Advertisement

"Infrastructure"

December 1, 2021

I’ve repeatedly warned readers not to fall for the idea that the $1.2 trillion “infrastructure” bill was actually going to buy $1.2 trillion worth of roads, bridges and airport improvements (hence our habitual use of quotation marks around “infrastructure.”) That’s partly because only a fraction of the money goes to things that any sane person would consider to be actual infrastructure (Democrats only win arguments by redefining words, in this case turning “government giveaway programs” into “human infrastructure.”) But it’s also because Democrats, in thrall to environmentalist donors, have created so many laws that make it darn near impossible to build a new road, highway, dam or any other major construction project.

We went through the same thing under Obama. Remember the promise that spending nearly a trillion tax dollars would create thousands of “shovel-ready jobs?” Then we discovered that it took a 10-year environmental impact study just to get permits to buy a shovel. Even Obama himself admitted that he found out there were no “shovel-ready jobs.”

Well, one of the hallmarks of modern liberals is that they never learn from prior mistakes. So now we have a freshly-signed $1.2 trillion “infrastructure” bill, and the New York Times, which pushed hard for passage, has suddenly realized that it probably won’t actually build or fix very much infrastructure.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/joseph-vazquez/2021/11/29/shocker-nyt-throws-cold-water-bidens-massive

The Times actually printed an analysis by independent journalist Ralph Vartabadian in which he found that the bill “carries enormous risks that the projects will face the same kind of cost, schedule and technical problems that have hobbled ambitious efforts from New York to Seattle, delaying benefits to the public and driving up the price tag that taxpayers ultimately will bear.”

It would have been nice if the Times had looked that closely at the bill before it was passed with their support and we taxpayers got stuck with the tab. But even if it never results in a new road or bridge, it will accomplish its actual goals of (A.) giving Biden a legislative “win,” (B.) expanding government size and control, and (C.) showering money on Democrat donors and voting blocs.

In short, the Times will never learn because keeping their readers willfully ignorant until it’s too late advances the left’s political agenda. But the rest of us can learn from this never to pay attention to the New York Times.

We’ve received many letters in response to yesterday's story on the Salvation Army. (A follow-up story ran today.) Here are few that called out for responses.

From Larry (excerpt):

Love your show and your website, have for a long time. Just want to express a concern about people falling in the trap of using racist terms that are promoted by the left. You used one of the most racist terms in your article when you said " people of color." ...White is a color, it's just not one the racist democrats like.

It's just one of many things that non-Democrats fall prey to because they don't stop to think about a word before they just accept it and start using it.

As I said, we've always thought you were, and still are, one of the smartest people in the public eye that speaks for Conservatives and Christians. Best wishes.

From the Gov:

Thanks for writing, Larry, and for your kind words. We’re really sensitive to the language and how leftists try to shape it, and are glad to see you are, too. Keep in mind that commentaries include quotations, and these are run in quotation marks exactly as they were originally stated. The commentary you refer to included lengthy excerpts from a CRT-based publication, and that’s the term they used. I wouldn’t soften or censor what someone else said unless it was vulgar or otherwise over-the-line offensive.

We all have different ideas on how to use language respectfully to refer to race, and it continues to evolve. Personally, I’m baffled as to why leftists like the abbreviation “POC” for “people of color,” because it also stands for something offensive. But, again, I and my staff didn't use either of these; we were just quoting someone else.

From Jane (excerpt):

I am of heavy Irish descent. In fact I am Irish Catholic, which is amongst the Irish the most discriminated against, including by our own government (my grandfather was only allowed to work for the government if he professed himself to be an orange man)...I guess the existence of Irish slaves in the colonies (who were considered to be less valuable than the black slaves) is an inconvenient truth to yet another position that the Democrats take in order to control people. So, are there any non-woke charities out there that we can donate gently used items to?

From the Gov:

Thank you, Jane, for a history lesson that most people never receive. This is why it does no good for some groups to do a personal accounting of the accumulated grievances that were done to their ancestors. An ideology based on past victimhood poisons the present. As for non-woke charities, I’m sure there are still quite a few, and it’s always good to start close to home.

From Dale:

I am really disappointed that Huckabee would write something that can be damaging to the Salvation Army. They have already recanted and removed those Guides which could be wrongly construed. I will be canceling my daily Huckabee Newsletter because of this!!

