Daring to Speak Up

March 22, 2022

It’s good to see that more people are finally daring to speak up about the outrageous unfairness of allowing biological males to compete against female athletes and steal all their records, awards and scholarships.

Let’s hope it’s a sign that people are finally shaking off their fear of “cancel culture” and letting a tiny minority whose voices are amplified by social media cow them into quietly accepting – or at least not speaking up about -- things that are obviously wrong.

As a reminder, revisit this story from last November.

It reported that Pew Research Center found only about 6% of the electorate are far-left “progressives” who believe the kind of radical “social justice” views that are being forced onto the rest of us. Ironically, these champions of “diversity and inclusion” are mostly young, white, college-indoctrinated (I can’t bring myself to say “educated”) atheists who’ve decided that their point of view is the only one that’s allowed to be expressed. If any other group that looked like them were doing the same thing they’re doing, they’d call those people racists and fascists. But at a paltry 6% of the population, they’re not just the tail wagging the dog, they’re a stub tail.

On a related subject, if you haven’t seen this weekend’s “Huckabee” on TBN yet, then check out my interview with Dr. Todd Rose, author of one of the most important books of the decade, “Collective Illusions.” It’s a game-changer and a mind-opener.

It will make you realize how people have been misled to believe this nation is irreparably divided into warring radical camps with no common ground, when in fact, most of us still believe in the same traditional American values we’ve always believed in. We’ve just been bullied and brainwashed by a small group of far-too-influential loudmouths into accepting poisonous media and political narratives that aren’t true.

The first day of the Senate confirmation hearings for Biden Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson consisted of nothing but opening statements by Jackson and the Senators.

Jackson said, “During this hearing, I hope you will see how much I love this country, the Constitution, and the rights that make us free. I decide cases from a neutral posture. I evaluate the facts, and I interpret and apply the law to the facts of the case before me without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath. I know that my role as a judge is a limited one – that the Constitution empowers me only to decide cases and controversies that are properly presented. And I know that my judicial role is further constrained by careful adherence to precedent.”

That’s reassuring, but also hard to believe. Jackson wasn’t chosen by whoever’s making President Biden’s decisions for him just because she brings much-needed diversity to the SCOTUS by being yet another liberal Harvard alum. There were other judges who checked Biden’s “black/female” boxes, but Jackson was known as the most leftwing activist of the choices.

Senate Democrats provided the comic relief by admonishing Republicans that they had promised to keep the process “civil.” This from the same people who accused Judge Barrett of being in a "Handmaid's Tale" style religious cult and who smeared Brett Kavanaugh as a drunk, rapist and rape gang organizer with zero evidence.

As Sen. Ted Cruz reminded them, it’s the Democrats who have a disgusting history of turning SCOTUS hearings into “high tech lynchings” (Clarence Thomas’ term for the hearings he faced, thanks to then-Senator Joe Biden.) Biden also voted against a black female Bush nominee. He claimed it was because he disagreed with her philosophy and rulings, but by the Democrats' own claims, we can assume he just was being a racist.

The Republicans launched no personal attacks on Judge Jackson, but they made it clear that they had serious reservations about her previous statements and rulings. These include seven cases in which she gave pedophiles sentences far more lenient than federal guidelines called for, and her comments praising “The 1619 Project” and saying that judges should consider Critical Race Theory in sentencing defendants.

That doesn’t sound like being neutral and applying the facts without favor and in adherence to precedent. It would be nice to know more on her thinking about sentencing, but Sen. Chuck Grassley complained that his request for public records on Jackson’s four years on the US Sentencing Commission (which Democrats cited as part of her valuable experience) had been blocked and 48,000 pages worth of documents withheld from view.

Republican Senators, and indeed all Americans, deserve to know whether an unelected judge who may be handing down decisions that affect all our lives for decades to come is telling the truth about respecting the Constitution, the rule of law and limits on judicial power. Without that reassurance, we could end up with a two-tiered “justice” system – one in which people who, say, attempted to block the sacred duties of Congress by creating a disturbance in the chamber to block the Kavanaugh confirmation were let go without being accused of “insurrection” while a Trump supporter who was told by a Capitol Police officer that he could enter the Capitol, so he came in, looked around and left, faces up to 20 years in prison.

It never used to be necessary even to ask SCOTUS nominees if they believed in the type of banana republic “justice” system where people are punished or released based on their political beliefs rather than their actions. Unfortunately, now it is. And Republicans didn’t create that.

We all like to think, or at least hope, that likely voters are the best informed voters. But a shocking new CSPAN poll of likely voters may shake our faith.

It found that 44% of respondents didn’t know that the three branches of government were co-equal. Nearly half (46%) think the SCOTUS is a partisan institution (granted, they might have a point, at least unofficially.) 61% claimed they were closely following Biden’s SCOTUS nominee, but 72% have no idea who it is, and 85% didn’t know she’s a black female, which was Biden’s #1 criteria for choosing a nominee. And while Roe v. Wade was the best-known SCOTUS decision, only 6% knew Brown vs. Board of Education, the landmark ruling that ended segregation in schools.

But that’s not the only poll that reflects badly on the public’s grasp of important information. A YouGov America survey found that people must assume that the louder a voice a group has in the media, the larger it is, which ain’t necessarily so.

Asked to estimate the size of various groups, on average, respondents thought that 21% of the US population is transgender (it’s actually 1%), that 26% make over a million dollars a year (in reality, less than 1%), that 27% are Muslim (1%), 27% are Native American (1%), 30% are Jewish (2%), 30% are gay or lesbian (3%), 33% are atheist (3%), and that 41% of Americans are black (actually 12%.) Although it’s possible that 41% of people currently in TV commercials are black.

