Advertisement

In commentaries over the past couple of days, I’ve illustrated how quickly freedom can be lost --- Hong Kong is the current real-life example --- and shown the true nature of the threat our country faces, as we need to know what that is before we can combat it. Turns out, it really is very much like the Chinese Communist Party that clamped down on Hong Kong, with the same Marxist underpinnings as the CCP.

For example, let’s take a look at Black Lives Matter, which has shown itself NOT to be as much about black lives as many thought. Thanks to Tucker Carlson for bringing attention to a CNN interview segment with “America’s Got Talent” host Terry Crews criticizing BLM’s indifference towards black-on-black shootings. Host Don Lemon said this: “The Black Lives Matter movement was started because there was talking about police brutality. If you want an ‘All-Black-Lives-Matter’ movement that talks about gun violence in communities including, you know, black communities, then start that movement with that name, but that’s not what Black Lives Matter is about.”

Never mind that BLM’s campaign to “Defund the Police” has direct bearing on the safety and security of black people in violent neighborhoods. Some black residents of Minneapolis are definitely disenchanted with the attack on police, as they know they NEED COPS. “It’s time to tell the city council that utopia is a bunch of B.S.,” said one violence prevention advocate. “We are not in Mayberry RFD; we are in the wild wild west.”

(By the way, Carlson also aired a very different clip of Lemon from 1991, in which he lamented that “more than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock --- that means absent fathers. And the studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison.” He goes on to blame “the hip-hop and rap culture that many of you embrace.” How “un-woke” is that?? This was one of the few times I’ve ever heard Don Lemon make sense, but CNN will have to fire him immediately for his past failure to blame white people for problems in the black community. But I digress.)

Anyway, we’re finding out just what BLM really is about. Since it’s billed as a “grassroots group” and not legally organized, it doesn’t report where its money comes from and how it is spent. But it’s the project of a 501(c)3 promoting “alternative economies” and “climate justice” called Thousand Currents, and, as Carlson pointed out Wednesday, the vice chair for fundraising of Thousand Currents is Susan Rosenberg, a convicted terrorist who spent 16 years in federal prison until she was pardoned by...wait for it...Bill Clinton on his last day in office. (She’d been sentenced to 58 years.) As former NYPD commissioner Bernard Kerik said, Black Lives Matter is “a revolutionary Marxist group...a group that wants to overthrow this country.”

Kerik said the DOJ should be looking into BLM as a terrorist organization, and he’s right. The founders of this group were inspired by a woman who is now in exile in Cuba after assassinating a New Jersey state trooper and being involved in a number of bombings and executions of NYC, New Jersey and San Francisco police. That should tell you all you need to know about BLM.

Such activity has been going on since the 1960s and ‘70s. BLM isn’t the kind of organization that U.S. corporations should be supporting or even paying lip service to. Yet they’ve been so intimidated by “cancel culture” and cries of “institutional racism” that they’ve gone along. But, as Kerik says, “If ‘Black Lives Matter was truly, you know, working for black lives, they’d be marching tonight in Chicago, or Baltimore, or Cleveland, and I can give you 20 other cities.”

Most media will ignore this, of course. In the four months leading up to the next election, we’ll have to work overtime beating back lies from the media, which can be counted on to spout nothing but DNC talking points. The people who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome are not going to be cured in the next few months, but we can help inoculate others against the lies.

As for “Republican” officials suffering from TDS and vowing to “burn down” the Republican Party by supporting Democrats, Kurt Schlichter at TOWNHALL has some choice words for them.

"GOP dummies,” he asks them, “what is your excuse? I want to know the thought process by which you slack-jawed nimrods who make up a startling proportion of the Republican Party’s political cadre got the idea that we sent you to Washington to rename army bases and switch-up holidays...You want to be ‘reasonable’ --- stop that!...You simps are staggering into the world’s most obvious ambush.”

It goes on, with a long list of things our elected “Republicans” need to do. We’re going to have to get angry at those do-nothings and communicate our immense displeasure directly to their offices. The Republican rank-and-file have to make their voices heard, now.

Schlichter has a brand new book called THE 21 BIGGEST LIES ABOUT DONALD TRUMP (AND YOU!), and it is fabulous, full of inspiration for the fight ahead.

Schlichter is really funny, especially when you’re in that mood I increasingly find myself in, the one that says “I have had enough!!” So read it, enjoy it, get out your yellow highlighter and study it, and use it to make the case whenever you can for Trump 2020. It’s not enough just to savage the Democrats, although, heaven knows, there’s plenty to be said there, too, and organizations such as Black Lives Matter must be exposed for what they are. But voters need reasons to vote FOR someone. They’ve been lied to nonstop, and it’s up to us to be the antidote for the poison. Some will tune us out, but others won’t. This book looks to be the greatest defense of Donald Trump, warts and all, that anyone will see.

