WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump’s legal battle with Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows fits a pattern that played through 2023. It’s complicated — and so in the weeds that it feeds the impression that state and local officials who pursue Trump have a partisan agenda and a tendency to overreach. This perception of rank partisanship makes Supreme Court intervention seem likely. Whatever the court rules‚ one side of the partisan divide will be angry. But at least the result won’t be the work of amateurs. As four different prosecutors charged Trump with 91 crimes‚ Trump’s polls numbers among GOP primary voters have skyrocketed. Et tu‚ Maine? (READ MORE from Debra Saunders: Will the Pendulum Shift Against Gascon in California?) On Dec. 28‚ Bellows struck Trump from Maine’s GOP primary ballot because‚ she wrote‚ he “engaged in insurrection as defined by Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment” and therefore does not qualify for the office of the presidency. Tuesday‚ Trump’s legal team fought back with an appeal‚ just days ahead of the Jan. 15 Iowa caucus. The brief argued that Bellows was “a biased decision maker who should have recused herself.” Trump‚ you see‚ only approves of bias that cuts his way. In December‚ the Colorado Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision to exclude Trump from Colorado’s primary ballot. Like Maine’s primary‚ Colorado’s election is held March 5. Both Maine and Colorado have kept Trump’s name on their states’ ballots so Trump can appeal. In terms of optics‚ however‚ the timing couldn’t be worse. A number of legal scholars have questioned Bellows’ maneuver‚ although this is a matter with so little precedent it’s difficult to figure what the court will decide. Bellows and all seven Colorado Supreme Court Justices are Democrats. In this era of hyper-partisanship‚ it’s a lot to ask possible Trump voters to trust actions that could have such an outsized role in a national election‚ based on a technicality that‚ for many‚ seemingly came out of nowhere. As University of Virginia law professor Saikrishna Prakash offered‚ “It’s not a good look.” Shouldn’t voters decide who wins the Maine and Colorado primaries? It’s one thing for the courts or an election official to block a candidate who doesn’t meet objective criteria — say‚ he is not registered to vote‚ or she is not at least 18 years old. It’s another to watch Bellows‚ who is not a lawyer‚ go where no court has gone before by relying on her idea of what qualifies as “insurrection” or “engaging” in an insurrection. (READ MORE: The Age-Old Age Issue for Biden and Trump) “I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment‚” she added. “I am also mindful‚ however‚ that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.” No criminal charges have been filed against Trump for insurrection in connection with the Jan. 6‚ 2021‚ attack on the Capitol‚ and hence there has been no trial — which could make Trump‚ Prakash quipped‚ a “non-adjudicated insurrectionist.” Savvy Democrats fear a backlash. California Gov. Gavin Newsom reacted to the Colorado court’s action with this statement: “There is no doubt that Donald Trump is a threat to our liberties and even to our democracy. But in California‚ we defeat candidates at the polls.” The Maine and Colorado actions appeared destined to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court‚ which has the authority and expertise to craft a ruling on this narrow issue. Sure enough‚ the Trump campaign on Wednesday filed an appeal with the high court against the Colorado decision. Whatever the court rules‚ one side of the partisan divide will be angry. But at least the result won’t be the work of amateurs. Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Partisan Efforts to Keep Trump off Ballots appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It didn’t take long for the world to respond — in a veritable firestorm — to the Vatican’s release of Fiducia supplicans just three weeks ago. Within days‚ images of priests donning vestments and blessing homosexual couples in front of altars in Germany and the U.S. were circulating the internet alongside declarations from bishops worldwide critiquing the document‚ prohibiting priests in their diocese from publicly imparting blessings to same-sex couples. The response has been so extreme that on Thursday the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith (DDF) published a press release signed by Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández‚ prefect of the DDF‚ to provide further clarification to the more confusing elements of Fiducia