Displaying posts categorized under

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION

50 STATES AND DC, CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT

A Battle for Cultural Survival In the face of the Left’s hyper-aggressive transgender ideology, conservatives must reassert the legitimacy of bourgeois norms. Heather Mac Donald

https://www.city-journal.org/article/a-battle-for-cultural-survival

Anyone with even a glancing exposure to the media over the past several years knows that conservatives are waging a “culture war.” Republicans have been advocating and all too often implementing hurtful changes to settled social arrangements, proclaim the New York Times, Washington Post, and other outlets on a near-daily basis. This culture war arises primarily out of “hate and fear,” according to President Joe Biden, but pecuniary motives play a role as well, as GOP operatives try to stir up the base and shake it down for donations.

Coverage of this alleged culture war demonstrates the Left’s most important power: the ability to set the default. The Left engineers disruption after disruption to longstanding social practices, each more sweeping than the last. And as soon as those changes are in place, they become the norm, treated as having existed from time immemorial. Questioning that new default is painted as churlish and radical. The Left never has to meet a burden of proof to implement its changes; the burden falls exclusively on conservatives seeking to restore a once-uncontroversial tradition. Though conservatives are portrayed as the aggressors, in reality they are always on the defensive, fighting a rearguard action.

Default-setting shows up across the cultural landscape, whether regarding the requirement that college faculty swear fealty to racial preferences (a.k.a. “diversity”) as a condition of employment, or regarding the introduction of politicized concepts such as “intersectionality” and white privilege into the K-12 curriculum. Its most stunning instantiation, however, is transgender ideology.

The trans revolution has unfolded in a micro percentage of a nanosecond in the context of millions of years of human development. It has introduced ideas that would have been incomprehensible to every previous generation of humanity, whether they found themselves on the African, Asian, American, or European continents. As recently as the 1980s, “trans issues” had not surfaced even among gender theorists themselves, according to the field’s progenitor, Judith Butler.

But now that academic gender theorists have managed to infiltrate their startling creed into virtually every mainstream American institution, contradicting millennia of human experience and centuries of scientific confirmation of that experience, any dissent from the new default is portrayed as a war against the natural order of things, branding the dissenters as hateful and even homicidal.

Yes, Virginia, America Really Is a Good Country By Charles Lipson –

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/07/04/yes_virginia_america_really_is_a_good_country_

Every year at Christmastime, news sites reprint the touching letter from a little girl, Virginia O’Hanlon, asking about Santa Claus and the columnist’s reassuring, fatherly response. He doesn’t smack her with the hard fact that Santa is a fictional creation. He points toward a deeper truth about our shared celebrations and the web of fond memories that bind together generations of children, parents, aunts and uncles, and grandparents.

As we celebrate this Independence Day, we desperately need to remember our own shared beliefs and ideals in hopes they will bind together our divided nation. Our shared ideals and common identity as Americans should bind us. Today, alas, they are too frayed to do the job. Some think it is a fraud even to stress those commonalities.

It is not. Our shared aspirations and common identity are our country’s best hope for the future. And our history should be a source of hope, as well as somber reflection.

Those ideals are not “our country, right or wrong.” They are not “our country with an airbrushed past.” Neither are they “our country as a relentless record of evil and oppression, at home and abroad.”

Rather, they are “our country as it strives to become better, to celebrate its accomplishments, to overcome its historical wrongs, to heal its lasting wounds and, ultimately, to achieve the ideals set before us in the Declaration of Independence and made concrete in our Constitution.”

The Bidens’ Existential Threats to the American Rule of Law By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2023/07/03/the-bidens-existential-threats-to-the-american-rule-of-law/

President Joe Biden, the Biden grifting conglomerate, the Department of Justice, and the FBI under its fourth consecutive weaponized director, are in danger of subverting the American system of law.

They are in various ways undermining the tradition of self-reported income tax computation and voluntary compliance.

