Advertisement

Here’s yet another reason why everyone should stop using Twitter and switch to an alternative site that respects freedom of speech. Here are a few options (hint: not Facebook):

https://rigorousthemes.com/blog/best-twitter-alternatives/

Not only did Twitter ban the Babylon Bee over a satirical story that accurately described HHS official Rachel Levine as a biological male, now they’ve suspended the account of the Christian Post for the same reason. Only to make matters worse, they claimed the CP might be in violation of French hate speech laws, and that if they disagreed, they might have to challenge the decision in a French court.

https://www.westernjournal.com/cowards-twitter-hq-cite-foreign-hate-speech-law-punish-american-company/

I didn’t realize that Twitter is a French company. Maybe that would explain why they seem to be totally ignorant of such American traditions as the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Act that protects them from lawsuits only as long as they act as a neutral platform and not a publisher/editor.

As that linked story notes, Twitter has a strange set of standards for what it does and doesn’t allow. Former President Trump is banned for allegedly fomenting violence, but the leaders of Iran who take daily breaks to chant “Death to America” still have Twitter accounts. The President of a nation that perpetuates genocide can stay on Twitter, but they ban comedians who tweet jokes pointing out that that nation perpetuates genocide.

Also, while they censor many conservative sites (including this one) for “disinformation” even though we’re telling the truth, there have been no repercussions for liberals who’ve wildly mischaracterized Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Bill and falsely labeled it as the “Don’t Say Gay Law.” In fact, they’re openly promoting that disinformation.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/paula-bolyard/2022/03/23/heres-what-the-social-media-censors-are-doing-about-the-dont-say-gay-lies-regarding-floridas-anti-groomer-bill-n1583733

Of course, Twitter is hardly alone in its attempts to silence people for speaking obvious truths that counteract leftist narratives. Take a look at how NBC applied more Photoshopping to “trans” swimmer Lia Thomas you’d see on a Vogue magazine cover shot of Kamala Harris.

https://www.westernjournal.com/odd-nbc-news-airbrushes-image-trans-swimmer-lia-thomas/

I would say the assaults on reality by both big media and social media have become trans…parent.

Here’s today’s link to Fox News’ continually-updated bulletins on the Russian invasion of Ukraine:

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/ukraine-russia-live-updates-03-24-2022

President Biden is in Europe for meetings with NATO, G7 and EU officials. He’s expected to urge more sanctions on Russia. On Thursday, the White House announced sanctions on 65 Russian banks, business elites and industries that are believed to be supporting Putin’s war, as well as more than 300 members of Russia’s federal assembly and more than 40 Russian defense companies. The White House also said the US will accept up to 100,000 Ukrainian refugees.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy told NATO that Russia is using its full army without restrictions against Ukraine, and he needs “military assistance without restrictions.” He said, "NATO has yet to show what the Alliance can do to save people…To show that this is truly the most powerful defense association in the world. And the world is waiting. And Ukraine is very much waiting, for real action.”

New York Democratic Rep. Ritchie Torres called on the FBI to investigate the Russian Diplomatic Compound in New York City, which has long been described as a hub of Russian espionage in the US. I'd suggest fumigating the UN, too.

Those wondering how the outmatched and outgunned Ukrainians are managing to hold off the Russian army while inflicting so much damage will be interested in this story about how they received training for just such an emergency from US Army Special Forces, aka the Green Berets.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-armys-green-berets-have-lasting-impact-on-fight-in-ukraine

While Putin may dream of recreating the old Soviet Union, in one sense, he already has: thanks to the sanctions he’s brought on, Russians are once again standing in long lines to get basic necessities. They say it’s like the USSR came back overnight.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/23/were-going-back-to-a-ussr-long-queues-return-for-russian-shoppers-as-sanctions-bite

And this could turn the Western media against Zelenskyy: Men who identify as women are being turned back at the border when they attempt to flee Ukraine and told they’re men so they are required to stay and fight.

https://www.westernjournal.com/transgender-stopped-ukrainian-border-told-turn-around-fight-guards-find-real-gender/

This presents another logical conundrum for leftists: They think it’s transphobic for Ukraine to draft men who identify as women because they're really women and shouldn't be forced to fight. But they also think it’s sexist for the US not to draft women who were actually born female. Which is it?

Liberals hoping that former Attorney General Bill Barr’s book tour would be a non-stop Trump-bashing fest must be keenly disappointed as Barr has proven to be an equal opportunity denouncer. First, he criticized Trump’s handling of the 2020 election, but also said that if Trump were the 2024 nominee, he’d have no choice but to vote for him because the “progressive” leftists are so horrendously bad for America.