supplicans — even though the original document had indicated that no such clarification would be forthcoming. (RELATED from Aubrey Gulick: Vatican Offers Blessings to Same-Sex Couples. It’s Not What You Think.) Oddly enough‚ Fernández’s latest statement seemed to walk back‚ or at least downplay‚ some of the more controversial and significant elements of the document — including what he called a “non-ritualized” blessing for homosexual couples. At the same time‚ the press release fails to address some of the more practical questions being raised by Catholics around the world. Nothing Has Changed About Marriage Similar to the original declaration‚ Thursday’s DDF press release emphasized that nothing has changed about the Catholic Church’s teaching on the sacrament of marriage. Marriage is‚ and always has been‚ the permanent union between a man and a woman for the procreation of children and the “good of the spouses.” The fact that Fiducia supplicans allows clergy to give “spontaneous” and “non-liturgical” blessings to couples in unions not recognized by the Church does not‚ the release states‚ contradict that teaching. Fernández points to a passage in the declaration citing a 2021 Responsum‚ or an official Vatican statement‚ which says that “the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex.” (READ MORE: Who’s the Vandal?) As far as the Church is concerned‚ anything approximating gay marriage can never exist — and‚ as the press release clarifies‚ the blessings are just that: simple blessings that should take mere seconds. Fernández writes: “We are talking about something that lasts about 10 or 15 seconds. Does it make sense to deny these kinds of blessings to these two people who ask for them?” Fiducia supplicans is simply novel in that it places stronger distinction between “liturgical” and “non-liturgical” blessings. Bishops Should Make Their Own Pastoral Decisions Whether or not the DDF intended that the blessings be private‚ small‚ and spontaneous‚ the reality has been clergy like Fr. James Martin publicizing what they’re calling “historic” blessings of gay couples. Ultimately‚ the conclusion many Catholics and the wider public seem to have drawn is that something radical has shifted within the Catholic Church. As a result‚ bishops around the world have decided to speak out: The document‚ they argue‚ is dangerous because it’s confusing. Bishops in Kazakstan‚ Ukraine‚ Zambia‚ Malawi‚ Nigeria‚ Zimbabwe‚ and Ghana have all told priests within their dioceses not to bless same-sex couples. The Pillar indicates that the Church hierarchy initially wasn’t likely to tolerate any member of the clergy who refused to grant spontaneous blessings‚ but that seems to have changed. Fernández acknowledged that bishops have the power to discern in their diocese whether such blessings would be wise — and he admits that episcopal conferences can also advise that priests not administer the blessings for cultural or legal reasons. In many ways‚ that’s a huge concession‚ especially given the kinds of statements made by Church leaders like Archbishop Tomash Peta in Astana‚ Kazakhstan. Peta went so far as to say that “[t]o bless couples in an irregular situation and same-sex couples is a serious abuse of the most Holy Name of God‚ since this name is invoked upon an objectively sinful union of adultery or of homosexual activity.” Is a Couple a Union? At the root of the whole controversy — one at which Peta nods and Fernández subsequently addressed explicitly — is the meaning of the word “couple” as it’s used in Fiducia supplicans. The declaration wants to make a distinction between “couple‚” two individuals who perceive themselves in some kind of relationship‚ and “union‚” the relationship between the individuals. Unfortunately‚ that’s a distinction that is easily lost in translation and possibly represents the “desk-bound theology” Pope Francis warned Fernánedez about shortly after his appointment to the DDF. (READ MORE: Conservative Methodist Exit Nears End Point) Soon after the publication of Fiducia supplicans‚ Fr. Gerald Murray‚ a canon lawyer from New York and a frequent guest on EWTN‚ took issue with the document’s use of the word “couple” as confusing compared to the traditional use of the word in the Church. It’s usually used to describe “a man and a woman who are married‚ or are engaged to be married‚ or dating in view of possibly getting married.” The word “couple” typically indicates that the two individuals are seeking a legitimate union in the Church‚ or marriage. Murray further points out that “the use of the word couple is in fact a surrender to the heretical ideology that proclaims that