Our tax institutions, of course, are based on the real deterrence of a disinterested, uncompromised Internal Revenue Service. Without it, the income revenues of the United States are existentially threatened.

So far, any negative reputation of the IRS has rested with natural complaints that it is too zealous in hounding out American taxpayers in all walks of life. Or citizens often object that the IRS must enforce a tax code that is innately unfair.

But not until now, has the IRS itself ever been under a shadow of such corruption?

Has it been in the past ever found to have applied so blatantly and deliberately one standard of tax enforcement to elites and quite another to everyday Americans?

Again, if that charge of unequal treatment in tax compliance were to prove true, then Humpy-Dumpty like, the entire American system of revenue collection would shatter.

In other words, millions of Americans might shrug, “If Joe Biden, President of the United States and his criminally minded son, can get away with avoiding millions of dollars in taxes, then should not I, a nobody, at least have the right to avoid hundreds of dollars in taxes?”

So the Bidens, along with Attorney General Merrick Garland and the FBI, are treading on dangerous ground in imperiling a hallowed American tradition—one vital to the very governance and operation of the United States.

What the Fourth of July Was Not By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2023/07/03/what-the-fourth-of-july-was-not/

Our national Fourth of July holiday—currently the nation’s 247th since the first in 1776—marks the birth of the United States.

The iconic Declaration of Independence was published on the 4th and largely written by Thomas Jefferson. Its core sentence would become among the most famous words in American history:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Those aspirations at the outset pledged the new American nation to hold to its promises “that all men are created equal.”

In other words, so-called white males established a foundational document whose inherent logic was that the millions of Americans not yet born—who would not necessarily look like them, or share their ancestry—would become their political equals.

Most nation founders do not envision the future of their country in terms that might not privilege those of their own tribe.

In contrast, today it would be difficult for a foreign national to become a full-fledged Chinese, Mexican, or Iranian citizen, with full equal rights, who either did not look like, or embrace a religion different from, the majority population.

What followed from the Declaration was a constant demand from many quarters for America to live up to its own exalted words.

Eighty-five years later, that promise culminated in a horrific Civil War that cost 700,000 American lives to remove the stain of slavery, and to honor the promise of the Fourth.

“All men are created equal” further entailed another century of protest and reform, until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s finally enshrined into law equality of opportunity statutes.

But note what the Declaration was not.

There was no full embrace of all the later French Revolutionary slogans of Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

Instead, the Declaration promised that all men should start out equally through guaranteed protections to live their lives as they please and ensure their liberty.

Poking the Snoring Conservative Dragon. Part Two Victor Davis Hanson

https://victorhanson.com/poking-the-snoring-conservative-dragon-part-two/

In 2024, the Left will spend $4-5 billion on the presidential and congressional races, with another $4-5 billion in free advertising in propaganda from network news, PBS, NPR, and the Silicon Valley mob. The latter again will do their leftist best, from rigging the order of Google searches, to banning supposed “misinformation” and “disinformation” from non-Twitter social media, to blacklisting traffickers in “hate speech” who might critique Democratic candidates.

The only remedy would be millions of poll watchers to turn out on Election Day 2024. The Right must draft legions of lawyers right now to ensure balloting laws are not massaged by leftist activist lawyers and judges.

There must be a rare conservative mass get-out-the-vote effort (i.e., mail-in and early balloting), targeted at rest homes and retirement communities. Republicans, until they restore integrity to balloting, must bring Barack Obama’s proverbial “gun to a knife fight” (a phrase Obama stole from David Mamet’s screenplay of The Untouchables) determination not to keep losing, and master third-party vote harvesting and ballot curing.

The Left does not have the numbers (look at the poor poll numbers on every of Joe Biden’s current policies), but neither do conservatives—unless they organize and trump the tactics of the Left. (No, I am not suggesting protestors mass outside Hunter Biden’s house in the fashion leftists swarm with impunity the homes of Supreme Court justices in felonious, but exempt, efforts to intimidate them into rendering more favorable opinions.)

