Which fairly screams the question how, in a federal bureaucracy largely composed of and almost exclusively controlled by Progressives for decades, systemic racism could pose a problem?
It also leaves one wondering why, if Biden’s pen is so powerful, he doesn’t just sign away climate change? Though frankly we’d prefer he John Hancock fraud, waste and abuse, non-essential government employees, the national debt and crooked politicians onto the ash heap of American history. Or stupidity for that matter.
Were rooting out stupidity an option, Joe could start with Kommielaa, who in her own words expresses the belief even access to disaster relief should be predicated upon race:
East Palestine is 95% white
FEMA is refusing to help them
Though it does explain the otherwise inexplicable refusal of FEMA to render aid following a catastrophe its own mission statement clearly defines as within its purview:
Meanwhile, as detailed in our Quote of the Day at the top of the page, after viewing the movie Till , 46* tried to further polarize the country by claiming, absent any data or documentation whatsoever, lynchings are still a part of American life. To hear Biden tell it, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Orval Faubus, Bull Connor, George Wallace and Lester Maddox have sprung to life from the pages of history…Dimocratic Party history…and are roaming the countryside looking to lynch unwary Blacks.
This is akin to watching 42, the story of Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in professional baseball, then alleging, without a shred of evidence, there remain those who believe Blacks shouldn’t play in the majors. Note we didn’t use the example of Schindler’s List, as there’s no shortage of people who, given the means and opportunity…
…wouldn’t hesitate to gas every Jew on the planet, though AOC would likely confuse Zyklon B with a vitamin supplement. And it can only be coincidence the present-day anti-Semites above and the racist lynchers of the past share an affiliation with the same political party.
But since Biden brought up the subject, let’s examine the facts surrounding what has become known as the…
“In 1981, 19-year-old Michael Donald’s body was found dangling from a tree in Mobile. The murder, carried out by members of the Ku Klux Klan, is sometimes referred to as the last documented lynching in America.
…On March 21, 1981, Donald was killed by Henry Hays and James Knowles, young KKK members incensed over the failure of a Mobile jury to convict an African American man charged with the murder of a white policeman. Hays’ father, Bennie Jack Hays, second-highest-ranking official in the United Klans in Alabama at the time, was furious over the failed conviction and told the men “If a black man can get away with killing a white man, we ought to be able to get away with killing a black man.”
Spurred those words, Hays and Knowles kidnapped Donald, beat him, slit his throat and then hung his body from a tree in a Mobile neighborhood.
The aftermath of Donald’s death is the key difference from the crimes documented in the lynching memorial.Racial lynchings are defined as unprosecuted murders that occurred at the hands of mobs or unidentified people. In the case of Donald’s death, the perpetrators were prosecuted, and the convictions made history.
…Knowles later confessed to the murder, pleaded guilty and testified against Hays. Hays was sentenced to death and his 1997 execution in Alabama’s electric chair was the first in the state since 1913 for a white-on-black crime. A third defendant, Benjamin Franklin Cox Jr., of Mobile, was convicted of being an accomplice and sentenced to life in prison. The elder Hays, charged as an accomplice for allegedly ordering the lynching, had his first trial end in a mistrial, and died before a second trial started.
The criminal convictions weren’t the end, however. With the help of Morris Dees, co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Mrs. Donald filed a civil suit against the local KKK and the United Klans of America. An all-white Mobile jury awarded her $7 million, forcing the bankrupted KKK to turn over the deed to its $225,000 national headquarters in Tuscaloosa. “The verdict marked the end of the United Klans, the same group that had beaten the Freedom Riders in 1961, murdered civil rights worker Viola Liuzzo in 1965, and bombed Birmingham’s 16th Street Baptist Church in 1963,” the Southern Poverty Law Center said in its description of the historic case…”
Not exactly Mississippi Burning and the case of the three murdered civil rights workers, eh Joe?!?
Here’s the juice: In fabricating the presence of an evil which hasn’t raised its ugly head in some 42 years, Biden obscures the greatest threat to contemporary young Black males in American: OTHER young Black American males. Still, as the truly senseless murder of a young mother after a verbal altercation in the parking lot of a South Carolina Kroger confirms, you’d be well-advised to watch your six around young Americans of every color, sex and size.