From the Gov:

Dale, I hope you’ll stay. Actually, if you see the update today, the SA is “reviewing” those guides but has not recanted. Perhaps they will, and I’ll update the story if they do. But so far, they’ve blamed readers for believing they’ve promoted damaging ideas they actually HAVE promoted. This poison has turned some once-laudable organizations into something very different in 2021.

I did not specifically call for a boycott of the SA, and will not. But it would be a failure on my part not to report on what’s happening to major charities in the U.S. That’s the only way they’re going to be brought back to sanity.

Finally, this from Duncan:

News flash, woke people!!! EVERYONE has 'unconscious bias' about someone or something. If you claim to be completely conscious you better notify the Dalai Llama. He might have some advice for you to help you cope with total enlightenment.

It does behoove all of us to be aware of the possibility that we may be unaware of our faults. On the other hand, let's not let fear(s) paralyze us to living and growing. The most simple and central tenant of Christianity, ‘Treat thy neighbor as you would be treated,' pretty much says it all.

Thanks Governor for your ongoing clear common-sense publications. Keep it going!

From the Gov:

Thanks, Duncan. You have indeed said it all, so you get the last word.


Why are liberal media outlets outrageously claiming that “a car” drove into the Waukesha Christmas parade, killing six people and injuring 62 more, when we all know that it was (“allegedly”) a leftist career criminal who was out on $1,000 bail after being charged with even more heinous crimes, including running over his girlfriend with that exact same “car”? Or is the car a recidivist, too?

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/488120/

Miranda Divine at the New York Post has a must-read article on why these media outlets are trying to downplay and memory-hole this atrocity, even as they push for life sentences for Trump supporters. It’s because, as she says, the stark truth of this massacre threatens the very core of their insanely misguided “criminal justice reforms” that are allowing career criminals to be turned back out into the streets to prey on the public again and again and again.

https://nypost.com/2021/11/24/liberal-media-ignores-waukesha-christmas-parade-horror-devine

Milwaukee County D.A. John Chisholm fatuously claims to be investigating how the suspect got such a low bail amount, when that’s been his crusade for years. All that matters is racial equity of outcomes, not punishment commensurate with the crimes. And Chisholm can’t even claim that he was too stupid to see this coming. In an astounding 2007 interview with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, he said this:

“Is there going to be an individual I divert, or I put into [a] treatment program, who’s going to go out and kill somebody? You bet. Guaranteed. It’s guaranteed to happen.”

But he claimed that the guaranteed death of an innocent or two was worth it in the name of justice reform. He just didn’t foresee that one of them would go on a killing spree. It’s a lot easier to turn a blind eye and sweep it under the rug when the needless deaths are spaced out, one at a time. But now, the number of crime victims has reached critical mass. Let’s hope the patience of the public for tolerating their enablers in government has also reached critical mass.

Actor Matthew McConaughey ended speculation Sunday by announcing that he’s decided not to run for Governor of Texas. He said, "As a simple kid born in the little town of Uvalde, Texas, it never occurred to me that I would one day be considered for political leadership. It's a humbling and inspiring path to ponder. It is also a path that I am choosing not to take at this moment."

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/matthew-mcconaughey-rules-out-run-public-office-texas

Even though a recent poll showed him as the frontrunner against both incumbent Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and the Harold Stassen of our time, Democrat “Beto” O’Rourke, I can certainly understand why Matthew wouldn’t want to give up being a successful and beloved movie star to take on the heavy work and brickbats of being a Governor (salary in Texas: $153,750.)

Polls can be deceiving, too. At this early stage, all the respondents know is the cool guy from the movies. But the glamor disappears fast once you get into the 24-hour colonoscopy of running for office. You have to take positions on issues that some people will strongly disagree with (and if you don’t, you’re criticized for that, too.) Matthew has some views that are conservative and some that are liberal, which means he’d face attacks from both sides.

I’ve read his recent book, “Green Lights,” and was impressed. Even more so when I interviewed him on TBN.

https://youtu.be/xOe-ZhFKunY

He seems to be a rare celebrity who has his head screwed on straight, and maybe this decision on staying out of politics is just more proof of that.

In the meantime, it’s bad news for Democrats, for whom a wild card McConaughey candidacy was their best shot at unseating a Republican Governor in 2022. But they still have “Beto,” and it’s reported that fools with money (I’m assuming from outside Texas) have already pumped $2 million into his latest quixotic run. That’s money that won’t be going to Democrats who have a chance of winning, so it’s “Awright, awright, awright” with me.