homosexual couples are just as much couples are heterosexual couples.” Fernández’s response to this critique is that the document intends to make a distinction; therefore‚ a distinction exists. Ironically‚ even though Fiducia supplicans prohibits any formulaic blessing‚ Fernández seems to give an example of one — the cleric blesses both individuals separately with the sign of the cross after praying that God will “[f]ree them from everything that contradicts your Gospel and allow them to live according to your will.” A Source of Confusion The problem with Fiducia supplicans is that the actual meaning of the declaration as it was intended by the Vatican and the DDF conflicts with the practical interpretation and perception of it. In the context of the war on marriage taking place in the culture — both in the U.S. and across the world — the declaration has been a source of confusion. Fernández wants a pastoral‚ spontaneous‚ seconds-long blessing calling a couple to conversion (at least according to the press release)‚ but that’s not what has happened in the more liberal dioceses around the world. Unless the Vatican is willing to publicly (and loudly) correct and censor bishops and priests who take these “spontaneous” blessings too far‚ it’s unlikely that the confusion will clear. The post Vatican Scrambles to Clarify Same-Sex Blessings. Is It Enough? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Republicans are doing handsprings over Donald Trump’s polling lead versus President Biden while Democrats panic. But Trump’s advantage over Biden pales in comparison to Nikki Haley’s lead. Of course‚ Ron DeSantis was running strong a year ago only to slide. So‚ between Trump and Haley‚ who is best situated to face Biden? Trump: Good News/Bad News The good news for Trump is that he is ahead in much of the national polling and‚ more importantly‚ in the critical swing states of Georgia‚ Arizona‚ Wisconsin‚ and Pennsylvania. According to the RealClearPolitics average‚ Trump leads Biden by 2-points. He has held a lead since September. For the first time in years‚ Trump’s favorability is better than Biden’s. Of course‚ both are far under water‚ but a lead is a lead.Never before have the two frontrunners for their respective party nominations been so loathed. There have been fewer swing state polls‚ but most have good news for Trump. To win in 2024‚ Trump needs to hold on to all his 2020 states and pick up Georgia‚ Arizona‚ and either Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. None of his 2020 states look in danger. North Carolina was the closest win at just over 2 percent‚ and Trump is well ahead in all polling there. As for the states Trump needs to gain‚ both the Morning Consult and Siena polls have Trump leading in most swing states. Morning Consult has him up in all the key pick-up states plus Nevada and Michigan. (READ MORE from Keith Naughton: Vivek‚ China and Russia Are Not Breaking Up) The bad news for Trump is that his polling has tailed off. After leading Biden in 10-straight November polls‚ the national polls are mixed in December. His average lead has skidded from 3.5-points to 2.3-points at the time writing this piece. Trump remains massively unpopular with a RealClearPolitics average that has never been net positive. Winning for Trump involves Biden losing. Negativity by Independents and Democrats is locked in. The national mood does not have to improve much to put Trump down again. And then there is Trump himself. As I wrote in the last column‚ Trump is completely undisciplined and unpredictable — great for reality TV‚ but not so much for a Presidential candidate. Trump’s indiscipline cost him badly in 2020 and his latest rallies offer little hope for improvement. Seventy-seven-year-old Trump sounds better than 81-year-old Biden‚ but that’s not saying much. How Much of a Risk Is Haley? Is Haley a better bet? The numbers say yes. Due to her more recent rise as the leading GOP contender to Trump‚ there is less polling testing her. What exists shows better numbers than anyone including Trump‚ Biden‚ DeSantis‚ and the potential Biden substitutes. The RealClearPolitics average has Haley up nearly 5-points over Biden. But contained within that is a 17-point Wall Street Journal lead‚ 7-point HarrisX/The Messenger lead‚ and a 6-point Fox News lead. Haley outdoes Trump in a majority of polls‚ including a 13-point improvement in the Journal poll. Haley looks even stronger after digging into the numbers. As a newcomer‚ Haley has lower name recognition and “hard” name ID (Note: “hard” name ID means that a voter is familiar enough to form an opinion rather than simply recognizing the