap. The “theory” is: Everything is based on racism.

The preposterous conceit that CRT rises above the level of a child yelling “THAT’S RACIST!” has the advantage of allowing liberals to refuse to debate it.

Here’s MSNBC’s Joy Reid dismissing Christopher Rufo, a Manhattan Institute scholar, brought on her show putatively to debate CRT: “Are you like an expert in race or racial history? Are you a lawyer? Are you a legal scholar? Is that part of your background?”

How else could Rufo possibly understand a “theory” that says:

America is racist!

Criminal law is racist!

Policing is racist!

Arrests are racist!

Incarceration is racist!

Standardized tests are racist!

Mortgages are racist!

Oh my gosh, how am I ever going to master this complex theory? I thought the quantum field theory of subatomic particle forces was tough, but THIS? I guess I’ll be hitting the books tonight.

CRT is like the Monty Python sketch, “Anne Elk’s Theory on Brontosauruses“:

Anne Elk: “My theory, that belongs to me, is as follows … (throat clearing) This is how it goes … (clears throat) The next thing I’m going to say is my theory. (clears throat) Ready?”

Presenter: (whimpers)

Anne Elk: “My Theory, by A. Elk (Miss). This theory goes as follows and begins now …

“All brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine and belongs to me, and I own it and what it is, too.”

Presenter: “That’s it, is it?”

CRT advocates talk in hushed tones about where the “theory” was “invented,” like they’re describing the apple falling on Newton’s head.

In fact, CRT grew out of black student protests in the 1970s, forcing universities to hire more black professors. That’s literally how the father of critical race theory, Derrick Bell, got his job. Black students protested the lack of black professors, so Bell was given a professorship at Harvard Law School.

How’d you like to be hired by the (then) premier university in the world, not based on the excellence of your scholarship, but because of students threatening to burn the campus down? Instead of being embarrassed and hoping no one ever asked how he got his job, Bell rationalized his hiring by accusing Harvard of … well, I’d tell you, but it’s too complex for you to understand. On the other hand, I don’t know how else to convey the intricacies of this deeply intellectual theorem, except to just state it:

Bell accused Harvard of … RACISM!

And thus a new academic discipline was born. (I guess all the new hires had to teach something.)

The idea that our country is steeped in white supremacy is laughable. Most of what built this country had nothing to do with race — conquering the West, the invention of electricity, the telephone, the automobile, airplanes and steamboats, bringing drinking water to Manhattan, smashing the Nazi war machine and on and on and on.

I’m sorry, Black America, but all this was happening with or without you.

Yes, slavery was an abomination, the worst thing that ever happened within the borders of the United States. But there are whole vast areas of the American economy that didn’t have anything to do with slavery.

In fact and to the contrary, the slave economy had turned the South into a backwater. If the South had won the Civil War, not only would slavery have continued, but half the country would have had a primitive third world economy.

No need to feel bad about it. The main players in America’s explosive growth weren’t women, immigrants, Hispanics or Asians, either. Somehow we got over it. On the plus side, we get to live in the best country in the world.

Jealousy and obsessive self-regard are not the stuff of an intellectual movement. The daily denunciation of white men is more akin to the tantrum of a 4-year-old.

Which, by the way, is exactly how liberals think of black Americans. If there were an international symbol for liberals, it would be one adult patting another on the head. Otherwise, liberals would just come out and say: CRT’s not a theory! It isn’t complex, it isn’t interesting, and it isn’t true. (Also: We think you’re capable of getting a voter ID.) Instead, liberals coo to the CRT devotees, It IS your birthday every day!

Wallace B. Henley Op-ed: Re-imagining America: So, this is what it looks like? (pt 1)


Commentary By Wallace B. Henley, Exclusive Columnist | Wednesday, July 14, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/re-imagining-america-so-this-is-what-it-looks-like.html/

One day in the 1980s I drove along a frenetic Houston freeway listening to talk radio frenzy. Gabbers went over again and again how America Is changing for the worse.

Wallace Henley
Wallace Henley, former Senior Associate Pastor of 2nd Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. | Photo by Scott Belin

I was coming from a meeting where I had watched an in-your-face media presentation about the way our civilization is collapsing. And I wondered: When will be the climactic moment of this change—or “re-imagining” as some call it now?

More important: What will the new nation look like?

Mark Steyn, in a recent speech at Hillsdale College, pondered the same question. To some extent he answered it in the title of his speech: “Our Increasingly Unrecognizable Civilization”.

Steyn recalled a starry-eyed commencement speech John Kerry gave on the graduation circuit years ago. The former Vietnam veteran, presidential candidate, senator, and secretary of state told the students: “You are going to be the first generation to live in a borderless world.”

And therein lie some of the causative factors of America’s identity crisis.

Borders are definitive, be they sexual and moral boundaries, political or national borders, or the great spiritual wall denoting good from evil. Even the line of our profile distinguishes us from others.  

To paraphrase the Apostle Paul in his Second Letter to the Thessalonians, when the “restrainer” who establishes and sustains protective bulwarks is removed, lawlessness bursts in and wreaks havoc at its chaotic worst.

And so, the insanity of Portland, Minneapolis, Chicago, New York and other cities as mobs rampage while police departments are defunded, religion discredited, and voters keep electing the same people who build policy on the myth that the less restraint there is the better people will behave.

Intense change has been pressing in on America and the West for a long time. It starts out by degrees, then intensifies to what I called in one of my books, a “Globequake.”

One of the ways we mark the degrees of alteration in national identity is by contemplating the music of given eras.

Elvis became the image of change in America in the 1950s as the minstrel of the age. Back there in the pre-Elvis past was the big band music of the 1940s. Waiting behind the wall of the future were Peter, Paul, and Mary. And out there ahead of that trio was Bob Dylan, itching to tell us straight-out: “The Times, They Are A-Changin’.”

Bob Dylan was the hard-news guy, but Peter, Paul, and Mary were the romantic idealists… the dreamers who stirred us with the need to “re-imagine”—a word not part of the casual lingo of their time, but a buzzword now.

In the fullness of time came John Lennon, who put the “imagine”-word and concept right under our ears with his song, “Imagine.”

There he beckoned us to imagine a world of no heaven, hell, countries, religion, or possessions, among other things.

However, as we approached the 21st century I wondered if the “times” would continue to be ‘a-changin’, or would our nation and civilization reach the end toward which all those changes were moving us, like the Niagara River inevitably carrying everything to and over the Falls.

What would the “re-imagined” country look like? Everything Lennon wanted to get rid of constitutes a vital boundary. Unless there is some restraint, Lennon’s world would be in a state of perma-chaos—a hellish anti-civilization characterized by antinomianism, a hatred of law.

In fact, Jesus had long ago prophesied that the end-times would be characterized by the “increase” of lawlessness. (Matthew 24:12)

The Bible’s prophetic and historic passages reveal that the fundamental struggle in the fallen world is between chaos and cosmos.

Chaos is the goal of Lucifer. Its aim is de-creation, taking apart what God has put together. Critical Race Theory and similar exercises of the Woke movement show that dividing ethnic races and other categories of humanity constitute a major ploy in the fragmentation of human beings, separating people from God, themselves, and one another. Chaos is rending disorder, the ugly snarl of evil.

Cosmos is God’s order. But it is not the harsh mandate handed down by a cruel despot, or constricting legalism. Rather, as Romans 14:17 describes it, cosmos is the order of righteousness and justice, peace, and Spirit-given joy. It is the order manifested in the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. (Galatians 5:20-23).

Such beauty compels British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to call Christianity “a superb ethical system,” and to lament that he considers himself “as a kind of very very bad Christian.”

So how does the “re-imagined” America look after the rejection of this “superb ethical system” by elite establishments, and decades of manipulation, titillation, experimentation, and alteration?

Chaotic, that’s how.

“It is always hard to see the purpose in wilderness wanderings until after they are over,” wrote John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim’s Progress.

So, the big question now is this: “Is the ‘end’ near… or has the journey at least reached a point from which we can look back and see the whole of where we have been and a glance at the future towards which we are moving, and what we ought to do?

We will take a closer look at the nature of this chaos and its impact on us, our families, and institutions in Part II. In Part III we project what the future might hold, and, most important, the Bible’s guidance for us “pilgrims” (apologies to John Bunyan).

ABOUT THE COMMENTATOR:

Wallace B. Henley’s fifty-year career has spanned newspaper journalism, government in both White House and Congress, the church, and academia. He is author or co-author of more than 20 books. He is a teaching pastor at Grace Church, the Woodlands, Texas.

For media inquiries, contact:  ChristianPost@pinkston.co

Opinion: Gender and sexuality of our youth: Natural or deliberate indoctrination?


Commentary By Hedieh Mirahmadi, Exclusive Columnist| Thursday, July 01, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/deliberate-indoctrination-of-gender-and-sexuality-of-our-youth.html/

Hedieh Mirahmadi
Courtesy of Hedieh Mirahmadi

As the battle rages on in our society about gender identity and the treatment of same-sex relationships under the law, the church is not immune from addressing these issues head-on – even at the dinner table. If you are like me, these questions are a constant source of debate with teenage children who are bombarded with social media and classroom discussions on the topic that challenge our Biblical views on sexuality, marriage, and gender.

Alarming statistics from a recent Gallup poll show that the onslaught of LGBTQ messaging directed at our youth is working. The report states, “younger generations are far more likely to consider themselves to be something other than heterosexual. This includes about one in six adult members of Generation Z (those aged 18 to 23 in 2020)…and more than half of those claim they are bisexual.”  The fact that the rise is most pronounced in young people and the majority is not experiencing same-sex attraction, indicates that the deliberate indoctrination of our children not to accept traditional gender roles is increasingly successful. 

When it comes to gender identity, the drastic rise in young people that identify as “gender fluid” has generated fierce debate. Prominent academics and health professionals advocate for a gender affirmative model, claiming that gender is determined by an “interweaving of biology, development and socialization; and, culture and context, with all three bearing on an individual’s gender self.”  Therefore, parents should accept the “gender” as stated by the child, regardless of their anatomy. Juxtapose that to the stance of child advocates, researchers, and Christians who firmly believe the rapid onset of gender confusion in our youth results from underlying emotional disorders and manipulation from schools and other institutions that are engaged in some form of conversion therapy on our children.  If you are not familiar with this debate, I encourage you to read these resources and understand the extent of the battle for our youth’s identity and emotional well-being.

Surprisingly, the church as a whole is not of one opinion on the issue of sexual preference and God’s condemnation of same-sex relations. The acceptance of openly gay members and clergy are on the rise. Some denominations that ordain homosexual pastors and worship leaders defend their stance by claiming Jesus loves everyone, and research shows that a significant number of Christians find no conflict between their religious beliefs and homosexuality. Thankfully, many evangelical Pastors do not legitimize same-sex couples and instead encourage the individual to rebuke the sin and lean on the power of the Holy Spirit to fight the urges of same-sex attraction just as one would other sins like fornication or adultery. In His Image, the movie does a beautiful job describing just how a Bible-honoring Christian can convey the message of the love of Christ to someone struggling with same-sex attraction. Organizations like Changed Movement help people find community with others struggling with similar issues but who left the LGBTQ lifestyle for freedom in Christ.

Even as a new believer, I knew the Lord did not intend to condone same-sex relationships based on Scripture (1 Corinthians 6:91 Timothy 1:10) , but I struggled with how I could convey these principles to my daughter in a spirit of love and compassion. Last month, I was fortunate to attend an event for Living Stone Ministries at my church to hear from other parents of children struggling with gender identity and same-sex attraction. It was a wonderful time of support and worship with other parents, but the most amazing part of the evening was listening to former gay believers talk about their journey and the impact their parents had on their road to freedom in Christ.