Now, he’s done it again. Asked about Hunter Biden’s toxic laptop (which the New York Times just miraculously “verified” as true, a year-and-a-half too late), Barr said he refused Trump’s efforts to get him to talk about it before the election due to “possible ongoing investigations.” He said he was against injecting a criminal investigation against Biden’s son into the race without “definitive judgement” from the DOJ.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2022/03/22/what-ag-barr-found-shocking-and-disturbing-about-joe-bidens-2020-debate-performa-n2604852?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky1

But just as Democrats were preparing to flip-flop yet again and cite Barr as a statesman rather than a villain, he added that he was “very disturbed” by how Biden “lied to the American people.” He said Biden suggested it was Russian disinformation and pointed to that “baseless” letter from some intelligence people “which he knew was a lie, and I was shocked by that.”

All well and good, but also a day late and a dollar short. If he knew Biden was lying (and I’m frankly shocked that he would be shocked by Joe Biden lying) about something that the voters needed to know to make an informed decision, then keeping quiet wasn’t his patriotic duty. Speaking up was.

It wouldn’t have required verifying a DOJ investigation simply to say that there was no evidence that it was Russian disinformation. That’s a simple fact that some of us knew before the election. All of us should have known it.

Yesterday, we received a comment on our Substack edition by reader Marcia D:

Wondering …… why do we continue to call our “leaders and their minions” ELITE? They aren’t! You are so wonderful with words, how about coming up with something that describes our Hollywood snobs etc better. LOVE your newsletter.

Dear Marcia:

Thanks for writing and for your kind appreciation. When we use...that word...it’s almost always meant ironically, so from now on, whenever appropriate, we’ll try to use quotation marks to make that clear. I decided to look at the various dictionary definitions of the word to see how they might apply to our political and societal “elite.” Here are a few…

Oxford Dictionaries has two definitions of the word as a noun. Since the second one relates to the “elite” 12-point typeface, we’ll toss that and focus on the first one: “a select group that is superior in ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.” This definition might apply if we were talking about, say, an “elite” fighting force, but it definitely does not apply when we talk about our political and cultural leaders, as (ironically) they have aptly demonstrated. Polls certainly bear that out.

Merriam-Webster shades the meaning of “elite” a little differently, offering several entries:

1) the choice part, or ‘cream,’ as in “the elite of the entertainment world.” No, that doesn’t fit our leaders at all. If they’re a choice, it’s not our choice. If they’re the cream, it has long since curdled.

2) the best of a class, as in “the superachievers who dominate the computer elite.” Sorry, no. If these leaders are the best we’ve got, we need to start thinking outside the box about where our leaders are going to come from. The ones in power now are not superachievers by any stretch of the imagination. I think some of them must realize this. Kamala Harris, for example, surely realizes on some level that she’s in over her head. Maybe that’s why she cackles uncontrollably --- to try to dispel her own panic.

3) the socially superior part of society, as in “how the French-speaking elite was changing.” No, that definition fits only if we look at how these leaders think of THEMSELVES. They are considered socially superior only within their own circle, perhaps in Hollywood or the Upper West Side. If this definition were modified to reflect that, it could work.

4) a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power and influence, as in “members of the ruling elite.” At last, here’s a definition that really does seem to fit, with a few caveats. First, we’ve got to put the word “education” in quotation marks, considering what a so-called Ivy League education means these days. And we’d definitely want to add the word “undue,” as in “undue influence.” Gee, wouldn’t it be nice to undo all that undue influence?

If used as an adjective, M-W’s definition is “superior in quality, rank, skill, etc., as in, “The elite chess players of today...hail from all over the world.” But while, tragically, our leaders do rank higher in power and influence than the rest of us –- that’s what makes them leaders, after all –- they only think they’re superior in terms of quality and skill.

Good lord, the President of the United States, arguably the 'elitest' of the elite, can’t even read a teleprompter, and that's too bad because he can't speak without one. If he were TRYING to destroy the country, I doubt he’d be doing anything differently. On the other hand, if that’s what he actually is trying to do, I take it back: he definitely has some skills. He's been in office little more than one year, and it's hard to watch the news at any given moment without thinking the words "hell in a handbasket."

Our (probable) next Supreme Court justice --- there's hardly anything more 'elite' than that lofty perch --- says she can’t even define what a woman is and doesn’t think her views on that or on CRT would be an issue for her as a justice. The bar has really been lowered.

Moving on, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “elite” this way:

A group or class of persons considered to be superior to others because of their intelligence, social standing or wealth.

