Fun series of Twitter tweets, starting with an arrogant leftist claiming that the Bible instructs everyone to be socialists, and ending with a lesson in the difference between personal charity and coerced government collectivism delivered by Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw.
By the way, nobody mentioned the most decisive argument of all to prove that the Bible is not an instruction guide telling everyone to be a socialist: If it were, liberals wouldn’t be banning it from schools.
Warning: this story is for adult eyes only, and it might even turn adult stomachs. Peter Bright, a well-known tech reporter for the site Ars Technica with a Twitter following of over 18,000, has been charged with soliciting sex with children online. There are more sordid details about his alleged kinks and background at the link, but I warn you, it’s very disturbing. Not explained is how anyone could be a “tech expert” and think this sort of disgusting behavior online would go unnoticed by authorities.
It’s another reminder to be extremely careful in dealing with anyone you know only through the Internet. Even well-known public personas may be nothing but virtual reality.
For the first time in history, female law clerks for the Supreme Court outnumber male clerks. That’s because the newest Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, kept his promise to encourage women in law by hiring only female clerks. That earned him praise from, of all people, liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg – who, as Deanna Fisher at the Victory Girls blog notes, could have hired female clerks herself at any time over her career on the court, but didn’t.
Personally, I think you could argue either way that this is a great step forward for women or discrimination against men. But one thing that’s indisputable is that it’s hypocritical to celebrate it as a long-overdue victory for women when you could have remedied it yourself at any point in the past 26 years.
The clashes between the First Amendment right to religious expression and the SCOTUS’ newly-created right to same-sex marriage are suddenly back in the news.
In Washington, the State Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Christian owner of Arlene’s Flowers for the second time in an accusation of discrimination for declining to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. This, after they were forced to reexamine the case in light of the SCOTUS ruling in favor of Colorado Christian cake artist Jack Phillips. The Court ordered them to make sure their decision was not influenced by animus against her religious beliefs, and – what do you know?! – turns out that after a thorough self-examination, they found they harbored no anti-Christian prejudice at all. Her attorneys say they are planning an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court.
Ironically, since it was Phillips’ SCOTUS win that forced the Washington court to reconsider its ruling, there is news that Phillips is being sued for the THIRD time – the same lawyer who failed last time is taking another swing at him.
As noted in this article, there is no shortage of bakers in Denver who will make a gay wedding cake, and Phillips is not taking any active role against same-sex marriages. The radical activists are just out to keep harassing him over and over for his personal religious beliefs until they either drive him out of business or the SCOTUS finally does its job, fixes the giant muddy mess it created by inventing a new right that conflicts with the First Amendment, and clarifies its ruling, preferably by bringing its gavels down forcibly on the heads of these aggressive lawyers.
For a good background in how we got here and what needs to be done to correct it, I recommend this piece by Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of Liberty Institute, which fights to protect religious freedom rights.
Joe Biden is discovering that being the frontrunner in the polls in a crowded field is like being the crab that’s almost made it out of the bucket: all the other crabs keep trying to drag him back down.
What’s funny is seeing some of the criticisms they’re lobbing at Biden and what they tell us about the state of the Democratic Party in 2019. For instance, Bernie Sanders is attacking him for representing “a middle-ground strategy that antagonizes no one.” One thing you can say for Bernie is that he has no history of middle-ground, pragmatic, bipartisan stances to overcome in order to impress the far-left. To quote a great Waylon Jennings song, he’s always been crazy.
Meanwhile, Pete Buttigieg, who’s seeking a promotion from mayor of South Bend, Indiana, to President of the United States, summed up the Party philosophy circa 2019 in a nutshell (emphasis on "nut") by declaring, “We’re not going to win by playing it safe or promising to return to normal.”
I strongly suggest that that Democrats raise funds by selling caps that read “MAUAAA” (“Make America Unsafe and Abnormal Again.”)
I almost feel sorry for Joe Biden (note that I said “almost.”) As I’ve watched him struggle over the past couple of weeks against attacks from the left over his previous positions, and even flip-flop on a moral issue as fundamental as not thinking it’s right to force taxpayers to pay for abortions (under Obama/Biden, it was only right to force nuns to pay for abortions), it’s dawned on me:
Joe Biden is the living embodiment of the dire predicament of the entire Democratic Party.