name). Fewer people will plunk for someone they don’t know. The key number is Biden’s percentage and thus how many people are open to Haley. (READ MORE: Just Give Me a Number: Trump v. Biden) In every poll‚ Biden’s percentage is the same or lower against her than against Trump. Fox News and HarrisX have Biden 3-points worse when facing Haley as opposed to Trump and the Journal has Biden dropping 9-points. And Haley may be underestimated. In Harris CAPS‚ Haley trails Biden by 2-points while Trump leads by 5-points. But those numbers are deceptive. Looking at the crosstabs reveals that Haley only scores a 68 percent to 9 percent lead among Republicans (23 percent undecided) — against Trump leading 87 percent to 7 percent. Given GOP antipathy to Biden‚ does anyone really think Haley would only get two-thirds of Republicans? Hardly. Yes‚ some die-hard Trump voters might prefer sulking in their basements rather than vote for Haley‚ but that will likely be a small‚ cranky minority. If Haley polls just 85 percent of the GOP electorate‚ her percentage against Biden rises to 45 percent. In addition‚ Haley is leading Independents just 39 percent to 35 percent (Trump leads 45 percent to 38 percent). Again‚ we see Biden’s total drops moving from Trump to Haley. Haley also peels off 3-points more Democrats than Trump. Haley’s favorable numbers also look stronger than Trump or Biden. In the Journal poll‚ Haley is a net positive 5-points while Trump is net negative 15-points and Biden a disastrous net negative 25-points. Harris CAPS looks better for Trump with a 1-point net positive against Biden’s 10-point net negative. But Haley looks even better at 10-points positive — one of the few American politicians in positive territory.Haley has hit on a theme that does resonate with voters — end the chaos. All that said‚ Haley represents a similar risk as Ron DeSantis‚ inexperience on the national stage. Haley’s recent dustup over the causes over the Civil War (yes‚ it was slavery‚ not states’ rights) is a case in point. Her fumbled answer is typical of newcomers to the kind of scrutiny you get as a serious Presidential candidate. The issue for Haley is whether she can get up to speed and perform in the clutch. It is worth noting that these pop-quiz questions are ridiculous and serve only to impress the constantly hyperventilating media and small-minded fools. The Presidency is not a closed-book test. In the end‚ I doubt her Civil War gaffe will hurt much with the general public — who are (sensibly) much more concerned about inflation‚ insecure borders‚ crime and fentanyl. Questions about the Civil War and naming provinces in Ukraine should be left to Jeopardy contestants. These kinds of gotcha gaffes are mostly forgotten by the time the general election rolls around. The real risk is whether Haley (or any rookie) makes a serious mistake or chokes in the clutch after Labor Day. Given Joe Biden’s decades of trouble in that department and Trump’s own indiscipline‚ it’s a good bet both of these old men would have at least as many screwups as the rookie Haley. Give the People What They Want Haley is an unknown‚ inexperienced‚ and not without risk‚ but on balance she looks like a risk worth taking in the current political environment. Never before have the two frontrunners for their respective party nominations been so loathed. Solid majorities are against nominating Trump or Biden. And it is not just policy disagreements fueling this discontent. Much of the public doubts the very fitness to perform the duties of the office. With Trump‚ Republicans certainly have hope that his Administration was decent enough that voters will reject the troubled Biden Administration while swallowing Trump’s own problems. But there is little evidence Trump can make inroads into women (particularly suburban women) and younger voters — the most problematic demographics for Republicans. Naming a woman to the ticket would be thin gruel‚ at best. Opinions are so hardened about Trump that swing voters are left with a simple‚ “who do you detest less?” choice. That is a risky environment when your opponent and his party control the levers of government. The emptying of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2022 gave a glimpse to the lengths the Biden Administration will go to improve their election chances. Democrats have already begun a campaign to lower interest rates. Haley has hit on a theme that does resonate with voters — end the chaos. At 51-years-old‚ she presents a much stronger contrast to the octogenarian Biden than the septuagenarian Trump does. Haley presents the possibility of recovering suburban women. As for younger voters‚ they are not likely to vote for a Republican‚ but they might just sit at home without the specter of Trump scaring them to the polls For sure‚ the Democratic attack-machine will turn up the smear campaign. They certainly would rather face Trump than Haley. But a public weary of politics‚ distrustful of the media‚ and government institutions is not nearly as likely to swallow their propaganda in full. For the Independents/swing voters who will decide the election‚ the brand-new car Haley looks a lot better than the current alternative: Trump and Biden‚ two rusty Edsels on a collision course. The post Who Is Better Placed to Beat Biden? Trump or Haley? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

One of the things that Mosab Hassan Yousef‚ son of Hamas co-founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef‚ has publicly emphasized is the cruelty that he experienced during his childhood. In his early years while being indoctrinated to hate Israel and Jews generally he was also physically brutalized and abused. Since defecting to Israel in 1997 Mosab has for some time been advocating for the complete and utter destruction of Hamas and yet he continues to profess love for his father. This may seem paradoxical but it isn’t. Mosab is that rare individual who has been able to see through his parents‚ and in his case see all the way into the darkness of his father’s heart‚ and yet continues to love him. In most cases the love of a child for his or her parents is unshakable regardless of how he or she was treated when growing up. In addition to that offspring never stop seeking their parents praise and approval. This dynamic between parent and child has been playing out in the war between Israel and Hamas. After he himself became a parent George Orwell wrote that it is not enough to love our children‚ we must love them intelligently. With modern technology‚ it is easy for soldiers in the field as well as Hamas terrorists to communicate in real time with their parents. During the Hamas pogrom the most infamously iconic communication between a terrorist and his parents was that of the son who called home on October 7 to brag that he had just killed ten Israelis with his bare hands — presumably they were all defenseless‚ no armed Israeli soldiers. (READ MORE from Max Dublin: Throw That York Professor in Jail‚ Canada. Her Vandalism Was Anti-Semitic.) Communications with their parents of young Israeli soldiers who are anticipating death have a starkly different tone. They express gratitude for all the good that their parents have done for them‚ for the goodness that has befallen them during their lives in the form of family‚ friendships and experiences‚ and gratefulness that they have been privileged to die in defense of the country which they love. That last sentiment can be found in missives from young Israeli soldiers going all the way back to the Israeli War of Independence. It is said that children become terrorists because their fathers or brothers were killed by the IDF or other Israeli security forces. This is a cliché based on propaganda. It is the sort of half-truth that is always seductive to the politically naïve because of its emotional appeal and because it disregards the forest for the trees. Of course‚ there will be some children who become terrorists because their fathers were killed while committing acts of terror but that’s not the big picture .  It is a commonplace that all children in both Gaza as well as Judea and Samaria‚ are indoctrinated at the earliest of ages to hate not only Israelis but all Jews and to become terrorists in order to kill them. It must be remembered that the Hamas terrorists number only in the thousands while their supporters and potential terrorists who wildly cheer them on not only in the Arab world but also in the West number in the millions.  When Hamas sister terrorist organization ISIS was at its peak recruits flooded to join them from all over the world‚ including the west. Then again if terrorism is all about revenge why do they hate all Jews and not just Israelis? And why are Jewish students being harassed and intimidated on campuses all over North America? Indoctrination is not the same as socialization. If they are to get on in the world all children need to be socialized as a part of their upbring. In some ways socialization is restraining. It is natural for parents to want to pass their culture and values on to their children. But ideally it is liberating. We want to teach our children what the world is like‚ how to get around in it and what they have to do to flourish. If this is done well our children may very well strike out