Again, our “elite” consider THEMSELVES to be superior in intelligence (some, I would call idiot savants) and, in many cases, social standing. Wealth, however, is a more objective standard that definitely does apply. To illustrate, I’ll use “elite” in a sentence: “Elites such as Mark Zuckerberg use their vast wealth and undue influence to buy elections.”

The Collins English Dictionary defines the noun “elite” like this:

The most powerful, rich, gifted or educated members of a group, community, etc.

Again, the same issues apply. This definition might work if we put “educated” in quotes and also, in quite a few cases, add just one letter to change “gifted” to “grifted.”

The Random House Kemerman Websters College Dictionary has several entries:

1) the choice or best of a group, class or the like. (NOPE.)

2) persons of the wealthiest class. (YES, generally that is true.)

3) a group of persons exercising authority within a larger group. (YES, indeed.)

Check your thesaurus, and you might see many of these synonyms for “elite”:

upper class, upper crust (I"d say it’s true, some of them are looking pretty crusty)

elect, chosen (Not by us, God knows)

cream, pick (Again, this cream is curdled)

intelligentsia (Hold on, ever hear the expression, "educated beyond one's intelligence"?)

beau monde, bon ton, high society, ‘smart set’ (Two words: Hillary’s pantsuits)

aristocracy, gentry, nobility (Two words: John Kerry)

technocrat (Well, we're definitely crawling with those)

selected (Editorial note: remember, they can be un-selected!)

I’m also reminded of the Cole Porter song, “You’re the Top.” You know, “You’re the top...you’re the Colosseum! You’re the top...you’re the Louvre Museum!” Except in the case of our “elite” leaders, I’d sing it this way:

“You’re a flop...you’re a big disaster

You’re a flop...you are not my master

You can censor me and de-monetize my words

But I’ll cause some blowback, I’ll go on Substack, I WILL be heard!

You’re a flop...just an Ivy Leaguer

You’re a flop...and your talent’s meager

As ‘elites’ you stink but you think that you’re tip-top

You are way down on the bottom, you’re a flop!

Republicans scored a couple of important court victories this week. The Supreme Court rejected an attempt to replace the Wisconsin legislature’s voting district map with one drawn by the Governor that created an extra 7th majority black district. Defenders claimed this was necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

The SCOTUS ruled that this was in error. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Court ruled that under the Equal Protection Clause, districting maps that sort voters on the basis of race “are by their very nature odious.” Any state that draws districts based on race has to withstand strict scrutiny in proving that there’s a compelling state interest in doing so, and it must be “narrowly tailored” to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

https://utexas.app.box.com/s/7ca2iocqmaz9xk8xlklcwqrvisa842bu

The larger point here is that the Court reaffirmed that states can’t use the Voting Rights Act as a blanket excuse to gerrymander voting districts based solely on race. That can only be done in a very limited way, and they must have a solid reason for why it’s necessary.

The other court win came in Ohio, where federal District Judge Michael Newman ruled in favor of attorneys general from Arizona, Montana and Ohio in a lawsuit against Department of Homeland Security Director Alejandro Mayorkas.

https://www.westernjournal.com/judge-hands-republican-states-big-win-biden-blocking-dhs-order/

Mayorkas issued a memo to ICE agents, ordering them to prioritize deportations of illegal aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety, or who recently came to the US. As for the rest, he wrote, “In exercising our discretion, we are guided by the fact that the majority of undocumented noncitizens who could be subject to removal have been contributing members of our communities for years…The fact that an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them. We will use our discretion and focus our resources in a more targeted way. Justice and our country’s well-being require it.”

As you might imagine, federal immigration law doesn’t include an exception for those who’ve managed to dodge deportation long enough (those he euphemically called "removable noncitizens.") The judge quite correctly ruled that Mayorkas was attempting to rewrite the law to make it more to his liking. He cited a quote from a 1952 SCOTUS decision that we should probably embroider onto samplers and send to DC to decorate the entire executive branch:

“In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”

That’s a bedrock tenet of the Constitution that the Obama Administration regularly flouted and that Biden has continued. Whenever Obama didn’t like a law Congress had passed, his DOJ would simply refuse to enforce it; and when Congress refused to pass a law he wanted, even one he admitted he had no power to enact, he would go ahead and create it anyway by “executive order.” Too many times, activist liberal judges went along with the insane idea that somehow, Obama had the power to create laws by executive order, but Trump didn’t have the power to rescind those unconstitutional edicts.

Let’s hope that this ruling heralds a trend of judges putting the brakes on Biden’s attempts to continue lawless rule by executive order and ignoring laws that he took an oath to enforce.