Fauci faces the crowd

November 30, 2021

Sunday on “Face the Nation,” I think Dr. Anthony Fauci might have finally reached his “A Face in the Crowd” moment. In that classic movie, Andy Griffith plays a “man of the people” drunk on his own power who falls from public grace after an open microphone reveals what an arrogant, power-mad demagogue he really is. In Fauci’s case, he knew the mic was on, he (as always) sought out the camera, but he still revealed in shockingly clear terms that he’s suffering from a terminal case of galloping egomania.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-paul-blasts-fauci-astounding-alarming-represent-science

When asked about the justifiable criticism of him by such Senators as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul for denying under oath that his NIH funded gain-of-function research when it was later revealed that it had, Fauci scoffed that it was just “noise.” As for Cruz pointing out that lying to Congress is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, Fauci laughed and asked, "What happened on January 6th, Senator?

For the record, Ted Cruz had nothing to do with January 6th, but the lies about gain-of-function research came directly from Dr. Fauci’s mouth. And he wasn’t wearing three masks at the time, so we all heard it clearly.

But then came the really telling moment, when Fauci tried to dismiss any criticism of him as invalid by declaring, “They’re really criticizing science, because I represent science. They’re dangerous.”

Cruz responded bluntly, blasting Fauci not only for being an "unelected technocrat who has distorted science and facts in order to exercise authoritarian control over millions of Americans" and for “ad hominem insults parroting Democratic talking points,” but also for his jaw-dropping hubris in declaring that any questioning of him is dangerous because he is the living embodiment of “science.” As I’ve had to remind people countless times over recent years, science is the process of asking questions and developing evidence that points to the truth, even if it disproves what everyone believed up to that point. This is why anyone who says, “The science is settled!” is actually admitting that they don’t know jack squat about what science is.

But now, we all know what science is. Dr. Fauci is “Science!” If he says it, it cannot be questioned! Too bad there’s no vaccine to prevent his head from swelling up bigger than a Macy’s Parade balloon. Frankly, I’m at the point where I’d put more faith in Mr. Wizard than in Dr. “Science.”

I’ll give the last word to Sen. Paul, who unlike Fauci is a doctor who’s actually treated patients:

"It’s astounding and alarming that a public health bureaucrat would even think to claim such a thing, especially one who has worked so hard to ignore the science of natural immunity."

Trigger warning for leftists: This commentary freely uses the terms “woke” and “woke-ism,” words you introduced yourselves as part of your attempt to control the language and, now that we use it pejoratively, criticize us for using. If this bothers you, so much the better. Curl up with some hot cocoa with mini-marshmallows and you’ll be fine.

…………..

The spirit of Christmas giving has been tarnished a bit this season with the revelation that the Salvation Army has published a new course of study for Salvationists called “Let’s Talk About Racism” --- gosh, we just never talk about racism any more, do we? --- that urges members to actively confront Christianity’s historic racism. National Review has details.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/salvation-army-peddles-critical-race-theory-urges-members-to-confront-their-racism/

On the positive side, it does say this activity is for Salvationists “who choose to participate.” And it does say there are “no correct answers,” just the will to have “an authentic conversation,” prayerfully, and open to the Holy Spirit. You’re even allowed to disagree. But there’s a glossary of terms so you use the correct language when you do.

The main course book has a more concise companion document, “The Study Guide On Racism”; both were created by the Salvation Army’s International Social Justice Commission. They talk about unity and Scripture but still manage to parrot Ibram X. Kendi’s “anti-racist” view that white people carry “unconscious bias.” It reads, “The subtle nature of racism is such that people who are not consciously racist easily function with the privileges, empowerment and benefits of dominant ethnicity, thus unintentionally perpetuating injustice.”

The “Let’s Talk About Racism” book is the more in-depth of the two, with that exhaustive glossary of terms. We all know it’s very important to use the right vocabulary, at least until “progressives” decide to change it. (For clarification on what “anti-racism” is about, I recommend checking out this glossary.) For example, “structural racism...is the overarching system of racial bias across institutions and society. These systems give privileges to White people resulting in disadvantages to [blacks].” “Racist policy” is “any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups.” That refers to the anti-racist concept of “equity,” meaning equal outcomes for all groups. The implication: If there is not an equal outcome among groups, the policy must be racist.

Also, it defines racism so that only white people can be racist. Racism is “the prejudiced treatment, stereotyping, or discrimination of POC [people of color] on the basis of race. It is the “system of social advantage” based on a hierarchy of skin color that it describes as lightest on top and working down through darker shades. “What has not changed is that racial groups are placed into a hierarchy,” it says, “with White or lighter-skinned people at the top.”