Two of these young men and women empathically said their parent’s unwavering commitment to the Gospel stuck with them the most when deciding to leave the homosexual lifestyle. As one young man put it, “no matter how I tried to manipulate my mom or convince her that she was wrong and just didn’t want to support me, she never wavered on the truth that Jesus wanted a better life for me and I would never find true happiness in a same-sex relationship.”  It was the truth of his mother’s words that rung in his ears when he survived an attempted suicide and finally gave his life to Christ for healing and restoration. Another young woman said her Christian mother took the opposite approach and went to gay bars with her to make her feel accepted. It ultimately backfired and made her resent her mother for not helping her leave the lifestyle. Hearing these stories brought me so much peace because it was a truth I knew in my heart but hearing it from someone with lived it affirmed my conviction.

So despite the arguments and accusations that my stance is homophobic, outdated, or just “my truth,” I continue to tell my young daughter that Jesus loves all sinners but despises the sin. It is no different than if she came to me wanting to do drugs or engage in premarital sex. I would warn her that a life of sin will never bring happiness or the freedom that comes from a life in obedience to God.

In light of all that is coming against our children to draw them into a life of death and depression, it is unfortunate that any church would condone same-sex couples and even allow openly gay pastors to lead a congregation. How can we teach our young people to follow any of the Bible’s commandments if we compromise the one that destroys the sanctity of creation and monogamy between a man and a woman in marriage? It is just one more example of how liberalism is unraveling the fundamental principles of the Gospel. Ultimately, it is a massive disservice to people who want to break the strongholds of addiction and be restored through the love and redemption of Christ.

ABOUT THE COMMENTATOR:

Hedieh Mirahmadi was a devout Muslim for two decades working in the field of national security before she experienced the redemptive power of Jesus Christ and has a new passion for sharing the Gospel.  She dedicates herself full-time to Resurrect Ministry, an online resource that harnesses the power of the Internet to make salvation through Christ available to people of all nations, and her daily podcast LivingFearlessDevotional.com

Wallace B. Henley Op-ed: Will America still be America? The dangerous altering of America’s DNA


Commentary By Wallace B. Henley, Exclusive Columnist| Wednesday, June 30, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/the-dangerous-altering-of-americas-dna.html/

“There is nothing exempt from the peril of mutation,” said Elizabethan sage Walter Raleigh.

Or, as an anonymous patriot of his period put it to would-be agitators in his nation: “You will chip away and chip away until nothing is left that makes Scotland Scotland.”

Wallace Henley
Wallace Henley, former Senior Associate Pastor of 2nd Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. | Photo by Scott Belin

One looks now at the drastic alterations of America’s spiritual, psychological, social, and political DNA, and the mutating dynamics they set loose upon the nation’s very being, and wonders if America will be America for the present generation’s grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Scientists like Francis Collins taught us much about the human genome and the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) that carries the information and genetics forming the nature of a person.

Collins led the task force that decoded the human genome. On the day of the announcement, President Clinton said: “We are learning the language in which God created life… We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God’s most divine and sacred gift.”

On this July 4th it would be a good idea for Americans everywhere to reflect on the beauty and wonder of the “DNA” that formed the best of America.

Ages ago God led Moses and his people into the Sinai wilderness and to the foot of Mount Sinai. God summoned Moses up the mountain to renew His Covenant with the people. Receiving that Covenant would give birth to the nation, Israel. God made it clear that Israel must not worship the gods of the Canaanites lest they become like the Canaanites. (See Exodus 34)

So, to worship the “gods of the land” is to take on the spiritual “DNA” of the people of the land, and to take on the identity of the people of the land is to adopt their gods.

For example, previous generations in America—including people and churches identifying as Christian—embraced slavery, in conformity with their culture.

Thomas Jefferson, a slaveholder, nevertheless could not quiet the voice of judgment within his mind and heart: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

And it did not.

A nation-rending war resulted. Succeeding generations learned little and perpetuated discrimination through officially sanctioned racism and segregation.

God warned that If Israel worshiped the “gods of the land” when it arrived in Canaan, then Israel would cease to be Israel and lose its purpose and destiny.

America is by no means the “new Israel,” but she has had remarkable blessings of liberty, prosperity, and security.

God’s aim in history is for the good news of His beautiful Kingdom to be proclaimed to all the inhabited earth. This is the business, not of the state, but of the church within the nation. For this mission to be carried out there must be freedom of religion so the church can go about its business, and have the material means to take the gospel globally.

Any nation that permits such freedom will be blessed. The health of a nation, therefore, is in direct ratio to the health of the church within the nation.

Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington explored what we refer to here as America’s “DNA” in his book, Who Are We? There he discussed the American “Creed” comprised by these and other “DNA” components:

  • Liberty
  • Equality
  • Democracy
  • Individualism
  • Human rights
  • The rule of law
  • Private property

Huntington did not shy from crediting the Judeo-Christian worldview as the source of these elements of America’s spiritual “DNA”.

If there is socio-cultural sin in our past and present it is not because these principles were corrupt but because sinful human beings of all persuasions corrupted the “DNA”. We have too often worshiped the “gods of the land” and in the process defiled the Source of our blessings, to the hurt of many and alteration of our national character.

The present struggle in American society and culture spans the past, present, and future. All the generations are at stake: We are ashamed of the sins of the past, hopeless in the conflicted present, and anxious about an uncertain future.

Therefore, this Fourth of July we must reflect on the sobering truth of what will happen as America’s “DNA” is altered. The nation will go…

  • From the conviction that God is Transcendent—above all and to Whom all must give an account, including government—to the belief that there is nothing Transcendent but ourselves and ultimately our rulers
  • From the freedom not to believe to enforced state or cultural religion
  • From churches to re-education centers
  • From schools pursuing knowledge to schools indoctrinating
  • From the Bible as God’s revelation to us and the source of our formative worldview to the displacement of the Bible from public life
  • From constitutionalism to tyrannical edict
  • From healthy individuality to collectivism
  • From a free market economy to a state-controlled economy
  • From democracy to oligarchy through the elite establishments of Information, Entertainment, Academia, Politics, Corporations
  • From mature independence to socialist dependency
  • From a healthy respect for just law to antinomianism
  • From unity to fragmentation
  • From freedom of religion to bondage to the secular humanist religion of the state
  • From nuclear family to state-determined family

If all that happens our national “DNA” will be altered so drastically that America will no longer be America.

A violent revolution will not save America. The matter at the core is spiritual and only a spiritual revolution, “great awakenings,” will save us.

Pulpits must once again reach into the depths of biblical revelation and proclaim the Kingdom of God rather than the therapeutic or prosperity “gospels”.

Congregations must learn anew the importance of going to their knees… standing in the “gap” … for their nation before God.

ABOUT THE COMMENTATOR:

Wallace B. Henley’s fifty-year career has spanned newspaper journalism, government in both White House and Congress, the church, and academia. He is author or co-author of more than 20 books. He is a teaching pastor at Grace Church, the Woodlands, Texas.

For media inquiries, contact:  ChristianPost@pinkston.co

Jason Whitlock OP-ED: Fearless: Jason Whitlock’s letter to black America explaining the real purpose of made-for-TV racial conflict


Commentary by JASON WHITLOCK | June 25, 2021

Read more at https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/ready-fearless-jason-whitlocks-letter-to-black-america-explaining-the-real-purpose-of-made-for-tv-racial-conflict/

Dear Black People:

We are being lied to and set up. The mainstream media, Democratic politicians, social justice activists, and perhaps even your church pastor have led you to believe America is in the midst of a racial conflict similar to the Civil War and the civil rights movement.

They have pitted us against the Proud Boys, the KKK, rural militia groups, and Trump supporters in a made-for-TV race war. Just five years after Barack Obama completed two terms as president of the United States, we’re supposed to believe America has been overrun by violent white supremacists determined to reinstate segregation, Jim Crow laws, and maybe even slavery.

Evidence of this massive wave of 1920s-style bigotry amounts to three things:

  1. Republicans want all voters to show a government-issued ID;
  2. On January 6, unarmed Trump supporters crashed the Capitol and took pictures inside Nancy Pelosi’s office;
  3. Across the nation, police kill on average 250 black men and 450 white men per year.

Oh, I almost forgot. There’s a fourth piece of evidence. Colin Kaepernick failed to land a job as a starting quarterback after pissing off a large segment of football fans by taking a knee during the national anthem.

Those are the main smoking guns proving that white supremacy is the most dangerous domestic threat America faces. George Floyd, a habitual criminal and drug addict, is the Crispus Attucks of this raging race war. He is our rallying cry and hero.

It’s a setup. We’re being used as decoys and distractions in a war that has nothing to do with race.

The real war is about global power and the future of America’s system of government. This country’s elite, global citizens, and corporations prefer communism over capitalism and democracy. They prefer China’s system over our system.

America has been the world’s leader in racial progress and fairness. The mainstream media are not allowed to explain this to you. Advertisers, aka major corporations, will no longer support media outlets that back our current democratic and capitalistic systems of governance.

You say, what about Fox News? Turn it on. It’s filled with a bunch of MyPillow and wounded soldier commercials. America’s big, global corporations, the ones looking to improve their market share in China, are not financially supporting Fox News. The most popular voices at Fox News dislike China.

The faux race war the mainstream media have promoted is a tool being used to convince you and non-black Americans that our system of government has been a giant failure. They want you to believe that a great reset is necessary to achieve fairness.

The reset is communism, which starts with the gateway drug of socialism and ends in full-blown Marxism. China is run by the Communist Chinese Party. Communism has no respect for individual freedom or religion of any kind. Communism has no tolerance for political dissent.

Your religion and free speech will not survive the reset. Communism is racial oppression’s best friend. When a nation is stripped of religious faith and free speech, few people have the courage to defend the rights of minorities. The elites cozying up to China do not care about you. They are aware of how despicably China treats black people. They are aware of how China squashes dissent.

Do your own research on communism and what it stamps out and how it oppresses. Don’t take my word.

You might be wondering why Oprah Winfrey or LeBron James or some other super popular black celebrity isn’t telling you what I am. They’re global elites. The reset won’t hurt them or their loved ones. Communism favors wealthy elites far more than capitalism and democracy do. Oprah, LeBron, and the other uber-wealthy black tokens will thrive under socialism and communism.

You won’t. Unless you’re a 6’6″ basketball star or some other black entertainer capable of entertaining the people in power. That’s a tiny percentage of black people.

Why won’t your favorite white cable newsman or newswoman tell you what I’m telling you? Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo, Joe Scarborough, aren’t they our allies? No. They’re not. They’re political lobbyists working on behalf of the corporations and politicians pushing the reset.

OK. What about me? You might think I’m a political partisan working on behalf of conservative Republicans. That is certainly how I’ve been painted by left-leaning media outlets and social media platforms. And I’m now partnered with Blaze Media, a platform that leans right.

Judge my career. I have been at this for more than 30 years. I have been equally despised by the left and the right. I have publicly feuded with Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann. I’ve been a guest on their old Fox News and MSNBC shows. I’ve worked and/or written for ESPN, Fox Sports, the Huffington Post, Playboy Magazine, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal. I spent years bashing Sarah Palin.

I don’t play for any political team. I’ve never voted. I go wherever I believe I can speak, follow, and write the truth. The truth I believe the most is that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. I believe Jesus is under attack. That’s why I’m at Blaze Media. You can’t defend Jesus at corporate media outlets. Advertisers won’t allow it. You can discuss the religion of racism every day at ESPN, CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox Sports. But it’s taboo to discuss the cure for racism — Jesus — on those platforms.