But there are things the Right can do, if it wishes to stop losing the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections (George W. Bush’s razor-thin 2004 being the outlier)—and finally for the first time in 36 years win 51% of the popular vote, as George H.W. Bush last managed in 1988 against a weak Mike Dukakis.

So what would an aroused dragon do?

Supreme Court Moves Us Closer to A Colorblind Society by Alan M. Dershowitz

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19759/colorblind-society

Although this decision was split along current conservative-liberal lines, with the court’s three liberals dissenting, it actually reflects traditional liberalism. Justice William Douglas, perhaps the most liberal justice in Supreme Court history, advocated precisely this race neutral approach when affirmative action was first introduced. He was right then, and his liberal, colorblind approach, has now been vindicated.

A simple example demonstrates why employing race as a criteria is both unconstitutional and immoral. As the Supreme Court correctly pointed out, admission to elite universities is a zero-sum game: for every student or group that is given preference, another is disadvantaged. So consider this zero-sum choice:….

After decades of vacillation, the Supreme Court of the United States has finally and firmly declared that the Constitution does not permit publicly funded universities to consider race, as such, in its admission processes. This is a decision that many, including this author, have been advocating since the 1970s, when my first law review article appeared, calling for affirmative action to be based on non-racial criteria and individual accomplishments.

The Supreme Court has been moving in this direction for some time now, but it has until now allowed loopholes the size of university football stadiums. These loopholes were exploited by universities to enforce quota systems whereby approximately the same percentage of minority applicants would be admitted every year. The results of these quotas impacted most heavily on one of the most discriminated against groups in American history – Asian Americans. The plaintiffs in the Harvard case were such Americans. It will be interesting to see how their numbers are affected by the decision.

Wai Wah Chin The Next Battle Over Racial Preferences While the Supreme Court has swept away affirmative action, universities still intend to practice preferential admissions by using proxies for race.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/supreme-court-ends-affirmative-action-will-universities-defy-the-ruling

With its ruling that Harvard and the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill (UNC) unconstitutionally discriminated against Asian applicants, the Supreme Court has delivered justice. Congratulations and thanks are due to the plaintiff in these cases, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), as well as to its president Edward Blum, for mounting a tireless, principled fight.

Universities, however, have made no secret that, regardless of how the Court ruled, they would continue to bring to campus students who wouldn’t have made the cut if they hadn’t been black. It is axiomatic for universities that a campus with “not enough blacks”—whatever that means—is guilty. It is the only acceptable starting point of any discussion. The universities believe, moreover, that “diversity” of student skin color—meaning having “enough,” but not “too much” of any particular group, whatever that means—can only be achieved by racial favoritism in admissions. Why are colleges able to achieve other forms of diversity without quotas or favoritism, such as diversity of religion, which the counsel for UNC conceded to the Supreme Court thrives on campus without favoritism? This question is off limits.

So if the Court won’t allow universities to take race into account, then the universities will look for other ways to do so. Some have even advocated open disobedience of this “ultra-MAGA” Supreme Court, as the White House has called it.

How can universities do an end-run around the Supreme Court? The University of California (UC) system’s recent actions are instructive. In 1995, the UC regents voted to end affirmative action, and in 1996, Golden State voters approved Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action in public education, contracting, and hiring. Legislators subsequently tried and failed several times to restore affirmative action. Then, in 2019, UC president Janet Napolitano convened a faculty task force to evaluate the continued use of standardized testing in admissions. The UC faculty is well known for its devotion to the DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) cause. However, after a year-long study, the task force gave the sober recommendation to keep the standardized test requirement. Undeterred, Napolitano ordered the UC system to go test-optional anyway. White and Asian families soon realized that “test optional” really applied only to blacks, Hispanics, and some other groups, but not to them. Then, in 2021, the UC system went “test blind,” meaning that, even if an applicant submitted SAT scores, UC would disregard them. (Today, following California’s lead, all but a handful of top-tier U.S. universities are test-optional.)