in a different direction from our own. Indoctrination is something entirely different. In her landmark book‚ Origins of Totalitarianism Hannah Arendt remarked that the first order of business for totalitarian regimes is to get their hands on the children. The purpose of indoctrination is to severely circumscribe the child’s scope for thinking and acting‚ effectively making him or her a tool to narrowly serve the elder’s purposes. In this sense indoctrinators‚ be they parents or teachers‚ sacrifice rather than liberate children. The indoctrinated become the useful idiots that Lenin bragged about. They become the modern version of Hitler Youth or Soviet era Young Pioneers. They are the ones joining pro-Hamas demonstrations all over the world. Today‚ indoctrinating children to become terrorists is not the only radical form of weaponizing children. The most extreme form of indoctrination in the West is to encourage a child at an early impressionable age to become confused about his or her sexual identity and then to encourage that child to undergo sex-transitioning through drugs and surgery. Children such as Mosab Hassan Yousef who have been indoctrinated into a radical religious and political ideology‚ can ultimately reject it as he did. This might happen by a sudden epiphany or through the slower process of learning the realities of life. But the process of sex-transitioning is not merely of the heart and soul of the child but of his or her body. As such it is largely irreversible. (READ MORE: In Their Words: The Families of Hamas’ Victims) Raising children to become terrorists or encouraging them to sexually transition by way of drugs and surgery are the cruelest forms of child abuse imaginable. In fact it would be more apt to call it a modern form of child sacrifice. Only at the cost of forsaking our humanity do we accept the notion that this is done out of love. It stems from idolatry‚ the worship of false gods‚ which is to say‚ delusions. After all‚ what is substantially the difference between the parent who encourages a child to become a terrorist versus one who encourages a child to undergo sexual transitioning? Good intentions do not excuse such poisonous parenting. A childhood fueled by hatred is not a happy one any more than one immersed in confusion and pain. And statistically both types of children are heading for early death. If the terrorist is lucky‚ he or she will manage to take one or more innocent civilians with him or her. There will be no such satisfaction or consolation for the sexually transitioned person. After he himself became a parent George Orwell wrote that it is not enough to love our children‚ we must love them intelligently‚ which means that we must give forethought as well as we can to the consequences of the path upon which we set them when they are very young and impressionable and not only willing but eager to follow our guidance. In this respect neither ignorance nor good intentions is an acceptable excuse. The evidence is overwhelming where these paths lead to. And that is why the rest of humanity that eschews such baleful‚ poisonous child-rearing are entitled to ask the parents and educators who choose to encourage children to follow these paths‚ do you really love these children whose lives you are sacrificing or do you love yourselves and your delusions rather more? READ MORE from Max Dublin: A Goldfish in Time of War Poster Wars   The post Moloch Is Back: Sacrificing Our Children appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

If the polls are to be believed‚ biotech entrepreneur and Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy won’t be President come November. But the 38-year-old fast-talker is providing Americans with a masterclass in how to defeat woke talking heads — and how to have fun doing it.“You want to know the best way to end discrimination on the basis of race? Stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Two of his encounters with legacy press botherers from just the last week spring readily to mind. In a short video that collected millions of impressions across social media on Tuesday‚ a Washington Post reporter can be heard off-screen unironically demanding Ramaswamy — a man of Indian extraction — to condemn white supremacy. (READ MORE: The Washington Post and a ‘Trump Dictatorship’) “I’m not going to recite some catechism for you‚” he clapped back. “I’m against vicious racial discrimination in this country. I’m not pledging allegiance to your new religion of modern wokeism.” Concerned the reporter may have mistaken his reply for good manners‚ Ramaswamy drilled the point home: “I’m not going to bend the knee