I’m not saying any of this because there’s a big paycheck for black men espousing my views. The money for black broadcasters and journalists is connected to preaching the race-bait religion.

Let me be clear. I’m not broke by any stretch. I’ve earned and saved a substantial sum of money. But I’ve bypassed far more money than I’ve earned with the choice I’ve made to follow the truth wherever it leads and my refusal to support the racial groupthink dictated by global elites.

My faith won’t allow me to jump on board with the lunacy, racism, and sacrilege of Black Lives Matter, a movement founded by three lesbian self-admitted trained Marxists. BLM is an atheist movement in support of LGBTQ issues and the reshaping of America into a communist country. BLM is part of the deception.

Black people tell me all the time: “I don’t support the BLM organization, but I support the slogan and sentiment.”

Let me translate that. You despise the devil’s tree but love the fruit it produces. That’s some Don Lemon-Lori Lightfoot-Van Jones-Colin Kaepernick level of hypocrisy. You know, all the Malcolm X-wannabe, anti-white radicals in relationships with white partners. They hate the white tree but can’t live without the white fruit.

We have to stop letting everyone use us. We’re being played. We’re all being played, black and white working-class people. It’s all a giant setup. Look at what they did to Trump supporters. They were manipulated into storming the Capitol, and then the corporate media portrayed it as a bloody, violent KKK rally intended to overthrow democracy. The so-called “insurrection” is an excuse for the government to seize more power and crush dissent.

We, black people, have been convinced the crushing of working-class white people is good for us. It’s not. Working-class white people, Christian white people, are our true allies, not the elites. We can’t see that because of the made-for-TV hyper-focus on racial conflict.

The defunding and demoralizing of police are tactics deployed to increase violence in major cities. Local media outlets are focusing on this rise in crime, national media outlets have followed suit, and social media platforms are generating viral videos exposing the crime wave. Guess who are the stars of this content. Black perpetrators.

It’s all a massive setup. The stirring of racial animus between Obama worshippers and Trump worshippers is orchestrated by billionaire elites, executed by trained Marxists, promoted by millionaire influencers in the media, sports, and entertainment worlds, and co-signed by religious leaders pursuing popularity.

Black America, print this letter and share it with family, friends, co-workers, and, most importantly, your pastor.

My critics will tell you: “Oh, Jason Whitlock is a sellout. He hates black people.”

That’s laughable. It’s part of the deception. I despise the people deceiving us, manipulating us to participate in a racial clash that will be used to destroy the religious and individual freedoms that liberated us.

There’s a reason black and brown people across the globe fight to get into this country and excel when they do. They love the American tree and the fruit it produces.

Thanks for reading, Jason Whitlock

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Don’t Stop at Juneteenth!


Ann Coulter

Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jun 23, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/06/23/dont-stop-at-juneteenth—p–n2591486/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Don't Stop at Juneteenth!

Source: AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Happy Juneteenth! I hope you all had a lovely week celebrating the nation’s newest federal holiday, which commemorates the end of slavery throughout the Confederacy.

How could you not? The media was chock-a-block with commentators telling us what a fantastic, transformative event for our nation this was. But the media ignored the best part of all!

What Juneteenth commemorates is not technically the abolition of slavery, but the notification thereof to a particular group of slaves.

Although President Lincoln officially ended slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, it wasn’t until two years later, on June 19, 1865, that the slaves of Galveston, Texas, got the news, when Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger rode into town and issued a series of proclamations announcing that the hideous institution had been abolished and, henceforth, slaves would be considered hired labor.

This takes Juneteenth to a whole new level. Think of all the new federal holidays we could create using Juneteenth as our template! (Anyone who’s dealt with the federal government knows that those workers well deserve another paid day off.) We just need horsemen to ride around the country, correcting the errors of those who falsely believe something bad about America.

Thus, for example, next month we should have some bright young fellow gallop up to a BLM rally, Gen. Granger-style, dismount and announce:

I come with good news! Systemic racism no longer exists! It was done away with by the 1964 Civil Rights Act and parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act! Any victims of racism today can demand remedies in federal court!

And with a hardy “Hi-De-Ho,” our hero would ride off to the next BLM rally, as the march participants disband and hold a celebratory brunch. The date would be remembered each year as the Julyteenth holiday.

Then in August, we’ll send men on horseback to MSNBC with this proclamation:

Trump isn’t going to run for president again! Republicans aren’t afraid of him! They don’t kiss his ring half as much as Democrats kiss Al Sharpton’s ring and parts posterior. As soon as you guys denounce Sharpton, they’ll denounce Trump. Please calm down.

It’s not the fault of MSNBC that they operate on this glaring misconception. Not unlike the slaves, they’ve been kept in the dark, fed lies by people in whom they placed their trust: reporters. The day they learn the truth should live forever in history as Augusteenth — and, of course, federal workers would get that day off, too.

Next, we’ll need some volunteers to saddle up and head over to The New York Times building to proclaim:

Good news, New York Times! Your repeated claim that 1 in 5 women will be the victim of rape is FALSE!

First, my friends, all “in their lifetimes” statistics are a scam. They make any crime sound rampant. More than 8 out of 10 Americans will be the victim of a violent crime “in their lifetimes,” and 9.9 of 10 will be a victim of personal theft “in their lifetimes.”

Second: Even by this ridiculous measure, it’s not “1 in 5.” According to an extensive study by Obama’s Department of Justice examining 18 years of data, 1 in 10 women will be raped “in their lifetimes.” About 2 in 10 will be robbed and 4 in 10 will be injured during a robbery.

Third: The annual rate of rape victimization isn’t close to “1 in 5.” Instead, it’s 1.75 per thousand raped each year.

Fourth: This is including rapes that never happened, but are threatened or attempted.

Isn’t that terrific news, New York Times? Instead of 1 in 5 women succumbing to the awful crime of rape this year, fewer than 1.75 per thousand will be!

Let’s call this holiday Septemberteenth, to commemorate the joyful day Times reporters realized they are not living in a dystopian world of sexual predators. Cheers will erupt! (Some from federal workers.)

In October, our ersatz Gen. Granger and his trusty steed will ride south to the Capitol and proclaim:

I come bearing good news: No one’s vote is being “suppressed”! It’s a bait and switch! Last year’s preposterous voting rules were instituted because of COVID-19! Remember? They told us: IT’S A WORLDWIDE PANDEMIC! WE MUST ALLOW UNIVERSAL EARLY VOTING, NO IDENTIFICATION AND MAIL-IN BALLOTS! DO YOU WANT PEOPLE TO DIE? We can go back to pre-pandemic voting rules without fear of returning to the dark days of Jim Crow! Now, if some of you would be kind enough to give my trusty steed some water?

The late-breaking discovery that Republicans aren’t “suppressing the vote” might be called Octoberteenth.

The slaves of Galveston were understandably ecstatic to be freed of the yoke of slavery — as no doubt will be the misinformed BLM protesters, New York Times reporters and other recipients of our horsemen’s good news. Think of their unbridled joy to be free of these false notions about America! They will shout to the heavens, giving thanks to the bounty of this land, their joy surpassed only by that of federal workers.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: The John Lewis Act Is the Dems’ Path to Permanent Power


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jun 16, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/06/16/the-john-lewis-act-is-the-dems-path-to-permanent-power—p–n2591101/

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com., and WhatDidYouSay.org..

The John Lewis Act Is the Dems' Path to Permanent Power

Source: AP Photo/Chuck Burton, File

The official position of Fox News is that the Democrats’ John Lewis vote-stealing bill is “narrower” than the Democrats’ “For the People” vote-stealing bill. (This will be an exhibit in my museum titled, “Stupid People Can Never Help Your Cause.”)

Yes, it’s “narrower” in the sense of being 1 MILLION times worse. The John Lewis bill will do everything the “For the People” bill does — and so much more! They just don’t tell us what, exactly. The language of the bill is full of anodyne, uplifting language about equal voting participation — but the details will be turned over to left-wing zealots at the Department of Justice, suddenly empowered to enforce voting rules so insane that no elected official would dare vote for them.

Inasmuch as nearly every congressional Democrat is fine with the provisions in the “For the People” bill — which are ludicrous — imagine how much worse the “You Can’t Blame Me” bill is.

It will be faceless bureaucrats at the Department of Justice who give meaning to the happy words in the John Lewis bill. Federal government employees — i.e., the people actually making the rules — cannot be voted out of office. (Or fired — this is government work.) Indeed, these are people who could never be elected to any office on account of their repellent political views and, often, repellent physical appearance.

This is how Democrats impose fascistic rules on the citizenry without ever having to cast a dangerous vote: They write laws with vague statements of high principle, then dump the actual rule-making onto a government agency, where refugees from the ACLU issue edicts outlawing private property, due process, free speech and honest elections.

Recall:

— It wasn’t elected members of Congress who ordered a nice Idaho couple to halt work on their home because it was allegedly on a protected wetland (in the middle of a subdivision with many other homes). That was environmentalist wackos at the EPA.

— It wasn’t elected members of Congress who required universities to deny basic due process rights to students accused of rape. That was feminist loons at the Department of Education.

— It wasn’t elected members of Congress who directed Obama’s IRS to target groups with “tea party” or “patriots” in their names. That was liberal ideologue Lois Lerner and other civil service functionaries.

The lunatics at these agencies look like Reason Personified compared to the DOJ’s voting rights attorneys.

In 2013, author Charlotte Allen described one fair-minded DOJ staffer, whose job it was to rewrite state voting laws:

“On the morning of January 21, [2013] just before President Obama’s second inauguration, Rep. Paul Ryan … was roundly booed by the gathered crowd as he left the Capitol to attend the ceremonies …. Within minutes Daniel J. Freeman, a young career trial lawyer with the Voting Section of the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division … took credit in a Facebook post for instigating the anti-Ryan derision.”

1. Paul Ryan? Pencil-necked, open borders, Never-Trump Paul Ryan? That’s the guy who got Freeman so riled up?

2. The obnoxious Freeman is no longer a young career trial lawyer at the DOJ. Now he’s a senior career trial lawyer at the DOJ.

Among the innovations dreamed up by fanatics like Freeman, Arizona was informed it could not ask for identification from people delivering more than 10 early ballots. Nothing fishy about that!

Arizona’s voting laws were subject to federal oversight because of its well-known history as a slave state and avid practitioner of Jim Crow. (I may have to check my notes on that.)

Actually, Arizona was bossed around by liberal activists at the DOJ for 40 years because back in 1972, it didn’t have bilingual ballots. Those weren’t instituted until 1974. They may as well have donned white hoods and burned crosses!

Oddly, Mississippi’s election laws were also subject to approval by the DOJ — despite the fact that blacks already voted at far higher rates than whites in that state. By contrast, Massachusetts did not require oversight of its voting laws, although in that fancy liberal state, black people voted at far lower rates than whites.

It’s almost as if only red states have their voting laws nitpicked by left-wing lawyers in Washington. I wonder if that would help Democrats win presidential elections?

Ironically, meaning totally predictably, the original 1965 Voting Rights Act was necessary because Democrats were trying to prevent black people from voting. Today, Democrats are using these new “voting rights” bills to ensure that 110% of black people vote, even if they are convicted felons, don’t live in the state, didn’t actually fill out a ballot or are dead.

It wasn’t until 2013 that the Supreme Court mercifully overturned key portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. (Citing the overwhelming Senate vote for the wonderfully named Voting Rights Act, Justice Antonin Scalia remarked at oral argument: “This is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress.”)