Again, this is a great example of the premise of Dr. Todd Rose’s book “Collective Illusions,” that so much of what people believe is based on misconceptions and falsehoods, many of them promulgated by groups with an agenda that are trying to sound bigger and more powerful than they really are. And the way they keep those illusions alive is by scaring people out of questioning them.

Even the Washington Post has admitted, perhaps inadvertently, what the January 6 "investigation" is really all about for Democrats.

We won’t link to WAPO here, because they’re a paid subscription-only service and a propaganda rag --- a candy mint AND a breath mint --- but Tristan Justice at The Federalist offers a great report on the story. WAPO’s headline on Friday was “Jan. 6 committee faces a thorny challenge: persuading the public to care.” (Incidentally, they also ran an op-ed by esteemed former attorney general James Comey on March 7, “Every Jan. 6 case matters.” We think it matters, too, but for very different reasons.)

But here’s the Federalist’s piece from Sunday: “Democrats running the Jan. 6 Committee finally admitted the obvious: it’s a show trial all about the midterms.”

Democrats in Congress –- also “Republicans” Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Liz Cheney, who has devoted her congressional tenure not to representing the people of Wyoming but in securing a personal vendetta against Trump –- are dismayed because after 14 months, interest in their Priority-One “investigation” has grown tepid, even among many of their Democrat constituents. Gee, who would have thought that with skyrocketing gas prices, a lingering pandemic and the world suddenly becoming a giant powderkeg, Americans have had other things to think about? And those other things do NOT help Democrats.

The left is so concerned about this --- so desperate to have this one thing to run on --- that they’ve reportedly discussed hiring a journalist (correction: “journalist,” or maybe we should just go on and say “propagandist”) to write their reports and produce compelling videos that could be spread around the internet and played during their televised hearings. They’ve been talking about starting public hearings, ideally televised in prime-time (!), in April. According to the Democrat who chairs House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, they intend to showcase “how Trump interfered with official congressional business through his false rhetoric and unlawful actions.”  In other words, they want to say President Trump is a liar and a criminal.  On prime-time TV.  Before the elections.

(If they do hold those televised hearings, you’ll be happy to know that “we watch the news, so you don’t have to!” My writers tell me they deserve hazard pay for this assignment, due to the extreme toxicity.)

To show what kind of propagandizing we’re up against, a more recent write-up that we won’t link to, from the “social justice” website Truthout, included this paragraph: “Trump’s words were indeed incendiary. On the morning of January 6, 2021, he gave a speech to his loyalists in front of the White House, telling that their country was being ‘stolen’ and that they couldn’t take it back ‘with weakness.’ He then encouraged the mob to go to the Capitol while Congress was in session, certifying the Electoral College win for Biden.” NOT mentioned was that he told them to go “peacefully and patriotically” and that he never said anything about interfering with the process. Also not mentioned by the ironically-named "Truthout" was the fact that the people who moved the barricades and breached the Capitol were already there when Trump was speaking and didn’t even hear him.

Misinformation!  Lack of context!  Of course, Twitter and Facebook will suspend them immediately.

I digress.  Anyway, Democrats want an interim January 6 report in addition to their final report, which will be timed to fall shortly before midterm voting starts. California Rep. Peter Aguilar told WAPO that they want to make sure their reports aren’t written in “Congressional Research Service” style but in a way that will engage readers. Here’s the key observation from the WAPO story, which gives Democrats’ real motive away:

“...A final report...will be published ahead of the November midterms –- with the findings likely a key part of the Democrats’ midterm strategy. They hope their recommendations to avoid another insurrection will be adopted, but also that their work will repel voters from Republicans who they say helped propel the attack.”

Most of us understand that the vast majority of Trump supporters who showed up for the Capitol Hill rally were simply exercising their constitutionally-protected right to assemble and protest. And according to an analysis done by The Federalist, only 8 of the 96 subpoenas issued by Nancy Pelosi’s inquisition went to individuals associated with violence at the Capitol. In addition to those 96 subpoenas, there are 100 more for the telephone records of individuals whose names are still under seal.

To the surprise of no one, the Committee is not even touching the legitimate security failures on that day, including Pelosi’s failure to provide security after thousands of National Guard troops had been offered by President Trump. Here’s an enlightening article from (of all places) CNN in July of last year, explaining where the Democrats were and were not willing to go in their “investigation.”

One thing the Democrats can in fact be gleeful about is the successful adoption into the lexicon of the word “insurrection” to describe that day’s riot. By any stretch of a sane person’s imagination, a small, ragtag group of unarmed people upset by what they saw as election fraud is NOT an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. Neither is a crowd of mostly elderly and otherwise harmless people who entered the Capitol not knowing they were doing anything wrong. But thanks to a huge propaganda push, it became the mainstream go-to word, used routinely.

It was, of course, used in the WAPO piece, as seen above. And Arnold Schwarzenegger, who unfortunately has spent way too much time around the Kennedy family, used it in his otherwise-powerful video to the Russian people about the fight in Ukraine.

“And may I remind you,” Schwarzenegger said, “that I speak with the same heartfelt concern as I spoke to the American people when a wild crowd was storming the U.S.Capitol, trying to overthrow our government.”

News flash to Arnold: They were NOT trying to overthrow our government. But such a characterization is certainly in keeping with Tristan Justice’s observation on the anniversary of January 6: that the Democrats are using their lore about that day to substitute one hoax for another. It’s pure politics.