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, Andy McCarthy echoes our earlier assertion as he explains why…
“You probably don’t want to hear this again, but at this stage, the only thing that might — might — turn the tide and establish a semblance of security at the southern border would be for House Republicans to impeach President Biden for first causing the border crisis and then, over the course of the next two years, willfully exacerbating it, not out of incompetence but because it’s what his radical base demands.
The Supreme Court was never going to relieve congressional Republicans of their burden. The Court is powerless to secure the border. Its institutional legitimacy and, hence, its power lie in rendering sound judgment rooted in law and fact. Republican attorneys general were pleading with the justices to sustain a lie, namely, that we are still in the throes of a pandemic calling for extraordinary measures that include turning aliens away based on the Title 42 exclusion — an infectious-disease pretext, not a border-security policy.
…Mark Krikorian of the invaluable Center for Immigration Studies explains in the New York Postthat the lifetime cost to American taxpayers of each illegal alien is about $80,000.By conservative estimates, the 3 million or so illegal aliens Biden has lawlessly paroled into the country (out of the additional millions who have been enticed by his non-enforcement policies to seek entry, exhausting security resources) will cost about $200 billion. Even if the siege stopped today, that would not be sustainable. And it is most definitely not stopping today; if anything, it will only get worse once Title 42 ends in the coming weeks. The resulting surge could multiply the influx by a factor of two or three. How much more do you suppose a country $31 trillion in debt (and on a trajectory to reach $51 trillion in debt over the next decade) can handle?
Congressional Republicans seem to grasp that, at this point, the only solution is impeachment, the position advocated by three former government officials and top Heritage Foundation analysts — Hans von Spakovsky, Lora Ries, and Steven G. Bradbury — in a recent Fox News op-ed. But my friends are aiming too low — specifically, at Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of Homeland Security (as applied to him, an Orwellian title if ever there was one).
Mayorkas may be the architect of a policy that stands federal immigration law on its head, transmogrifying it from a statutory presumption that illegal aliens must be detained in order to discourage more unlawful immigration into an administration policy that illegal aliens must be invited to enter our country at liberty, then live and work here indefinitely while they press their claims for asylum, no matter how baseless. Nevertheless, this is notMayorkas’s policy; it is Biden’s policy. The Framers’ objective in vesting all executive power in a single constitutional officer, the president, was to ensure that the elected president be held accountable — i.e., to make certain that the president, not the unelected minions who carry out his commands, would be answerable for critical policy decisions.
To repeat, yes, we know, there are not sufficient votes in the Democrat-controlled Senate — i.e., the required two-thirds’ supermajority — to remove Biden from office. But neither are there enough votes to remove Mayorkas, who is facing impeachment anyway. Nor for that matter, are there enough votes to remove Vice President Kamala Harris, whose portfolio ostensibly gives her control over border policy. But there were not enough votes for the removal of then-president Trump over the Ukraine kerfuffle in 2019, either — and that didn’t stop House Democrats from doing what they claimed was their duty, nor all Senate Democrats and one Republican from voting to convict him.
The Senate votes are not what matter right now. Biden does not want to bear the historic stigma of House impeachment articles, especially as he gears up to seek reelection. Moreover, an impeachment over the border catastrophe would not remotely resemble the aforementioned impeachment of Trump a year before the 2020 election. The Ukraine episode was a trifle, the impeachment was driven by nothing more than partisanship, and the whole exercise was so flippant that it was barely mentioned in the ensuing presidential campaign — even at the Democratic convention. In stark contrast, the destruction of the southern border is an existential national crisis that is already inflicting harm on millions of Americans.
That is the last thing to which Biden and Democrats want attention called. Border security is an 80–20 issue, favoring not so much Republicans (who are far from uniformly solid on upholding immigration law) as individual candidates and officials who demonstrate seriousness about it, most of whom happen to be Republicans. That’s why even Adams and his Windy City counterpart, the deeply unpopular Lori Lightfoot, have found religion on it of late.
Impeachment would grip the nation’s attention. House impeachment proceedings would rivet Americans nationwide to the shocking scenes at the border, to the disaster Biden’s policies have wrought for affected communities, and to an administration and its radical cheerleaders that urge still more millions of illegal aliens to invade, lawlessly “paroling” them into the country, secretly flying and bussing them in the dead of night to loose them on communities unprepared for the burdens — even as Democrats complain about red-state governors who transport aliens to the Democratic havens that exhorted the law-breakers to come . . . and now find themselves deluged.