While it’s great that ideologues like Dan Freeman had their wings clipped by the Court, the previous 40 years of their harassment tells you what they want to do. The John Lewis voting rights bill will put them back in the saddle!

States will be ordered to keep dead voters on the rolls, give violent felons the right to vote and jettison any voter I.D. requirements. (Interestingly, even after all the media demagoguery, black people still overwhelmingly support voter I.D. laws.)

There’s no disincentive to government lawyers pursuing frivolous cases to the end of the Earth. Even if they eventually lose, they don’t have to worry about court costs or legal fees. They don’t pay ’em. You do.

The “For the People” voting rights bill is the floor of what these petty bureaucrats will require. Those are the bare-minimum “voting rights” that will be imposed on the states by the DOJ. That’s the level of absurdity Democrats are willing to vote for in plain sight. What great ideas does Dan Freeman have that even Democrats couldn’t endorse on the record?

What is the voting “rights” equivalent of the EPA’s relentless persecution of homeowners, the Duke lacrosse case or the IRS’s abuse of power? Because that’s what the John Lewis voting rights bill will deliver.

COMMENTARY: Lindsey Graham Says Unemployment Benefits Are So High People in His Own Family Aren’t Working


Commentary by C. Douglas Golden June 9, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/lindsey-graham-says-unemployment-benefits-high-people-family-arent-working/

When the disastrous April jobs report came out, President Joe Biden was asked by a reporter whether or not the Democratic push to keep expanded $300 weekly federal unemployment checks contributed to the historic miss.

“No, nothing measurable,” Biden said during a media briefing on May 7, according to a transcript.

“I know some employers are having trouble filling jobs. But what this report shows is that there’s a much bigger problem. … It is that our economy still has 8 million fewer jobs than when this pandemic started. The data shows that more — more workers — more workers are looking for jobs, and many can’t find them. While jobs are coming back, there are still millions of people out there looking for work.”

That’s still the official administration line after two months of disappointing jobs numbers. The fact that the federal government is paying people not to work has nothing to do with the promised economic rebound falling flat, at least when it comes to jobs.

During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Tuesday, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina wasn’t having it. As he questioned Shalanda Young, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, he said he had relatives who weren’t working because unemployment benefits were so high. Graham was arguing that the benefits should be killed before they’re set to expire in September.

“There’s a lot of jobs out there that are unfilled and will never be filled until you change the benefit structure. Does that logic make sense to you, given where we’re at in our economy?” Graham asked Young.

“I understand the logic, but I’ve also not met Americans who would prefer not to work,” Young replied. “There’s a dignity to work in this country.”

A chuckling Graham used his relatives to show why this is problematic. “I got a lot of people in my family that ain’t working because they’re getting — I’ll show you some of my family,” Graham said.

“Bottom line is I think there are people out there, they’re not bad people, but they’re not going to work for $15 an hour if they make $23 unemployed,” he added.

“That doesn’t make you a bad person. If you’re working for $15 an hour, that makes you almost a chump.”

The expanded benefits have been part of a tug-of-war between the White House and Republicans on Capitol Hill and in governor’s mansions. As part of the American Rescue Plan, Biden kept the $300-a-week checks going through Sept. 6. As The New York Times reported last week, the administration has promised not to renew them, but has no plans to cancel the additional aid early.

However, many Republicans have seen enough, with 25 states having already ended the benefits starting this month.

In a Friday media briefing, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that’s OK,” although the Biden administration still sees the $300 payments as an “extra helping hand.”

“Every governor is going to make their own decision,” Psaki told reporters.

That decision should become markedly easier when staring down two months of dreadful jobs reports. April is the month that sticks out; that’s when economists were expecting a million new jobs and the total was 278,000. And let’s not forget May. The 559,000 jobs added still came in below expectations of 675,000 jobs. Let’s also not forget that a roaring economy was set to be a Democratic talking point going into 2022.

Even though the Biden administration inherited a strong economy before lockdowns shuttered businesses, and even though the beginning of mass vaccinations was felicitously timed with Biden’s inauguration, the massive bounceback the White House was counting on hasn’t quite happened yet. But the weekly $300 checks have nothing to do with it, they swear. After all, who wouldn’t choose the dignity of work over getting paid to sit on the couch?

It isn’t just Shalanda Young making this argument — during the May 7 media briefing on the April jobs numbers, Biden claimed “most middle-class, working-class people that I know think the way my dad did.

“He used to say — and I know I’m repeating myself, but I’m going to continue to because I think it’s critical. ‘A job is a lot more than a paycheck,’ he’d say. ‘Joey, it’s about your respect, your dignity, your place in the community.’ More than a paycheck. It’s people’s pride. It’s about being able to look at your child in the eye and say, ‘Honey, it’s going to be OK.’”

I know, empurpled prose like that makes the tears well up in your eyes. However, if you stay at home for $23 an hour instead of working for $15 an hour, it’s a lot easier to look your child in the eye and say, “Honey, it’s going to be OK.” Yes, a job might be “people’s pride.” It’s not the kind of pride that goeth before the fall, but it’s the kind of pride that, in this case, goeth before making considerably less money for doing actual work.

Now, was Graham making a rhetorical point, throwing his family under the bus, or both? Whatever the case, one hopes they — as well as millions of other Americans — get off the dole with all due rapidity.

In a country where anyone over 12 can get a vaccine with ease and employers are desperately looking for workers, the federal government needn’t be throwing $300 a week at the unemployed in the name of recovery.

ABOUT THE COMMENTATOR:

C. Douglas Golden, Contributor,

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.@CillianZeal

Facebook


Voting Rights: It’s ‘Racist’ Not to Let Democrats Cheat

Ann Coulter | Posted: Jun 09, 2021

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/06/09/voting-rights-its-racist-not-to-let-democrats-cheat—p–n2590760/

Voting Rights: It's 'Racist' Not to Let Democrats Cheat

Source: AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Why aren’t Republicans screaming from the rooftops about the Democrats’ plans to change voting rules to give themselves an advantage? Their sleazy election bills, HR 1, the “For the People Act,” and HR 4, the “John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,” are intended to help Democrats win majorities in both houses of Congress, at which point they will ignore Republicans entirely, end the filibuster, and pass everything in AOC’s Dream Journal — amnesty, gun control, a wealth tax, and a rainbows and unicorns energy bill.

So it’s kind of important for Republicans to kill these bills in the crib. It shouldn’t be hard. All they have to do is tell people what’s in them.

Are Republicans counting on Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., to save them? The GOP defeated Hillary Care in the 1990s far more decisively … then it came roaring back a few years later as Obamacare.

Currently, Manchin opposes the For the People bill, but supports the even more execrable John Lewis bill. Both will completely rewrite state election laws to favor Democrats, but at least For the People will be done by Congress. The John Lewis bill will give unelected bureaucrats at the Justice Department vast power to impose voting rules on the states. Based on previous such exercises of unaccountable power, 10-year-olds will soon have the right to vote. (See Title IX.)

Unless Republicans agree to ludicrous voting rules that give Democrats a partisan advantage, they’re racist. That’s the full argument. Republicans are trying to “suppress the vote” of black and brown people! John Lewis risked his life for the right to vote!

If that’s why Republicans don’t want to talk about these bills, they better get used to it. They’re going to be called “racist” a lot more if that’s all it takes to stifle the opposition.

Of course, Democrats’ own voters respond to John Lewis’ touching story by saying, Good for him, but — when is the election again? Tuesday? Yeah, that’s not going to be convenient for me.

And that’s the nub of the problem. The Democrats have a lot of what we call “unmotivated voters.” Risk their lives to vote? They won’t risk missing a couple hours of TV.

These are people who don’t pay attention to the news (that’s why they’re Democrats); don’t speak English (that’s why they’re Democrats); or don’t have a fully developed pre-frontal cortex because they’re under the age of 26 (that’s why they’re Democrats). And so on.

Consequently, Democrats have to mobilize armies of volunteers to carry their voters on gurneys to the polls on Election Day.

Wouldn’t it be easier if they had a few months to get their voters to the polls? What if their voters didn’t have to show up at all?

Why, yes! That would be much easier.

This is why the For the People bill mandates universal mail-in voting. Asking people to show up to vote is a dirty trick to “rig our democracy,” according to the left-wing group Indivisible. Litter the countryside with mail-in ballots months before an election — or you’re a Nazi.

In fact, apart from a worldwide pandemic, there’s no reason for mail-in voting. Studies show it increases voter turnout only modestly. But mail-in voting sure presents a lot of opportunities for fraud! It’s almost like Democrats consider that a feature, not a bug.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Election Data and Science Lab cited two main avenues for mail-in ballot fraud:

— “First, the ballot is cast outside the public eye, and thus the opportunities for coercion and voter impersonation are greater.”

In other words, instead of filling out a secret ballot in the presence of election officials, you will be out and about, at home, at the office, at the ballpark with your ballot, able to prove to others how you voted — to impress them, or perhaps because you’re being paid or threatened. And that’s assuming it’s you holding the ballot.

— “Second, the transmission path for [mail-in] ballots is not as secure as traditional in-person ballots. These concerns relate both to ballots being intercepted and ballots being requested without the voter’s permission.”

Not to worry! The Democrats deal with the possibility of imposters requesting mail-in ballots by … prohibiting the states from requesting voter I.D.

Huh, that’s odd. If you wanted to ensure that only eligible voters are voting, wouldn’t you want to — oh wait, I see.

Liberals will not rest until convicted felons — a key Democratic constituency — are fully participating members of our democracy. Or at least have ballots that can be filled out for them.

Unfortunately, some of our more unenlightened states believe that a person who has been convicted of violating society’s laws should be denied the right to choose who writes them. The For the People bill fixes that by forcing states to give felons the right to vote.

Speaking of felons, the For the People Act requires states to automatically register people to vote whenever they provide information to state agencies, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, public universities, and, off the top of my head, state welfare bureaucracies, unemployment offices and prison facilities.

That’s a lot of ballots for Democratic volunteers to mine!

In 1994, in response to the stalking and murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer by a crazed fan who got her address through the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Congress passed the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, prohibiting state DMVs from releasing personal information to the public. One of the main sponsors was Sen. Barbara Boxer, who recited case after case of women stalked, harassed, raped and killed by men who had tracked their victims with information provided by the DMV.

With the automatic voter registration in the For the People bill, federal law would require states to release that information. Simply by getting a driver’s license or unemployment benefits, your name, address and phone number would be available to your stalker through the voting rolls. (Also to bill collectors, parole officers, process servers, etc.) Voter registration lists are publicly available for electioneering purposes.

The Democrats’ “voting rights” bill is a stalkers’ delight. But at least no one will have his vote “suppressed” by having to engage in the monstrously difficult task of registering to vote or showing up on Election Day. Your choice, America: A few pesky stalkers kill their victims, or Democrats call you “racist.”

AnnCoulter Op-ed” Why Is Ancestry.com Protecting White Serial Killers?


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jun 02, 2021

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/06/02/why-is-ancestrycom-protecting-white-serial-killers—p–n2590390

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org.

Why Is Ancestry.com Protecting White Serial Killers?

Source: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File

This week, The New York Times reported on new laws in Maryland and Montana that restrict law enforcement’s use of genealogy databases to catch serial killers. (Maryland I can understand, but Montana? Has someone kidnapped Gov. Greg Gianforte?)

Some of the largest DNA databases — Ancestry, 23andMe and Helix — already refuse to share their databases with the police without a court order.

I’m sorry, but why? What is their argument? Ancestry doesn’t want to lose the business of skittish serial killers?