Right now, the Party is being ripped asunder by two warring factions: the old guard who think their liberal views need to be tempered with at least a little lip service to common sense and moderation in order to win general elections in all but the bluest areas; and the far-left “progressives” who want to go pedal-to-the-metal hard left, openly and loudly embracing every crackpot idea from free government health care and college tuition to open borders to outright socialism, financed by 90% tax rates and printing money that is handed out to everyone for free.
The Old Guard quite reasonably sees the “progressive” path as general election suicide, which is why they back Biden: he’s been around so long that he won his first political race when Ed Sullivan was still on TV, and he has a long and reasonably centrist record. But in order to win over the radicals who vote in the primary elections in disproportionate numbers, Joe has to pretend to be one of them. This requires him to renounce decades of pragmatism in an attempt to pass as one of the hip, young “Democratic” socialist radicals.
It’s an embarrassing, unnatural and uncomfortable costume for someone of Joe’s years to have to don. It reminds me of the episode of “Frasier” where he told his prissy brother Niles, “Please don’t try to be hip. You remind me of Bob Hope when he dresses up as The Fonz.”
But even if Joe could still fit into his leather jacket from high school, it wouldn’t matter (and not just because leather is now politically incorrect.) The faction that’s taking over the Democratic Party will tear down statues of American heroes from over 200 years ago if they fail to live up to some PC standard that was just invented on Twitter. Joe can’t win them over by claiming that, like any human being, his opinions have changed with the times, because that would require his critics to be reasonable and have a sense of forgiveness and historical perspective. It would be like trying to reason with a mob of villagers who are chasing Frankenstein’s monster with torches.
Example: the latest “revelation” to come out about Joe is that in 1987, he (gasp!) rejected identity politics: as he put it then, the arguments that only blacks can represent blacks and “that coalitions don’t work anymore, that whites and Catholics and Jews no longer care about the problems of black America.” That was considered reasonable then. It’s still reasonable now. But to many voting in the Democratic primaries, it’s an “OUTRAGE!!!” Because refusing to separate and judge people by their race is now racist.
Joe may yet pull out the nomination, but by the time the process is over, he may be so tired of fending off the other crabs and having to publicly renounce things he knows to be true, like someone being tortured by the Spanish Inquisition, that he’ll wonder if it was even worth it to secure the honor of losing to Trump.
It sometimes seems as if the big tech companies are taunting the government: “Go on, regulate us! Bust us up like the monopolies we are! We double-dog dare you!”
How else to explain the many recent stories of blatant bias and abuse of their platforms to censor conservative speech? Just today comes another outrageous example: Pinterest, the site that allegedly lets users “pin” or link to things they like has blocked links to the pro-life group LiveAction.org. An insider/whistleblower told the group that it was done surreptitiously by putting Live Action on a list of banned pornography-related sites, on grounds that they link to “harmful conspiracies.” That refers to the undercover videos revealing Planned Parenthood workers talking about selling harvested body parts from aborted babies - which I agree is a "harmful conspiracy," but exposing it was not.
Then when that underhanded tactic became public and Live Action appealed, Pinterest immediately issued a permanent suspension of the group’s account for allegedly posting advice that is “harmful misinformation” that might cause "immediate and detrimental effects on Pinners' health or public safety." Since Pinterest refused to respond to inquiries from Conservative Tribune, we are left to assume that they think encouraging women not to kill their babies is harmful to health and public safety, but encouraging them to dismember their children in the womb is beneficial to health and safety – not the babies’, of course.
My advice to any conservative and/or pro-life Pinterest users would be to “stick a pin in this site, it’s done.”
And speaking of Internet censorship of free speech, the CEO of Google explained that they don’t just censor things that obviously violate their stated guidelines, but they also consider it their duty to block content “which doesn’t exactly violate policies” but which is “borderline.”
Here’s the problem with that: who decides where the “border” is and which content that lands how far on which side of the line gets censored? You can bet that with Google’s far-left corporate culture, “borderline” means anything hostile to leftist political views, which is why YouTube (owned by Google) will demonetize conservative satirist Steven Crowder for making harsh jokes about liberals, but never block Stephen Colbert or lesser-known leftist YouTubers for making vicious comments about conservatives.
The promise of the Internet was that it would be an “information superhighway.” Google became a tech giant by providing an easy roadmap to get wherever you wanted to go. But lately, Google has been increasingly taking on the role of corrupt highway patrolman who only pulls over cars with license plates from red states. They need to be reminded that when local cops start violating people’s Constitutional rights, it sometimes falls to the federal government to step in and bust them down to dog catcher duty.