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cache.salvationarmy.org/e0c074e3-39db-4b09-a6ea-aa5bdb6ecaa6_Let%2527s%2520Talk%2520About...%2520Racism%2520COMPLETE%2520SET.pdf

You’d think the solution to this hierarchy would be to adopt what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said about judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. But no, that’s not it. Being colorblind “ignores the discrimination our Black and Brown brothers and sisters face and does not allow us to address racism properly.” Also, “Color-blindedness is often dangerous because while we may not claim to see color, we don’t address the race-based stereotypes of beauty, fame and intelligence which often support a supremacist ideology.” Sigh.

According to this study, there's no genetic basis for race at all. “Race is a social construct designed by humanity,” it says.

Here’s a link to the shorter, ten-page guide.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cache.salvationarmy.org/456ab604-ccb8-430e-af65-f75e04f223f5_Racism+Study+Guide.pdf

Much of what’s in this guide is very good. There’s a lot about unity. On the first page, called “The Salvation Army International Positional Statement on Racism,” it “denounces racism in all its forms.” But the SA apparently is not seeing what millions of concerned Christian parents do: that some of the “anti-racist” principles espoused here are, in themselves, racist.

The guide wisely says, “Racism is fundamentally incompatible with the Christian conviction that all people are made in the image of God and are equal in value. The Salvation Army believes that the world is enriched by a diversity of cultures and ethnicities.”

And the “Theological Framework” makes some valuable points about the spread of Christianity in the New Testament and the “global multi-ethnic reconciliation plan of God.” But, really, if it’s true that “in some mysterious way we shall retain our ethnic identities in heaven,” as this guidebook says, we hope the proponents of “anti-racism” will finally --- at long last --- look to their better angels and stop their eternal “harping” about race.

Oh, and the Salvation Army isn't the only charitable organization embracing Critical Race Theory. Goodwill industries is doing this as well.

Goodwill Embraces Critical Race Theory, Hires “Director of Anti-Racism, Equity, Diversity & Inclusion”

UPDATE: In breaking news, the Salvation Army has said they will "review" their racism guides. RedState.com has insightful commentary.

https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2021/11/28/in-a-victory-for-sanity-salvation-army-kinda-sorta-walks-back-woke-racism-guides-n483054

Steve Hilton, on his Sunday FOX News show “The Next Revolution,” had a segment about “Woke-ism” in general –- which, of course, includes Critical Race Theory –- now that seemingly everybody’s woke: the Democrat Party, the media, corporate America and even classroom teachers and local school boards. He explained that this authoritarian ideology dates from 1920s Germany –- The Frankfort School of Marxist philosophy –- as a strategy to get the oppressed proletariats to rise up and throw off their capitalist masters, as they had thus far failed to do. These Marxists decided that three things were in the way and had to be destroyed: faith, family and culture.

“Woke-ism” targets all three. In fact, Hilton’s guest Michael Shellenberger, in an article on Substack.com, argues that it, in itself, is a religion, as it's based on “a whole series of mythological and supernatural beliefs...” Sadly, it can take the place of actual religion, which is to say, the worship of God.

For example, climate change. Shellenberger argues the belief that the world is coming to an end is a religious idea. It’s not based in science, but in faith.

In his book SAN FRANSICKO, he writes about something that CRT proponents might want to examine: “the idea that people that are victims of ‘the system’ are sacred.” For example, there’s enormous concern for black Americans shot by police but relatively little for the 30-times-greater number of blacks who are killed by other black citizens in their neighborhoods.

I would add that the assertion in the Salvation Army guide that race has no genetic basis and is merely a social construct is another example. The idea that gender is not biological is yet another.

This type of thinking isn’t rational. So when we try to counter it with a rational argument, the conversation goes nowhere.

“These are supernatural views,” Shellenberger says, “that accompany the new morality of victim ideology.” But he thinks we’ll see woke-ism come to an end, because there are unfortunate consequences from this ideology, such as the dramatic rise in crime. He thinks “reality will intrude on woke religion,” and that most Americans “really just want to be equal citizens under the law.” But for now, the Religion Of Wokeness is making problems of racism and injustice MORE difficult to solve.

This is a fascinating read, offering a point of view on victimology that the Salvation Army should not leave out of its “authentic conversations,” but probably will.

https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/why-wokeism-is-a-religion