Everyone agrees that these pro-criminal rules were a direct response to the “controversy” of law enforcement catching the Golden State Killer in 2018.

Yes, it’s apparently controversial that the monster who terrorized California for decades, killing at least 13 people and raping dozens of women, was finally captured — with 100% accuracy — thanks to brilliant detective work and the miracle of DNA.

Sheriff’s investigator Paul Holes and FBI lawyer Steve Kramer created a fake profile on GEDmatch using DNA from a rape kit of one of the Golden State Killer’s victims. This produced distant relatives of the rapist, allowing them to build a family tree, leading to Joseph James DeAngelo, then living in a Sacramento suburb. Officers began surveilling DeAngelo, collected his DNA from a car door and discarded tissue and — bingo! — it matched the Golden State Killer’s semen sample.

My entire life I’ve had to listen to liberals wail about all the “innocent” people on death row. (There is no credible evidence that any innocent person has been executed in this country since at least 1945.) They pretended to be against murder, just deeply horrified by the idea that we might execute “the wrong man.”

Now we have the technology to make identifications that are infallible — and liberals say we can’t use it because of their concern about maintaining the serial killer’s privacy.

As put by The Hill — since you won’t believe me otherwise:

“Questions intensified after law enforcement officials in California used an ancestry database to help identify the Golden State Killer, a serial killer and rapist who eluded authorities for decades.”

Yeah, that sucks. The white ex-cop — catch that, #BLM? — who tortured and raped women while their partners were forced to listen in the next room, then made obscene phone calls to his victims, was finally captured after a 40-year search, whereupon: “Questions intensified.”

WHAT “QUESTIONS”? My only questions are:

1) When are the triumphant awards dinners?; and

2) Will #BLM be taking the side of a white cop in this one case?

The Hill continued:

“Following the controversy [of catching a serial killer — for liberals, that’s controversial], the largest ancestry companies said they wouldn’t allow police to access their databases without a warrant.”

What on earth, Ancestry? It’s more important that the ACLU likes you than that a majority of Americans do?

How about taking a poll of your members? Should we allow law enforcement to submit DNA into our database to solve rapes and murders without the necessity of obtaining a court order first?

“Yes” would be a 90% winner, and the other 10% would be ACLU types suddenly signing up just to vote. Even criminals would say, Yeah, for a killer, sure, that’s fine. Only a few law professors and, of course, the Times’ Charles Blow, would be against it, which is formidable competition, but I still think we can win this baby!

The objections to allowing police access to genealogical websites consist of vague invocations of “privacy.” University of Maryland law professor Natalie Ram [Email her] for example, told the Times that law enforcement’s use of genealogical databases was “chilling, concerning and privacy-invasive.”

Many people find serial killers breaking into their homes, tying them up and raping them to be “chilling, concerning and privacy-invasive,” so we seem to be at an impasse.

As with the Golden State Killer, the majority of criminals captured through these databases are going to be white. (Good news for “Forensic Files”!) Don’t be fooled by Ancestry’s woke television ads: The vast majority of their members are white. Israeli researchers estimate that public genealogy databases can now identify 60% of all people of European descent.

Is Ancestry trying to protect white killers? They’re OK with innocent black men being arrested, while the actual white murderers remain hidden in their database? Have we finally found the beating heart of white supremacy in America?

Or are they just sniveling cowards? Let me guess: Some small group of fanatics wrote a bunch of letters to Ancestry and law enforcement didn’t.

OK, let’s add up the letters … 28 from law professors who oppose allowing law enforcement to use our databases, and no letters in support.

[Ancestry wets pants.]

Law enforcement officers wouldn’t be scrolling through personal genetic information. Indeed, they can’t view information about specific individuals at all. They submit a DNA profile and, if there’s a match to a criminal, an alarm goes off. Nothing comes back unless there’s a hit.

There’s an easy solution to any privacy concerns. If you don’t want the police finding you through a genealogical database, don’t leave your DNA at a crime scene.

But some jackass Democratic lobbyist formed the Coalition for Genetic Data Protection and bullied Ancestry, 23andMe and Helix into withholding their databases from law enforcement without a warrant, adding a pointless obstacle to bringing killers to justice.

Steve Haro [Email him], executive director of the coalition: Hey, congratulate me! I just hamstrung the police in their ability to catch the provably guilty!

If Democrats really gave a crap about privacy, how about a “coalition” to prevent businesses from selling our names and addresses to third parties? How about prohibiting Google, Facebook and Apple from spying on us? Can we start there, rather than blocking law enforcement from using genealogical websites to catch criminals with 100%, absolute, dead-on accuracy?

Ann Coulter Op-ed: ‘Florida Woman’ Saner Than Media


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: May 26, 2021 4:15 PM

Read more at https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2021/05/26/florida-woman-saner-than-media—p–n2590056

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com, and WhatDidYouSay.org

l'Florida Woman' Saner Than Media

Source: AP Photo/Gerald HerbertTrending

Last week, we discussed Rebekah Jones, the crazy lady who wrote a 342-page telenovela about her ex-lover, Garrett Sweeterman, then went on to fame and fortune by claiming Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was faking his state’s spectacularly low COVID numbers.

Before the media turned Jones into their next Erin Brockovich, they might have done 10 seconds of Googling to find out that Jones’ past includes stalkingbattery on a police officer, repeated incarcerations, an institutionalization, an ankle monitor, a restraining order and court-ordered medication. And that’s long before the DeSantis administration hired her as a web designer.

These infractions are contained not only in police reports and court filings, but in her prolix manifesto about her ex-lover that she herself posted all over the internet. Jones seems to think it’s a point in her favor that during Florida State University’s investigation of her obsessive behavior toward her former student, “Garrett didn’t even bother bringing any evidence — no copies of texts or calls … I brought more than 200 pages worth.”

That sounds normal.

Even after multiple demands that she stay away from Sweeterman, the still-married Jones writes:

Did you know that I would have given anything, truly anything to make things right between us?

Did it matter to you at all that I loved you?

Did it, Garrett?

If the genders were reversed, Jones’ obsession with a former student would be a movie on “Lifetime: TV for Women.”

Instead, she attacked DeSantis and became Forbes magazine’s “Technology Person of the Year,” Fortune magazine’s “40-Under-40” in health care, and cable news’s go-to source for dirt on the DeSantis administration.

No TV personality lavished more attention on Jones than MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, featuring her on his show on Dec. 8, Dec. 9, Dec. 16 and Dec. 22, 2020. As is common at MSNBC, O’Donnell jumped on the horse and rode off into the sunset without a map, directions or a compass.

In the first of his blockbuster reports, O’Donnell used a law enforcement raid on Jones’ home for one of his anti-police screeds, informing viewers that they were about to see a video of “outrageous conduct by American police officers” — and I have this hot MILF on my show to talk about it. If she wants, I’ll take her on my sailboat.

The MSNBC host scoffed at the basis for the raid, saying: “They were going after the person who sent what they considered, I suppose, some criminally dangerous text.” Ho ho ho. Jones — or at least her lawyer — knows damn well that the charge is serious, which is why, to this day, she stoutly denies sending the text.

According to the search warrant affidavit, six months after Jones was fired by the Florida Department of Health, she hacked into the state’s medical emergency notification system from her home computer, obtained the private information of thousands of people, and sent out a mass text, pleading: “it’s time to speak up before another 17,000 people are dead. You know this is wrong,” and so on. She signed the deranged missive as if it were an official communique from Florida Department of Health.

Comcast determined that the text came from Jones’ Tallahassee home. Perhaps in addition to cuckolding him, she plans to pin the hacking felony on her husband. (Then she could run off with Garrett!)

On the day of the raid, as infinitely patient law enforcement officers banged on Jones’ front door for 22 minutes, she was inside, setting up a video camera. Donations to her GoFundMe page must have been flagging.

O’Donnell introduced her video, saying: “What you’re about to see is almost as bad as American policing gets.”

What we see is Jones (finally) opening the door and exiting the house. An officer enters, unholsters his gun, and calls out for anyone else in the house to come downstairs. In other words, standard operating procedure for executing a search warrant.

Although no one is pointing a gun at anyone, Jones can be heard in the background screaming, “He just pointed a gun at my children!”

This is classic hysterical woman behavior.

YOU’RE HURTING ME! STOP HITTING ME!

I’m not touching you. I’m 7 feet away.

But O’Donnell and the rest of the media repeatedly played Jones’ video while informing viewers that it showed something it plainly did not: officers “pointing” guns at Jones and her children.

“The only thing that could have made this worse,” O’Donnell said, “is if one of those recklessly aimed guns killed someone in that house. If one of those guns aimed at Rebekah Jones’ children fired.”

O’Donnell on the Zapruder film: As you can see in frame 187, President Kennedy is firing at Lee Harvey Oswald from the convertible.

Jones is like the white woman captured on video in Central Park, calling 911 on a black male birdwatcher. As he calmly speaks to her from 20 yards away, she shrieks to the dispatcher, “An African American man… [is] threatening myself and my dog.”

O’Donnell voiceover: The only thing that could have made this worse is if the birdwatcher had killed the woman.

My voiceover for the entire American media: As you can see, they are liars.

Richard D. Land Op-ed: The First Amendment religion clauses: ‘Full-throated’ freedom or ‘mere’ toleration?


Commentary By Richard D. Land, Christian Post Executive Editor| Friday, May 21, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/first-amendment-on-religion-full-throated-or-mere-toleration.html/

Richard Land
(Photo: The Christian Post/Katherine T. Phan)

Last week I wrote my column on “The First Amendment: Alive and well?” in which I noted the revolutionary impact of the Amendment on religious freedom in particular and on human rights in general. 

The First Amendment has indeed proven itself to be a magnificent legal and political engine driving the cause of soul freedom and freedom of conscience in America first, and subsequently as a shining beacon of light and hope to a suppression-weary world.

This week I want to address the current tension that has arisen among various groups of Americans over what was the Founding Father’s ‘original intent,’ and how should the First Amendment be applied to today’s ever-more ethically and religiously diverse populace.  Columnist Judd Birdsall has conveniently and helpfully divided and labeled the two camps as “First Freedom” and “Article 18,” personified by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (2018-2021) and current Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Pompeo was the most openly evangelical Secretary of State since William Jennings Bryan (1913-1915) in the Woodrow Wilson Administration. Pompeo, as Secretary of State, took virtually unprecedented actions and initiatives to promote religious freedom worldwide. His unprecedented efforts yielded encouraging results with two very well attended ministerial events at the State Department, including one that was hailed as the largest meeting promoting religious freedom ever held at the State Department.

Pompeo and then-President Trump were leading exponents, along with the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, of the First Freedom view that argues that religious freedom is not just first sequentially because it touches on questions of “ultimate significance and the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly are there to aid and buttress the ‘first freedom’.”

Proponents of the Article 18 view, vocalized by current Secretary of State Blinken, argue that religious freedom, while crucially important, is “co-equal” with the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and peaceful redress of grievance.

I believe, however, based on my observation and experience, that there is disagreement on an issue of fundamental importance at stake in this debate.

I had the privilege of serving as a Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom from 2001-2012. This Commission, set up by the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act, is an independent, federal government commission, not under the State Department or Congress, charged with monitoring the state of religious freedom in every country in the world. They are required to write an annual report about the state of religious freedom in each country, followed by recommendations to both the President and the Congress on ways in which American foreign aid can, and should be, used to promote religious freedom.