Under Senate rules, if the House impeaches the president, the Senate must put all other government business aside and conduct an impeachment trial. So a trial would be the only game in town, guaranteeing weeks of coverage of Biden’s self-created border crisis. The destructiveness of administration policy, the president’s malevolent refusal to execute the laws faithfully, and congressional Democrats’ futile efforts to rationalize the sabotage would be on display for all to see.
You say the Senate would never convict Biden? I say: Who cares? The impeachment trial would frame the 2024 election, leaving voters to deal with Biden and Democrats.
The Framers believed impeachment was indispensable to the proper functioning of our government, because the credible threat of impeachment would induce presidents to honor their oaths — to enforce the laws, to safeguard the homeland from alien threats, and to elevate American interests over foreign interests. Joe Biden is not honoring his oath, and with Congress in a stalemate and state sovereignty nullified, only he can solve the border crisis he’s created. It’s that simple: Either Republicans use the only tool available to them to force Biden’s hand, or they are aiders and abettors.There is no middle ground.“
We’re with Andy…
It’s the California McCarthy, the one who holds the Speaker’s gavel we fear lacks the cajones to follow such sage advice.
Next, writing at NRO, Wilfred Reilly identifies the problem common to any proposed Progressive position or policy, as he addresses…
“Another day, another mass shooting. Except — while we all mourn together for the victims of the very real Michigan State University tragedy — not exactly.
Immediately after the horrific February 13 attack on MSU’s East Lansing campus by armed lunatic Anthony McRae, who killed three students and critically wounded five others, the internet began to buzz with comments like this one, a tweet from political writer Jeff Tiedrich that went viral: “holy f***ing sh**, 67 mass shootings in the first 45 days of 2023! America’s door problem [a reference to the jammed door that contributed to the Uvalde, Texas, tragedy] is out of control.” Far more serious people — Tiedrich runs a blog called the “Smirking Chimp” — have made virtually identical comments in the wake of this disaster and others. Robert Reich, secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, posted the following:
Responses to that one, which as of Wednesday had drawn more than 70,000 likes, reached into the thousands and often approached the hysterical, with some quite prominent figures blaming the death toll on everything from inner-city “Black” and “Democratic” crime to alleged GOP softness regarding the purchase of AR-15s and other rifles. However, before we debate any of that — and, as a gun-totin’ right-leaning black guy, I am certainly willing to do so — it is critical to point out a foundational problem with Reich’s data. There were not 647 mass shootings in 2022.
For that matter, there were not 247 mass shootings in 2014. In fact, there have not been 647 — or 247 — recorded mass shootings in the United States of America across the entire modern era. After every legitimately deplorable gunfire incident, the contemporary political Left uses exaggerated figures arrived at through statistical trickery to terrify the populace.
For basically all of modern history, a mass shooting has had a rather simple definition: a gunman killing multiple people in a public place. Mother Jones, hardly a conservative outlet, describes the standard — per the FBI and most top criminologists — as “a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed.” President Barack Obama revised the standard somewhat in 2013, when he ordered a government investigation into U.S. mass shootings, lowering the cutoff to “three or more victims killed” and causing a slight uptick in recorded incidents. However, both definitions “required death” and were very specifically structured to exclude domestic murder/suicides, gang and Mafia hits, and the like, to focus on a single terrifying phenomenon.
Even by the Obama-era definition, there have been exactly 140 true American mass shootings since the 1980s, according to a comprehensive spreadsheet on the Jones website. So, where does the “647 just last year” figure come from? Essentially, someone made it up…”
Sorta like the claim homosexuals comprise 10% of the population…or transgenders commit suicide at a much greater rate than society at large because they’re denied “life-saving surgery” rather than simply succumbing to their mental illness…or the 97% of “scientists” who supposedly slavishly worship at the altar of anthropogenic global warming.
And as this video from ReasonTV shows, every President from Slick Willy to 46* has lied to you with a straight face about the effectiveness of gun restrictions. And that includes The Donald.
“A Republican state senator in Arkansas asked a transgender pharmacist if she has a penis as she testified against a proposed law to ban transition drugs and procedures for minors. Arkansas state Sen. Matt McKee directed the question at Little Rock pharmacist Gwendolyn Herzig during a Judiciary Committee earlier this week, drawing gasps and jeers from some in attendance. “You said that you’re a trans woman?” McKee asked Herzig. “Do you have a penis?” McKee’s question riled some attendees, including one person who yelled out in the middle of the hearing, “Disgraceful.”