Hunter Biden invoking ‘my father’ resulted in millions flowing from CCP-linked company by Jerry Dunleavy

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/hunter-biden-invoking-father-spurred-millions-china-company

Hunter Biden’s threatening messages invoking “my father” resulted in a swift agreement being signed between President Joe Biden’s son and a Chinese Communist Party-linked company and millions of dollars flowing to Biden family accounts.

The bombshell new WhatsApp messages were between Hunter Biden and key intermediaries with the since-defunct Chinese energy conglomerate CEFC whose chairman, Ye Jianming, is tied to the Chinese military. The messages were revealed by an IRS whistleblower.

Hunter Biden sent messages to Chinese businessman Henry Zhao on July 30, 2017, in which he leveraged his father’s name and threatened CEFC executives unless a lucrative deal was worked out with Ye, whose biography said he had been “deputy secretary-general” of the China Association for International Friendly Contact, which the U.S.-China Commission assessed was a “front organization” for the People’s Liberation Army’s General Political Department.

The newly released messages provide key context to previously discovered foreign bank transactions involving Hunter Biden. Within days after the president’s son named dropped his father in a text threat, Hunter Biden and his associated businesses soon received an estimated $5 million in payments from CEFC in 2017 and 2018, with Chinese payments quickly beginning to roll in, according to banking findings from a 2020 Senate report.

“I am sitting with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment has not been fulfilled,” Hunter Biden told Zhao in one of the July 30 messages. “I am very concerned that [Ye] has either changed his mind and broken our deal without telling me or that he is unaware of the promises and assurances that have been made have not been kept.”

Glazov Gang: Child Trafficking, the Open Border and Willful Blindness The haunting silence of the Left, #MeToo, and our elites.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/glazov-gang-child-trafficking-the-open-border-and-willful-blindness/

This new Glazov Gang episode features Judd Dunning, author of ’13 1/2 Reasons Why Not To Be a Liberal’, a Newsmax regular columnist, and the host of ‘Unapologetic! The Judd Dunning Hour‘ on KABC am790.

Judd discusses Child Trafficking, the Open Border and Willful Blindness, analyzing The haunting silence of the Left, #MeToo, and our elites.

Don’t miss it!

The Supreme Court Finally Gets Affirmative Action Right Ending the blatant contradiction of America’s foundational principles. by Bruce Thornton

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-supreme-court-finally-gets-affirmative-action-right/

After 45 years of bad decisions rationalizing discrimination outlawed by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court finally voted 6-3 to end affirmative action and the use of racial preferences in college admissions. This outcome joins the Dobbs vs. Jackson decision last June as another major pushback against activist Supreme Court jurisprudence, and a restoration of the Constitutional guardrails against an overweening federal government that bypasses the sovereign people and impugns their rights.

Racial set-asides were midwifed in the 1978 Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke decision that created by fiat “diversity” as a “compelling state interest” justifying discrimination. Since then various minor adjustments have been made in other decisions such as Grutter vs. Bollinger (2003) and the two Fisher vs. University of Texas cases (2013, 2016), which validated the magical thinking of “diversity” and the “broad state interests” and “educational benefits” it supposedly serves.

None of these decisions addressed the central begged question in affirmative action jurisprudence. As Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent in Grutter put it, the majority “refus[ed] to define rigorously the broad state interest” served by “diversity,” and thus demonstrate specifically the “educational benefits that flow from student body diversity,” as Justice Anthony Kennedy said in the second Fisher case.

As a result, over the years “diversity” has metastasized throughout the body politic, from school curricula to entertainment–– and has even reached corporate board rooms in the guise of  “ESG,” environmental, social, and corporate governance guidelines for investment. This expansion has  hollowed out the principle of individual merit, and eroded the notion of individual rights and the virtues of independence and self-reliance. That’s what happens when one branch of the government, the one most unaccountable to the people, enshrines in law a politicized, incoherent idea.