The Commission is structured to be extremely bi-partisan. When you have a Democrat president, for example, he appoints three commissioners and the Democratic leader in the House and in the Senate nominate one commissioner each and the Republican leaders in the House and Senate nominate two each. So, the President’s party has a one-vote majority (5-4) and it takes six votes for the Commission to act.

During my years there, we would periodically undertake fact-finding trips to various countries around the world to measure for ourselves how much religious freedom was actually afforded to citizens in those countries. Undoubtedly the most memorable fact-finding trip we undertook during my tenure on the Commission was an almost two weeks visit to Communist China and Tibet in 2005.

This visit took place during what turned out to be a temporary “spring of hope” when the Chinese Communist government appeared to be relaxing many of its very oppressive policies against Christians in that country. Alas, the promised reforms were still-born and the situation has degenerated drastically for all religious faiths in China, with the Uyghur Muslims suffering what can only be called a genocidal policy.

Invariably, on these site visits, we Commissioners went to great lengths to make it crystal clear to the host country that the USCIRF standard was not America’s First Amendment standard that guaranteed complete religious liberty and freedom from government interference with people’s religious free expression rights. We often said that we would recommend it, but we could not demand it because that would interfere with the host nation’s sovereignty.

The USCIRF standard was the international one – the one codified in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18, which reads:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion, this right includes freedom to change his religious belief, and
freedom, either alone or in community with others, and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance.

So, what is the difference between the First Amendment and the Universal Declaration’s Article 18? The First Freedom position legally restricts the government from interjecting itself into the religious experience and practice of its people.

Quite simply, the First Amendment guarantees people from government interference with their religion. The Article 18 position merely guarantees some level of toleration for dissenting faiths in a society where Islam or Communist oppression may take over and rescind government support or toleration. 

For example, when we were in China it became apparent that the Chinese officials were increasingly irritated that we were not more impressed with the comparatively greater toleration they had been granting people of faith.

In our final exit dinner with the Chinese officials, I was designated to explain the Commission’s position. I did so in the following way: “It has become apparent to us that you are frustrated that our team has not been more impressed with the greater degree of toleration you have been affording many religious groups in your country. We have noticed.  However, while it is a bigger cage, and it is a gilded cage, it is still a cage. And that is toleration, not freedom.”

Sadly, history has proven our position correct since the Chinese have cracked down drastically and have made the cage very small.  

Under Article 18, each country could make Islam or some other religion, the official state religion supported by the people’s taxes. Under the First Freedom system that would not or could not happen.

In other words, under the First Freedom position, the people are sovereign and no religion can discriminate against them or hamper their mission. 

As Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote over a half-century ago in the famous Supreme Court prayer decision (School District of Abington, Pennsylvania et.al V. Schemp et.al):

“The fullest realization of true religious liberty requires that government neither engage in, nor compel religious practices, that it effects no favoritism among sects or between religion and nonreligion. . .”  then Justice Goldberg went on to declare that “the attitude of government toward religion must be one of neutrality.” Justice Goldberg then went on to say that even “untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to approval of results which partake not simply of that non-interference and non-involvement with the religious which the constitution demands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive or even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but it seems to me “are prohibited by it.”

Justice Goldberg warns, quite correctly, that even with the government neutrality required by the First Amendment freedom from government interference in religion must be carefully monitored. With mere toleration, you will always have government abuses against religion.

The conflict between First Freedom advocates and Article 18 supporters is clearly a “full-throated” freedom vs. “mere” toleration debate. Those who deny that this is the case either fail to comprehend the problem, or they support mere toleration.

ABOUT THE COMMENTATOR:

Dr. Richard Land, BA (magna cum laude), Princeton; D.Phil. Oxford; and Th.M., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, was president of the Southern Baptists’ Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (1988-2013) and has served since 2013 as president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC. Dr. Land has been teaching, writing, and speaking on moral and ethical issues for the last half century in addition to pastoring several churches. He is the author of The Divided States of AmericaImagine! A God Blessed AmericaReal Homeland SecurityFor Faith & Family and Send a Message to Mickey.

Op-ed: Why racial justice is distinctly different than racial reconciliation. And why it matters


Commentary By Terence Lester, Op-ed Contributor

As racial division widens, the Church must shift from solely talking about racial reconciliation and incorporating racial justice discussions. If COVID-19 has taught us anything; it is that that we have ignored the apparent disparities that persons of color have faced in the U.S. and the Church has been divided on these discussions.

Courtesy Terence Lester

Black history and black struggle have been left out of the White American evangelical story in many ways. Most white churches have little or no understanding of the ways black and brown people have turned to their faith and churches in times of significant racial discrimination and suffering. According to a recent study, the Barna Group revealed “a significant increase in the percentage of practicing Christians who say race is ‘not at all’ a problem in the U.S. (19%, up from 11% in 2019).”[1]

I believe the disconnect and breakdown stems from inappropriately conflating two distinct conversations in a way that prohibits understanding and progress: racial justice and racial reconciliation.

Over the past years, the white evangelical Church has engaged in safe conversations surrounding racial reconciliation, using the gospel as its primary source to carry this conversation forward. Often, these conversations are led by white men, who pastor significantly large churches who invite black and brown people into these spaces to talk about how we all need to come together and forgive another because of the sins of racism that has created division and disunity in the Church and the world.

Many of these conversations are well-meaning and even encourage believers that unity is possible. I have even been a part of many of these conversations. However, most white churches forget there is a long line of systemic, oppressive, and marginalizing structures that have disadvantaged black and brown people disproportionately in economics, employment, healthcare, housing, wage income, and even clean water in cities like Flint, Michigan, and Newark, New Jersey.

Moreover, while forgiveness is what we need, the racial reconciliation conversation leaves out how a White supremacist system created the oppressive structures that disadvantaged people of color, who have had to overcome and are still overcoming to this very day. This is where the racial reconciliation and racial justice conversations differ. Simply because you can’t forgive yourself out of oppression, you must be liberated from it.

Societal issues cannot be solved through peace, unity, and racial reconciliation conversations alone. We must deploy thoughtful racial justice, love, mercy, and solidarity. The Church holds an advantageous position in the conversation about racial justice and racial reconciliation because it can embody both to achieve liberation and a sense of togetherness. The Church universal has every nation, tongue, and tribe in it as John writes about in the book of Revelation.

We need to see the gospel as empowering us to forgive one another and also pushing us show up like Jesus on the frontlines having good news for the poor, weary and oppressed.

Jesus said, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, (Luke 4:18)

What if the Church modeled how to be about both forgiveness and liberation of the oppressed? It was the great Howard Thurman in his book Jesus and The Disinherited that reminded us that Jesus himself identified with those who were minorities and under oppression.[2]

Reconciliation without justice to correct the systems that created the injustices and separation is a form of racial trauma and even abuse. It asks for the person who had been disproportionately affected by racism, white supremacy, and other forms of psychological and emotional trauma to forget what they have experienced and forgive the system that was designed for their failure, without correction.

Our focus for the near future should be on racial justice, rather than skipping steps to rush to racial reconciliation. Many White Christians think that racial reconciliation solves many of the injustices that persons of color face. I think there needs to be a robust education of the differences between the two because they are not the same. Making the distinction between the two is vital because reconciliation and progress cannot organically come without first acknowledging and rectifying the historical systems that have disadvantaged black and brown people. There can be no forgiveness without lament and repentance. When overlooked or hastened as a way to assuage guilt, this can result in more significant harm through putting a superficial Band-Aid on issues that require more extensive surgery to achieve long-term change.

While the racial reconciliation conversation is an important one to have, it cannot happen while ignoring the injustices that affect black and brown people in communities across the country. One conversation cannot happen apart from the other. Both are needed.

It is my hope and desire to see brothers and sisters walk together in the garment of destiny that MLK Jr. spoke about, and it is also my deep desire for the Church to lead this charge.

The responsibility for this lack of awareness sits with the Church. As one holding Good News, the Church must lead the conversation of both faith in a God of forgiveness and justice for God’s children who are oppressed. It was James Cone that eloquently penned in his book, God of the Oppressed, “The scandal is that the gospel means liberation, that this liberation comes to the poor, and that it gives them the strength and the courage to break the conditions of servitude.”

God honors all stories of creation equally, including black and brown stories that systems have oppressed. When Jesus entered the world, he did not do it for a specific group; his purpose and salvation were incorporated into each group of the world.

Jesus himself modeled what it meant to be proximate and engage in stories and conversations untraditional to a Jewish Rabbi. He demonstrated this many times by taking longer routes on his way to Galilee to connect with the Samaritan woman at the well, breaking social norms to bring healing and salvation to a woman who was an outsider. Like Jesus, the Church must listen, stand in solidarity with the oppressed, go out of its way to embrace the marginalized, and take on the responsibility of educating its majority members on how to do this wholly.

The Church must be about reconciling, with justice in mind. What better way to honor God during black history month than to lean in and embrace the full stories of those who have a hue that matches the skin of Jesus.


[1] “White Christians Have Become Even Less Motivated to Address Racial Injustice.” Barna Group. Accessed February 14, 2021. https://www.barna.com/research/american-christians-race-problem/.

[2] Thurman, Howard. Jesus and the Disinherited. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1996.

Terence Lester is the founder of Love Beyond Walls, a nonprofit organization focused on poverty awareness and community mobilization. He is the author of I See You and the forthcoming title When We Stand.

Op-ed” The dangerous cult of neo-segregation The dangerous cult of neo-segregation


Commentary By Ryan Bomberger, Exclusive Columnist 

Ryan Bomberger is the co-founder of The Radiance Foundation.

We see it everywhere. Thanks to Corporate America, mainstream media, so-called civil rights groups, academia and a relevance-worshipping Church, we are a nation increasingly judging one another and separating ourselves by the color of our skin. We’re surrounded by marketing that elevates one group while excoriating another. It’s okay, we’re told. It’s all in a day’s work toward “diversity” and “inclusion.”

Funny thing how so many get excluded in those pursuits. Racism is evil. Exploiting it, marketing it, and expanding it is too.

The racial messaging is loud and clear: if you’re not the right hue, there’s obviously something wrong with you. And those reminders are relentless. From Hollywood babble to pandering politicians to Big Tech Tyrants to Institutions of Higher Mislearning to euphemistic bridges to nowhere in woke churches, we’re barraged by an unending stream of color conscious craziness that demands society sees hue before they see you.

As with all things rooted in human frailty, today’s celebrated form of segregation is immensely profitable, especially for those peddling the victimhood. There’s no scarcity of New York Times bestselling authors reminding us to define ourselves by our “whiteness” or “blackness,” and to assess every situation, every word, every interaction with others through the broken narratives of Critical Race Theory. It’s exhausting. That’s not living.

At every turn we’re being commanded to check our color, check our privilege, check our to-do-lists of guilt-oriented tasks. Corporate America has taken genuflection to a whole new low. Remember when Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy got on his knees and started shining hip-hop artist Lecrae’s shoes in a seriously cringey display of reconciliation-gone-wrong? He told other white people to do the same. If you ever try to shine my shoes, I will kick you. I repeat. I. Will. Kick. You. This doesn’t erase racism. This doesn’t change the past. This just makes someone feel really uncomfortable.

Guilt is a powerful thing. And when it’s coupled with racism, it’s a cash cow, especially for the groups that rely on victim evangelism. The Black Lives Matter movement raked in millions while cities and businesses burned last summer. The NAACP, in full denial of the massive violence and destruction wrought by many #BLM “peaceful protests,” was the recipient of millions more in pledges from Corporate America.

Apple has turned up the volume on its social justice rhetoric with its Racial Equity and Justice Initiative and its “Black Unity” branded watch. Why not a “Unity” collection that celebrates us all? Never mind these same corporations closed and boarded up their businesses to protect their assets during BLM protests. They sent out press releases that sounded like an abused spouse making excuses for the abuser.