to your religion. Sorry‚ I’m not asking you to bend your knee to mine‚ and I’m not going to bend the knee to yours.” Ramaswamy’s secret sauce was staying a move ahead of his ideological opponent‚ and making sure she knew it. “I know you’re going to go and print the headline tomorrow‚” he teased. “I already know this. We know how your game works. Vivek Ramaswamy Refuses to Condemn White Supremacy.” Unable to restrain herself‚ and evidently deprived of column space from her newsroom editor‚ later that day Meryl Kornfield emerged from the shadows on X (formerly Twitter) to identify herself as the hapless wonder out of view in the exchange — and‚ of course‚ to fulfil Vivek’s prophecy by whining about his failure to “condemn white supremacy.” Ramaswamy: 1‚ Woke‚ Inc: 0. Perhaps the highlight of the whole interchange‚ however‚ was the positive vision Ramaswamy cast for a revived America‚ when he explained: You want to know the best way to end discrimination on the basis of race? Stop discriminating on the basis of race. Do that and we’re going to move the country forward‚ and I don’t care whether you’re black‚ white‚ brown or anything in between‚ that’s how we’re going to unite this country. The second viral moment took place the next day‚ when NBC News Correspondent Dasha Burns gave Ramaswamy a follow-up interrogation about the white supremacy teacup storm. Ramaswamy wasn’t having it. After repeating his denunciation of racial animus “no matter how it happens‚” he turned the question back on Burns‚ taking a torch to the wokearazzi’s motte-and-bailey definition of white supremacy. (READ MORE: How to Fight Wokeness) “Do you believe punctuality is a vestige of white supremacy‚ Dasha?” he asked. “Or the written word? Or the nuclear family?” (He was referencing the laughable whiteness chart once displayed in the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington D.C.‚ which infamously listed hard work‚ the Scientific method‚ respect for authority‚ delayed gratification‚ and a host of other universal virtues as lamentable aspects of “white culture”). Then‚ when Burns quoted Anti-Defamation League statistics alleging a recent rise in “white supremacist propaganda‚” Ramaswamy scoffed‚ “The ADL‚ I don’t think‚ is a particularly credible source.” “So who are we supposed to look to when we’re talking about this?” Burns pleaded‚ airing her left-wing laundry for all to see. Ramaswamy: 2‚ Woke‚ Inc: 0. Ramaswamy’s great skill was in remaining rational and calm‚ even as his inquisitor worked herself into fits of fury. At one point‚ he was forced to cut through her unrelenting interruptions. But his persistence was worth it: “I’ve never denied that racism is a problem … Racism has been a major problem for most of our national history. But we’re getting close to the promised land that Martin Luther King envisioned. We’re as darn close to it as we ever have been.” In Ramaswamy’s sundry media encounters‚ it is evident that he comes prepared‚ while Woke‚ Inc. — to quote a former president — is just not sending their best. Even if Vivek’s campaign stops short of the White House‚ even if it’s mostly about enhanced brand recognition‚ I’m here for it. And I hope the rest of the country is‚ too. The post Ramaswamy is Absolutely Schooling Woke‚ Inc. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Panera rakes in dough selling not only bread but tomato soup. A copycat version of the latter can be on the money‚ too‚ with the right spices.

from 21st Century Wire: The U.S. media is buzzing following the release of several hundred pages of unsealed documents relating to a previous lawsuit brought against VIP sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. The names include dozens of powerful men connected to Epstein‚ including Bill Clinton‚ Ehud Barak‚ Prince Andrew‚ Alan Dershowitz‚ Stephen Hawkings‚ David Copperfield‚ and […]

by Donald Jeffries‚ “I Protest”: Does anyone believe in it? The Founding Fathers made the Constitution palatable by including a Bill of Rights. Without the First 10 Amendments‚ the Constitution is just what its early critics‚ including Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson‚ said it was; a dangerous consolidation of power far less representative of liberty […]

from FM8:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Jim Quinn‚ The Burning Platform: The chart below tells a story‚ and it isn’t the story of desperate refugees fleeing their homelands due to religious persecution‚ violent upheaval‚ starvation‚ or any other made up reason by the captured propaganda media selling a false narrative to the public. Bleeding heart liberals pretend letting in millions […]