To quote Schlichter from his Introduction: “Lies have always been a part of politics, but today defamation has replaced actual debate. It’s almost quaint to see someone offer a coherent, thoughtful argument instead of spewing a spray of cheesy slander. When was the last time you heard someone provide a detailed, pointed critique of Donald Trump’s policies? Not of his character or his alleged personal failings, but his POLICIES?”

He goes on to point out that this is not what you hear. Instead, you hear lies about what a racist he is. There’s plenty in this book to counter that fake argument, and numerous others.

So we’ve got to get busy these next few months. Take advantage of every opportunity to get involved. With people you know, don’t be intimidated; speak up confidently with facts and reasoned argument. To some, your approach will seem refreshing and, yes, “almost quaint.” Others may call you names, but be like our President and simply decide, with so much at stake, not to CARE. We can’t change most minds, but we can change some, and some is all we need.

......................

Postscript: Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler, co-owner of the Atlanta Dream, has refused to bow down to BLM. She's the only owner in any major pro sports league with the courage to call out BLM for what it is, Marxist and divisive. The WNBA players' union is calling for her to be "canceled" (removed). She will not be silenced. Good for her!

Byron York of the Washington Examiner compares what President Trump said at Mount Rushmore to what Trump-hating media outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post told their readers that he said. Their "reporting" reflects reality about as accurately as a Picasso portrait with three noses.

Let this stand as an important lesson: from now on, and especially until the election, do not believe anything that these media outlets tell you that Trump (or for that matter, any Republican) said. Go to the Internet and check out the original source. That’s what my staff and I have been doing for years, and we’ve had to issue far fewer corrections than the New York Times does.

It’s sad that this is necessary, but these outlets have willingly quit the journalism business to become 24/7 Baghdad Bobs for the Democratic Party. Believing that you know what Trump said because you heard it from them would be like thinking you really understand Israeli government policies because you watch Al Jazeera.

Tuesday, Minnesota Rep. and “Squad” member Ilhan Omar condemned the entire American way of life, telling an audience “As long as our economy and political systems prioritize profit without considering who is profiting, who is being shut out, we will perpetuate this inequality…We cannot stop at the criminal justice system. We must begin the work of dismantling the whole system of oppression wherever we find it.”

Conservatives immediately pointed out that Omar was openly calling for the destruction of the US political and capitalist economic systems, and demanded to know if Joe Biden and fellow Democrats backed those goals. Which is silly…they’d never admit that!

I take a more charitable view of Rep. Omar’s bloviations. Let’s look at the evidence:

She came to America as an immigrant from Somalia, a nation that is under the following travel advisory from the US State Department: “Do not travel to Somalia due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, health issues, kidnapping, and piracy.” So at least we can assume she thinks America is slightly better than that or she wouldn't be here.

After having come to America, she got elected to the House, where she currently pulls down a healthy $174,000 a year. That’s about 773 times the average annual income in Somalia ($225 US.) She has parlayed that position into other lucrative areas, including a book deal for a memoir (“This Is What America Looks Like”) with an advance alone that was reported to be in the $100k-$250k range.

I think we can also assume that she will personally benefit from the reported $878,000 paid since 2018 to her latest husband’s political consulting firm out of donations to her Congressional campaign. They’re taking advantage of a loophole in the federal anti-nepotism law that bars Congress members from hiring relatives for government jobs but not from doing campaign work.

So while Rep. Omar might enrage a lot of people by seemingly wanting to turn America into Somalia, a more charitable view might be to take inventory of all the ways she’s turned into a money-grubbing capitalist since escaping Somalia for our oppressive, racist shores. Maybe mouthing a lot of anti-American, anti-capitalist garbage to her deluded leftist followers is just her business model. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, nobody ever went broke underestimating the gullibility of rich liberals.

By the way, none of this is to suggest that I think she’s not a dangerous figure who shouldn’t be within 300 miles of government power. If her constituents are having trouble finding someone better to send to the House to replace her, I will happily provide them with a local phone book and a dart free of charge.

And now, a rebuttal to Rep. Omar by a Venezuelan refugee who has seen exactly where all her socialist rhetoric really leads (and it’s not to Rep. Omar’s now-fat bank account):

This morning, the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s order protecting the Little Sisters of the Poor from having to provide abortion-causing drugs to workers under their health insurance plan. (For the record: this is an order of Catholic nuns who take a vow of poverty and provide care to terminally ill indigents, so just imagine how shriveled a soul you’d have to have to threaten them with ruinous fines and legal costs just because you love abortion so much.)

The ruling was 7-2, with Chief Justice John Roberts remembering he’s supposed to be a conservative and protect people’s First Amendment rights. Only abortion-rights-above-all Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from what should have been the most obvious slam-dunk decision possible (“No, the government shouldn’t be able to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for abortion drugs! Are you insane?!”) It will now be up to historians to argue how anyone could have ever thought that was (A.) remotely Constitutional or (B.) not a repulsive and reprehensible idea.

The nuns have already had to fight for years against the government forcing them to violate their most sacred beliefs, and having won that exception, to fight for it again. Just as with the same-sex marriage lawsuits against Christian bakers and florists, losing in court doesn’t stop those bent on destroying religious liberty, they just find some other legal loophole to attack from. Let’s all pray this will settle it for good.

Let’s also pray it will serve as a long-overdue lesson to the SCOTUS to stop throwing bombs into settled moral and Constitutional issues, and then expecting people to go bankrupt fighting endless lawsuits in order to clear up the legal murk that they created.

Warning to anyone playing poker with President Trump: Never assume he’s bluffing. Tuesday, Trump officially served notice to the UN and Congress that the United States will withdraw from the World Health Organization, effective one year from today. Of course, that means he’ll need to be reelected because if Biden gets in, the WHO will be only one of many international organizations in thrall to China that will have more sway in the White House than American citizens do.

Trump’s announcement drew the expected condemnations from Democrats, the media and even some Republicans. The general thrust was “It’s outrageous to withdraw from the World Health Organization during a worldwide pandemic!” Going unspoken is the fact that if the WHO hadn’t covered up for China and repeated its lies, there might not even be a worldwide pandemic. As Trump pointed out, we give the WHO $450 million a year while China gives it $40 million and seemingly has total control over it.

I mention the money because opponents will try to claim that withdrawing from the WHO means Trump is turning his back on world health initiatives. No, it means the money that was going to the WHO can instead go to more effective, efficient and honest health organizations. This is the same false argument presented whenever we talk about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood and liberals scream that we’re slashing “women’s health care.” No, the money would instead go to real local medical clinics that actually provide women’s health care, not to those that spend all their money on abortion facilities rather than purchasing a single mammogram machine.

Personally, I second Charlie Kirk’s tweet in that linked article: now that we’ve notified the UN that we’re withdrawing from the WHO, let’s next notify them that we’re withdrawing from the UN.

And in a second ruling that also strikes a blow for religious liberty, the Supreme Court again ruled 7-2 (Ginsberg and Sotomayor dissenting) that religious schools should be free from discrimination lawsuits if they don’t hire people for ministerial positions whose lifestyles conflict with their religious beliefs.

Read the details of both cases at the link. Religious schools were already supposed to be protected from these lawsuits, but again, litigants are searching for ways around those protections and liberal judges in places like California are only too willing to help them do that. This ruling expands that protection to cover less ministerial positions and more types of discrimination lawsuits to help head off all the various ways in which people were trying to use the law to force religious schools to hire people who contradict their beliefs and teachings.

As this article points out, the decision will raise controversy because opponents claim it allows religious organizations to discriminate against employees who are not in fully ministerial positions, such as math teachers. But the alternative is to allow the government to decide which positions in a religious institution qualify as “ministerial,” and that doesn't sound like a job that the government should be doing at all. It sounds instead like a perfect example of what the Founders were banning when they wrote that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:  Supreme Court rules on abortion-health care fight

Several bogus studies claiming hydroxychloroquine was dangerous and didn’t help with COVID-19 were highly touted, then retracted, but not before causing clinical trials to be halted and the FDA to bar doctors from obtaining the government’s stock of the drug for coronavirus patients.

Now, a large scale study by the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan found that the drug “significantly” reduced the death rate of hospitalized patients, from 26% to 13%. For the math-challenged, that’s cutting the death rate in half.

A study spokesman said, “As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight. And the data here is clear that there was a benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.”

But the data is also clear that simply because President Trump suggested it might be worth a try – and in the anti-Trump media narrative, everything Trump says must always be denied, refuted and proven WRONG – the media ballyhooed bogus studies and caused people to be afraid to take a drug that might have saved their lives or to be denied it if they wanted to try it. I’d call that deadly journalistic malpractice, and I’m not alone.

Since these media outlets have tried to blame Trump personally for every last death from a pandemic unleashed on the world by China, how about if we hold them responsible for letting their lethal cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome cause them to try to destroy a cheap, plentiful, safe drug that might have saved countless lives?

Here are some reminders of what Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) said about hydroxychloroquine, and a convincing argument that every unnecessary death that it might have prevented is on their heads.