Taxpayers get to be force-fed the Cult of Neo-Segregation even in our museums. Remember when the Smithsonian posted an infographic about “whiteness” and “white culture” claiming that having a “protestant work ethic” was a “white thing.” So, as someone with brown skin, I don’t believe in working hard? The Smithsonian got fierce pushback and removed the infographic, but (of course) kept the racist “whiteness” section on their website.

We’re siloing, and it’s toxic. I’m all about expressions of diversity and learning others’ cultures. We are a beautifully diverse nation, and that diversity exists even within the same shades of pigmentation. But we don’t make up for the suppression of some cultures by demonizing everyone else. We don’t bring people together by constantly obsessing over our hues, our past, and our assumed “privileges.”

I’m all about addressing inequality…real inequality. I’m all about taking steps to dismantle systemic racism where and when it actually occurs (let’s start with Planned Parenthood  —the leading killer of black lives). I’m all about criminal justice reform and law enforcement accountability, but I won’t embrace a lie (BLM, CRT, DNC) to achieve it. I’m all about more healthy dialogue, more relationships and more unity around the fact that we’re one human race.

Church, can you help me out on this? Acts 17:26 if you’ve forgotten.

I’m not about living in the past. I’m not about mainstream media’s and academia’s revisions of the past. And I’m not about a mindset that certain people can never escape the past. Thank goodness this doesn’t apply to us in the spiritual sense. We’re forgiven by a God who loves us and redeems our past. But a broken worldview wants us to hold someone responsible for something they may or may not have done. Some want perpetual penance for wrongs someone’s ancestors have committed.

Are we responsible for the crimes of even our parents? Am I responsible for the crime of my biological father because I was conceived in rape? Too many times the past is weaponized and used to justify present behavior. If African-Americans, who lived in the horrific oppression of slavery, could forgive and move forward, what’s holding our modern society back?

The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (aka the Ku Klux Klan Act) was a piece of legislation that addressed the horrific KKK violence that terrorized black Americans and their white allies. No surprise, but zero Democrats in the House and Senate voted for the bill. A group of African-American Congressman (they were all Republicans) had a profound take on the legislation which alarmingly allowed pardons for former Confederates. The trailblazer legislators were Senator Hiram Revels and Representatives Robert Elliott, Robert De Large, Benjamin Turner and Joseph Rainey — all born into slavery. They proclaimed: “We have open and frank hearts toward those who were our oppressors and taskmasters. We foster no enmity now, and we desire to foster none for their act in the past to us, nor to the Government we love so well.”

We have a lot to learn from our past. But the most powerful lesson that benefits all of us, regardless of our beautiful hues, is how (especially as Christians) we can choose to have a more loving, more forgiving and more unified future.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Ryan Bomberger is the Chief Creative Officer and co-founder of The Radiance Foundation. He is happily married to his best friend, Bethany, who is the Executive Director of Radiance. They are adoptive parents with four awesome kiddos. Ryan is an Emmy Award-winning creative professional, factivist, international public speaker and author of NOT EQUAL: CIVIL RIGHTS GONE WRONG. He loves illuminating that every human life has purpose.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: NYT: Was He Innocent? ANSWER: No.


Commentary by Ann Coulter  Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 17, 2021

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

NYT: Was He Innocent? ANSWER: No.

Source: AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews

Trending

Here is this week’s installment of “The New York Times is ALWAYS lying about criminals (and probably everything else).”

The Times desperately wants you to believe that there are actual cases of innocent people being put to death in America. Their current poster boy for the cause is Sedley Alley, executed in 2006. But the Criminal Lobby is hoping a post-mortem DNA test — on evidence that has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence — will allow them to howl that an INNOCENT man was executed!

I knew nothing about this case, but I knew the Times’ description of the facts was a lie. How did I know?

1) No jury would have convicted a man, much less sentenced him to death, much less had that sentence repeatedly upheld, on such a flimsy record; and

2) There is no credible evidence that a single innocent person has been put to death in this country for at least 75 years.

Here are the facts the about the Criminal Lobby’s latest baby seal.

On the night of July 11, 1985, two Marines from a naval base in Millington, Tennessee, reported a possible kidnapping after they heard a female jogger screaming, “Don’t touch me!” “Leave me alone!” They ran in her direction, but just as they got close, a station wagon peeled off the side of the road. A gate guard also reported seeing a station wagon, which he said was being driven by a man constraining a woman.

All three witnesses described the car as a late-model green or brown Ford or Mercury station wagon with wood paneling, Kentucky tags and a loud muffler.

Alley, who owned a dark green 1972 Mercury station wagon with wood paneling and a Kentucky license plate, was brought in for questioning at 1 a.m. that night. The Marines who’d reported the kidnapping identified Alley’s vehicle as the one they’d seen, both by sight and by the roar of the muffler.

But Alley and his wife gave a satisfactory explanation for their whereabouts and were released.

At 6 a.m. on July 12, the body of 19-year-old Marine Lance Cpl. Suzanne Collins was found in a nearby park. Alley was arrested and promptly confessed to murdering her — claiming it was an “accident.”

He told his wife, “Yes, I killed the gal at … Orgill Park.”

In his lengthy, tape-recorded confession, Alley tried to soft-pedal his barbaric crime, claiming he’d hit Collins with his car by accident, and only decided to savagely beat her to death because, as he was driving her to the hospital, she threatened to turn him into the police.

Alley then took investigators to the precise spot where he’d murdered Collins and even showed them the tree where he’d broken off the branch that he’d jammed inside of her.

At trial, Alley admitted he did it, but pleaded insanity. The jury didn’t buy it, convicted him and sentenced him to death.

Here is what the Times’ Emily Bazelon tells that paper’s clueless readers about Alley’s case:

     “[T]wo Marines … reported crossing paths with Lance Corporal Collins while she was running. They said that moments after they saw her, they dodged a brown station wagon with a blue license plate … [L]aw enforcement officers stopped Sedley Alley, then 29. He was driving a dark green station wagon with a blue plate.”

Times readers are led to believe that although witnesses said it was a BROWN station wagon, Tennessee yokels picked up a guy in a GREEN station wagon!

Except that’s not true. The BOLO alert (“be on the lookout”) put out by the Naval Investigation Service identified a “a brown or green Ford or Mercury station wagon with woodgrain on the sides.”

Bazelon:

     “When the investigators began interrogating him, Mr. Alley, who had been drinking, denied knowing anything about Lance Corporal Collins and asked for a lawyer. But 12 hours later, he signed a statement confessing to the murder.”

Times’ readers are supposed to think these backwoods Nazis interrogated Alley without a lawyer for 12 hours until he confessed!

In fact, the only reason he signed a statement “12 hours later” was that, after being questioned the night of the crime, he was sent home. Alley wasn’t arrested until after Collins’ body was discovered the next day, whereupon he quickly confessed.

Bazelon:

     “Mr. Alley’s admission, which he later said was false and coerced …”

Yes, “later” in the sense of “20 years later.” For two decades, Alley never denied he’d murdered Collins. He only recalled that his confession was “coerced” in 2004, when he was trying to delay the hangman’s noose.

Bazelon:

“But the location he gave for the collision didn’t line up with the witness accounts.”

There were no “witness accounts” for “the collision” for the simple reason that there was no collision. “My car hit her by accident” was Alley’s attempt to mitigate his barbarous crime.

You know what else, Emily? His car wasn’t seen driving in the direction of the hospital, either!

Somehow, his lies not matching the facts is supposed to be a point in Alley’s favor.

Bazelon:

     “[Alley’s confession] did not match the physical evidence. … He said he … stabbed her with a screwdriver and killed her with a tree branch. … And the autopsy report showed that Lance Corporal Collins was not hit by a car nor stabbed with a screwdriver.”

Again: There was no collision.

I’m not sure what Bazelon’s point is about the screwdriver and the tree branch, but here’s the evidence presented at trial:

“The pathologist, Dr. James Bell, testified that the cause of death was multiple injuries, [many] of which could have been fatal. … He testified that the injuries to the skull could have been inflicted by the rounded end of defendant’s screwdriver that was found near the scene … He identified the tree branch that was inserted into the victim’s body. It measured 31 inches in length and had been inserted into the body more than once, to a depth of twenty inches …”

Bazelon:

     “Tire tracks found at the crime scene didn’t match Mr. Alley’s car, shoe prints didn’t match his shoes, and a third witness who saw a man with a station wagon, close to where Lance Corporal Collins was killed, described someone who was several inches shorter than Mr. Alley, with a different hair color.”

Times readers are perfectly prepared to believe that a jury of toothless hicks looked at evidence overwhelmingly clearing Alley and convicted him anyway.

But that didn’t happen, because having seen the evidence for themselves, Alley and his lawyer decided his best course was to admit he did it and plead insanity. All this alleged evidence is post-hoc nonsense invented by defense lawyers that has not been admitted under the rules of evidence, has not been subjected to cross-examination, and would not prove his innocence.

Seventy-five years and counting with no credible evidence that a single innocent person has been put to death in America.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: My Nation-Unifying Impeachment Solution


Commentary by Ann Coulter  Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 10, 2021

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

My Nation-Unifying Impeachment Solution

Source: AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Senate Republicans should offer to convict Donald Trump in return for Democrats agreeing to fund the wall. Trump is not going to run again anyway. In four years, he will be as viable a presidential candidate as Hillary was in 2020. You wouldn’t have guessed that, either, from all the gnashing of teeth about the MOST QUALIFIED WOMAN EVER TO SEEK THE PRESIDENCY immediately after she lost. 

The reason elected Republicans, Fox News, OAN, Newsmax and a hundred talk radio hosts are terrified of supporting conviction is that they don’t want to look like Mitt Romney and incur the wrath of the Trump base (whatever remains of it).

Trading conviction for a wall solves that. It will remind Trump loyalists that he betrayed them on his central campaign promise, and also will actually fulfill that promise.

Democrats, if they have half a brain, will leap at the offer. They are about to destroy Biden’s presidency by defining themselves — as The New York Times’ Frank Bruni put it — as “antonyms to Trump.” Trump was for a wall. Ipso facto, Democrats are for open borders.

Trump was lying, liberals! Even President Obama was for border security. Great socialist hope Bernie Sanders has denounced open borders as a gift to the Koch brothers.

They don’t care. Trump supporters wanted a wall, so we’re going to punish them by throwing open the border!

If Biden continues with his tsunami of open border executive orders: 1) COVID-19 cases will multiply, as untested, unvaccinated third-worlders pour in at breakneck speed; 2) Black and Hispanic unemployment will go through the roof; and 3) crime — already reaching mind-blowing proportions — will become as potent a political issue as it has ever been.

Good luck in 2022, Democrats!

But if Democrats were to trade wall funding for the holy grail of a Trump conviction, they could save Biden’s presidency, humiliate Trump, and explain to their nut base, We know, we know — walls don’t work — but we had to trade it to convict Trump! Aren’t you happy?

It’s win-win-win all around.

Sitting on a nation-unifying idea like that, I never should have tuned into the impeachment trial. I knew the Democrats would somehow manage to turn me against conviction. I’m still not pro-Trump — that’s a tall order. But could Democrats please ease up on the hysterical weeping?

The president is not supposed to be organizing protests at all, much less against his own vice president. Isn’t that enough? You don’t need to juice up the story, Democrats.

Impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin:

“All around me, people were calling their wives and their husbands, their loved ones to say goodbye ….