Herzig replied that McKee’s question was “horrible.” “I don’t know what my rights are, but that question was highly inappropriate,” said Herzig, who has a doctorate in pharmacy. “I’m a health care professional, a doctor,” Herzig continued. “Please treat me as such. Next question, please.”
Speaking later to NBC News, Herzig said she was expecting any other question “than what I got.” “It was probably the most publicly humiliating thing I’ve ever gone through,” she told the outlet…”
Five thoughts immediately come to mind: (i) Yeah, Gwen: You’re a “doctor”…just like “Doctor Jill”. You’re a PharmD: You have a doctorate, but you’re NOT a doctor!; (ii) That a man who dresses as a woman finds a question regarding his possession of a penis the most publicly humiliating thing he’s ever gone through bespeaks the severity of Herzig’s mental illness; (iii) Funny, as the Daily Mail reports, Herzig was only too happy to discuss his penis in an interview only a few days before choosing to appear at a public hearing; (iv) We emphasized “choosing” because no one forced him to publicly advocate against legislation protecting children from genital mutilation; and, (v) Frankly, we don’t know who’s sicker: Herzig, or his wife…
…whose willing to subject her children to her husband’s psychosis.
A neighbor noted, “He puts the breasts on to teach, occasionally when he goes for a walk or when the cops visit.” Despite this revelation, parents shouldn’t hold their breath waiting for school authorities to admit to the scam, as they’ve been steadfast in their defense of “a transitioning teacher who needs to express themselves as a woman.” Yeah, he’s transitioning alright…just not on his own time.
Then there’s another septet of special selections sure to pique the interest of inquiring Conservative minds:
(2). This item from NPR demonstrates why almost anything you hear or read today requires confirmation…including articles from NPR!
(3). In another patented Progressive end-around the law, the DoD has instituted new policies which, while not technically using tax dollars for abortion, mean taxpayers will be funding time off and travel to obtain abortions. What a despicable waste of ever-diminishing defense dollars.
(4). We find it heartening a descendant of T.C. Williams, a…GASP!!!…slave owner and namesake of the University of Richmond law school, is demanding a $3.6 billion refund of his family’s contributions after “woke” activists stripped his forebearer’s name from school.
“…Earlier this week, the Nepalese Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission released its preliminary report on the Yeti Airlines flight that crashed into a river gorge in Pokhara. The plane was carrying 72 passengers in total, including the crew, all of whom perished. The report indicates that on descent one of the pilots selected the wrong lever, feathering the propellors instead of lowering the flaps.
Two captains were operating the plane. One of the captains was in the process of obtaining aerodrome familiarization for operating into Pokhara and the other captain was the instructor pilot. The captain being familiarized, who was occupying the left hand seat, was the Pilot Flying (PF) and the instructor on the right was the Pilot Monitoring (PM). “At 10:56:27, the PF (Pilot Flying) disengaged the Autopilot System (AP) at an altitude of 721 feet Above Ground Level (AGL). The PF then called for ‘FLAPS 30’ at 10:56:32, and the PM (Pilot Monitoring) replied, ‘Flaps 30 and descending,’” the report said.
“The flight data recorder (FDR) data did not record any flap surface movement at that time. Instead, the propeller rotation speed (Np) of both engines decreased simultaneously to less than 25% and the torque (Tq) started decreasing to 0%, which is consistent with both propellers going into the feathered condition. When propellers are in feather, they are not producing thrust.”
According to AirlineRatings, the lever that operates the flaps and the one that feathers the propellers are adjacent to each other on the ATR model plane that crashed…”
Yes, but the flap handle is of a different shape than the prop controls, and is a single lever rather than double. Assuming the preliminary report is accurate, which, based on the FDR data it is, this was the aviation equivalent of Kim Potter accidentally shooting a perp in the act of resisting arrest.
It’s been said few mistakes can never be corrected: This, unfortunately, was one of the few.
Magoo
Video of the Day
John Stossel highlights the latest example of egregious government overreach.
Tales of The Darkside
Joe Concha correctly classifies Mayor Pete the most incompetent cabinet secretary in American history.
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.