“[My] kids, hiding under the desk, placing what they thought were their final texts and whispered phone calls to say their goodbyes. They thought they were going to die.”

Yes, being forced to listen to the Trump “shaman” gas on about organic food could have annihilated legions!

Trump is a selfish, ignorant child. But he is not responsible for the reactions of neurotic liberals.

It would be as if Raskin’s neighbor smashed into his parked car, then drove off. Raskin has a perfectly good case without having to wail, I WAS AFRAID HE WOULD COME TO MY HOUSE AND MURDER MY ENTIRE FAMILY!

Raskin’s most precious argument was this:

“Of all the terrible, brutal things I saw … watching someone use an American flagpole, the flag still on it, to spear and pummel one of our police officers ruthlessly, mercilessly, tortured by a pole with a flag on it that he was defending with his very life.”

First, give me a break, Democrats, pretending to give a crap about the American flag.

Second: “Tortured”?

Impeachment managers apparently used a thesaurus to write their speeches:

Siri, give me a synonym for “poke” or “strike.”

Siri: jab, punch, prod, thrust, wallop … TORTURE.

Really?

Yup, it’s right there in Roget’s!

Curiously, even the teary-eyed Raskin didn’t allege that Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by the protesters, a claim being made hourly on MSNBC.

Raskin: “People died that day. Officers ended up with head damage and brain damage. People’s eyes were gouged. One officer had a heart attack. One officer lost three fingers that day. Two officers have taken their own lives.”

Jeremy Bash, later that day on MSNBC: “They killed a cop, Nicole!”

If Officer Sicknick’s death truly resulted from injuries sustained at the hands of the mob, it would be the case in chief against the protesters. (We’re not counting heart attacks, much less suicides that occurred days, or weeks, later.) But no one in the media has been able to scare up a single eyewitness to the attack on Brian Sicknick?

Unlike defund-the-police liberals, I actually am heartbroken about the death of a Trump-supporting law enforcement officer.

But the media are lying about his death. First, they claimed he was hit on the head with a fire extinguisher. Then they said he was dragged into the crowd and beaten. All that is known for sure is that after Sicknick returned to headquarters, he collapsed and later died.

Last week, CNN nonchalantly inserted this into a story on Officer Sicknick: “Medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true.”

There’s no hope for our media, who are irredeemable liars. But there’s still a chance for everyone else to come out a winner here! Trade conviction for a wall, Republicans.

Op-ed: Why does the media give a pass to Biden’s faith?


Commentary By Jason Jimenez, Op-Ed Contributor

Biden, the 46th president, is America’s second Catholic President. The first was John F. Kennedy — when he became President in 1961.  From the start of his campaign, Biden wanted everything to be about his faith. A favored campaign slogan for the Biden camp was the “battle for the soul of the nation.”

(Courtesy of Jason Jimenez)

It didn’t matter the media outlet. They all loved reporting on how Biden was a “deeply devout Catholic” and that his faith is a huge factor in “shaping his politics.” Even Speaker Pelosi publicly praises Biden’s faith and willingly admits that his Catholic faith has shaped his career and public policies. An article in The New York Times stated, “President Biden, perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in half a century, speaks of how his Catholic faith grounds his life and his policies.”

Interesting, isn’t it? How the media and every single big-time progressive politician have no problem mixing Biden’s faith with politics. But suppose you are a Christian who is pro-life and not in favor of the Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. In that case, the response you get from the Left is the complete opposite. How was Judge Amy Coney Barrett (also a deeply devout Catholic) treated during the Senate confirmation hearings? Senator Dianne Feinstein and her colleagues didn’t praise Judge Barrett for her faith. Instead, Senator Feinstein expressed her concern about how Judge Barrett’s faith might influence her decisions by stating, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.” But if the Left is so concerned about a person’s faith interfering with their public service, why isn’t the Left disparaging Biden from talking about how his faith shapes his public policies?

The main reason? Because President Biden is as much of a progressive as he is a Catholic. He is what I refer to as a “Progressive Catholic.” Don’t believe me? Listen to what he said in his book, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics, “I’m as much a cultural Catholic as I am a theological Catholic.” Biden continues, “My idea of self, of family, of community, of the wider world, comes straight from my religion. It’s not so much the Bible, the beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, the sacraments, or the prayers I learned. It’s the culture.”

Because Judge Barrett is a conservative Catholic and not a progressive, liberal Democrats are concerned about her “dogmatic” positions embedding on her judgment. Therefore, she must be censored at all costs. However, in President Biden’s case, he gets a pass because he’ll keep on advancing progressive policies like the Equality Act (which will eviscerate religious freedoms in America), government funding of abortion, and the Green New Deal.

It’s not a question of whether President Biden has a right to express his religious beliefs. He has that right under the Constitution. It’s really about charging the media for being inconsistent by not allowing conservatives to do the same.

Let’s hope the media will admit to their intolerance and learn to be more receptive to Americans who hold conservative viewpoints.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Jason Jimenez is president of Stand Strong Ministries, a faculty member at Summit Ministries, and a best-selling author who specializes in apologetics and biblical worldview training. Check out www.standstrongministries.org.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Liberals ‘Heart’ Murderers


Commentary by Ann Coulter  Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 03, 2021

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Liberals 'Heart' Murderers

Source: LightFieldStudios/iStock/Getty Images Plus

I assume it’s overkill to continue listing the evidence against death row inmate Kevin Cooper, duly convicted of committing a quadruple murder back in 1983. The blinding proof of his guilt was covered in last week’s column. To review, this included shoeprint evidence, footprint evidence, cigarette and tobacco evidence, blood evidence and DNA evidence, proving that this violent rapist and mental hospital escapee:

— hid out in a house next to Doug and Peggy Ryen’s Chino Hills, California, home for two days after escaping from prison;

— used a hatchet and hunting knife taken from his hideout to hack to death two adults and two children at the Ryen home and critically wound a third child;

— stole the family’s station wagon and later abandoned it in Long Beach, along with his DNA on prison-issued cigarettes, before escaping to Mexico;

— returned to California, where he raped a woman at knifepoint, leading to his capture.

This week, we’ll consider the specific claims made by The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof purporting to raise doubts about Cooper’s guilt.

Kristof’s special pleading proves that no one on death row is innocent. I didn’t pick this case. The anti-death penalty zealots picked it, splashing it across the “Newspaper of Record.” I have to believe they didn’t choose their worst example to showcase, so let’s look at the honesty of their arguments about Kevin Cooper.

KRISTOF:

“Although Josh [the 8-year-old who miraculously survived the hatchet attack] had indicated that the attack was committed by several white men, the sheriff announced just four days after the bodies were found that the sole suspect was Kevin Cooper …”

First of all, eyewitness testimony is the least credible evidence, particularly in the case of children — as the child molestation hysteria of the 1980s demonstrated — and even more particularly in the case of a child who’s found lying in a bloody mess surrounded by his murdered family members after having his throat slit and being attacked with a hatchet.

In any event, Josh never said he saw three men. He said he initially “thought” it must have been the three “Mexicans” who had stopped by the house looking for work earlier in the evening. But even in his initial interviews from his hospital bed, he said he only saw one assailant in the house: “a man with bushy hair.”

KRISTOF:

“Sadly, a tan T-shirt believed to have been worn by one of the killers didn’t produce enough DNA to provide a profile. …”

That IS sad. Luckily, it’s also not true. The Department of Justice DNA lab at UC Berkeley did find Cooper’s DNA on the tan T-shirt discarded near the murder house, which also contained partial DNA profiles of two of the victims, Doug and Peggy Ryen.

KRISTOF:

“Could the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Office really have planted evidence, including placing Cooper’s blood on the tan T-shirt? We do know that the sheriff’s office had a history of going rogue. Floyd Tidwell, the sheriff, was himself later convicted of four felony counts for stealing 523 guns from the evidence room” … [further denunciations of the sheriff’s department].

The “planted evidence” ruse is a popular one for springing murderers, except — oops! — the T-shirt tested by the Berkeley DNA lab wasn’t in the possession of the sheriff’s office. The tan T-shirt, along with the cigarette butts from the Ryens’ station wagon, had been in the custody of the San Diego Superior Court Evidence Clerk from the end of the trial right up until 2001, when they were shipped directly to the Berkeley DNA Laboratory for testing.

KRISTOF:

“Likewise, hairs found clutched in the victims’ hands weren’t Cooper’s (no hairs from an African-American were found at the crime scene) but didn’t lead to a match with a suspect, either.”

While I love the idea of a 10-year-old girl ripping an African American’s hair out by the root as he came at her with a hatchet, the “clutched hair” nonsense has already been thoroughly investigated and dismissed by the courts.

A team of DNA experts spent weeks testing hairs from Jessica’s hands, as well as two hairs found on Doug Ryen’s right hand and one hair from Christopher Hughes’ arm. Their conclusion? “The testing failed to identify another assailant and confirmed that all tested hairs most likely came from one or more of the victims.”

As U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn L. Huff explained:

“This should not be surprising. The hairs adhered to the victims’ bodies, including their hands, because there was a large amount of blood on the victims and a large amount of hair on the debris-ridden carpet. Also, the victims each sustained hatchet wounds to the head, causing clumps of cut hair to fall to the ground. Both animal and human hair were recovered from the hands of the victims. Just as with the animal hairs, the cut and shed human hairs adhered to the bloodied victims’ hands because the victims came in contact with the carpet when they were dying on the floor.”

Finally, Kristof tries to pin the murder on other “suspects” (whom we know aren’t guilty or he’d be defending them).

KRISTOF:

“A different longtime suspect in the case recounted, not long after the murders, how he had killed the Ryens and Chris Hughes.”

I guess “confessions” are only questionable in the case of the Central Park rapists. Kristof doesn’t say who the confessor is specifically, but it sounds like the one repeatedly put forward by Cooper’s lawyers. Courts have characterized this so-called “confession” as “a mental patient’s secondhand version of a confession.”

KRISTOF:

“This other suspect is a white man whom I’ll identify just by his first name, Lee, for he must be presumed innocent …

“Lee came to the attention of the authorities during the investigation after his girlfriend, Diana Roper, fingered him as the killer: She reported that he had returned home late on the night of the killings wearing bloody coveralls, in a car that resembled the Ryens’ station wagon.

“Roper turned Lee’s bloody coveralls over to the sheriff’s office — which eventually threw them away without testing them. By then, the sheriff’s office had arrested Cooper, and deputies didn’t want a complication.”

Don’t be fooled by Kristof’s fake humility — “he must be presumed innocent” — all that blather about what Roper said was invented by defense attorneys.

Roper was not technically Lee’s “girlfriend”: She was his bitter ex. Far from “bloody,” the few red splotches on the coveralls were most likely paint (along with manure and dirt). Roper told investigators that she didn’t even know if the coveralls belonged to Lee.

But let me quote from the court that reviewed the coveralls evidence: “[I]ssues of guilt, innocence and sentence should never be decided on information obtained from persons who believe they are witches and believe an article of clothing is connected to a crime because of a ‘vision’ they receive during a ‘trance.'” (Emphasis mine.)

Yes, Roper’s evidence was based on a vision she had during a trance because she believed she was a witch. These facts are exhaustively detailed in court orders and opinions — but are entirely absent from the vast news coverage of Cooper’s case. Might distract from the claim that the sheriff’s office tossed the coveralls only to avoid “a complication” in their single-minded pursuit of the wrong man — as Kristof claims.

No one on death row, not one person, is innocent. Believe nothing you read in the media about their putative “innocence.” It’s always lies and nonsense, as with Kristof’s pet murderer, Kevin Cooper.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: