30 thoughts on “News/Politics 4-23-22

  1. They continue to hide the truth about Covid. China unleashed it, and we funded it.

    “The committee created to oversee federally funded ‘gain of function’ research operates in secrecy and lacks independence.”

    https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/22/secretive-committee-on-risky-virus-research-should-be-more-open-chair-says/

    “The secret committee created to oversee federally funded “gain of function” research that can make dangerous viruses even more deadly should be more transparent in its review process, according to the chairman of that committee, House Republicans revealed this week.

    The “review process continues to be unnecessarily shrouded in secrecy,” wrote House Committee on Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., in a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra.

    Gain-of-function research projects are supposed to be reviewed by a committee as part of guidelines known as Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (P3CO) Framework, created in 2017 after a three-year pause on such research following several lab-related incidents that raised public concerns.

    Chris Hassell, the chairman of the P3CO virus research review committee and its only public member, “acknowledged a strong interest in improving the transparency of the HHS P3CO review process and the need for more transparency,” according to the letter.

    “None of the HHS departmental review process for approving enhanced PPP [Potential Pandemic Pathogens] experiments is public,” the letter states. “HHS review should make public who participates in the review, as well as the basis of the decision that the research is acceptable to fund, including the U.S. government’s (USG’s) calculation of the potential benefits and risks of the proposed enhanced PPP research.”

    HHS gave House Republicans the names of some but not all review committee members, “on a confidential basis because of personal security concerns,” the letter states.

    NIH Won’t Even Say How Much Research Gets Funded
    Indicating the lack of transparency, National Institutes of Health officials will not disclose how many gain-of-function projects they have funded.

    When Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was asked how many gain-of-function grants his agency had approved, he said “the answer would hinge on how the work was defined in a given year,” The Washington Post reported in August.

    “To the extent that we can be transparent, that the system would allow us to be transparent, we go overboard to be transparent,” Fauci also said.

    Little Action in Two Years
    Hassell has previously said he believes the definition of the research the committee reviews is “too narrow.” Hassell made those remarks in January 2020 — now, more than two years after the Covid-19 pandemic began, that definition remains the same.

    Indeed, Fauci and other NIH staff were responsible for narrowing the definition of the research the committee reviewed and for weakening the committee’s oversight, according to The Post.

    Many scientists fear to speak out against gain-of-function research because they receive funding from the NIH.

    Conflicts of Interest
    Last month, the NIH asked the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) to evaluate the effectiveness of the HHS P3CO framework for reviewing gain-of-function research, but the House Republicans object that the board is not independent enough.

    “We think it appropriate to reconstitute NSABB as an independent entity rather than a group of individuals replete with conflicts-of-interest given the source of grants to them, or to convene an independent body,” Rodger’s letter states.

    Like its oversight board, some members of the P3CO review board itself may also have conflicts of interest — one is from the NIAID, a funding entity. “Further, this individual co-authored articles with a principal investigator who was engaged in research proposals that could have been subject to HHS P3CO review,” according to the letter.

    “Another member is a gain-of-function research proponent who was apparently deeply involved in the development of the framework. This raises obvious questions of bias in favor of approving incredibly risky research.”

    Possible Gain of Function Research Not Reviewed
    The review committee also lacks jurisdiction and can be bypassed by funding agencies, the House Republicans wrote.

    An example of a grant the committee did not review is one that sent U.S. taxpayer money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is considered a possible origin of Covid-19. The NIAID decided its grant to the EcoHealth Alliance for bat-based coronavirus research did not meet the definition of gain of function and thus was not submitted to the committee, but an NIAID official and others have questioned whether it was gain of function.

    “This unilateral NIAID authority shows a lack of independence in the P3CO process and raises significant concerns,” the Republicans wrote.”

    Like

  2. Also related….

    “Agreement exposed: Wuhan lab can ask U.S. lab to destroy ‘secret files’ and other records”

    And I’m thinking they did, lest they all be exposed.

    https://hotair.com/karen-townsend/2022/04/21/agreement-exposed-wuhan-lab-can-ask-u-s-lab-to-destroy-secret-files-and-other-records-n463948

    “A startling memorandum of understanding has come to light that details an agreement reached between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) located in Galveston. The agreement states that the Wuhan lab can ask UTMB to destroy “secret files” and other records. This information was acquired through the Texas Public Information Act by the nonprofit news organization U.S. Right to Know. The research conducted at the UTMB lab is taxpayer-funded.

    A nine page memorandum of understanding was signed in 2017 and it lays out the terms of collaborative efforts between the Wuhan lab and UTMB. Dr. James Le Duc, the director of the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch signed the memo. The two research labs study some of the most dangerous pathogens in the world. There has been a relationship between the two labs since 2013. A formal cooperative agreement was signed in 2018.

    The Wuhan lab has the right to ask any partnering lab in the United States to destroy all records of their work.

    A memorandum of understanding between the Wuhan lab and the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch states that each lab can ask the other to return or “destroy” any so-called “secret files” — any communications, documents, data or equipment resulting from their collaboration — and ask that they wipe any copies.

    “The party is entitled to ask the other to destroy and/or return the secret files, materials and equipment without any backups,” it states.

    This right is retained even after the agreement’s five year term ends in October 2022. All documents are eligible for destruction under the agreement’s broad language.

    “All cooperation … shall be treated as confidential information by the parties,” the agreement states

    UTMB and the Wuhan lab aren’t the only labs making such agreements. There are several facilities around the world that also do cutting edge work on novel coronaviruses. In the United States, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded the research. The UTMB lab was doing biosafety training with the Wuhan lab. FYI – the Wuhan lab operates under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The labs are supposed to do joint research projects and share resources, according to the agreement.

    There are questions being asked and red flags are waving. We expect transparency from our government, unlike the Chinese who are used to a secretive authoritarian government that has refused to cop to its role in a worldwide pandemic. U.S. taxpayers are paying for funding the lab. Americans are already suspicious of government transparency. Now the debate is over what sort of investigation is necessary to provide information and ease suspicions that have grown during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is also the matter of Zhengli Shi, the senior scientist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. She is on record saying that she would never delete sensitive data. Was her pledge just a lie to reach an agreement with an American institution? Is she gaslighting her American colleagues?

    “The party is entitled to ask the other to destroy and/or return the secret files, materials and equipment without any backup,” according to the memo, which also states that the provision is in place beyond the agreement’s five-year term.

    Lawyers say the memo’s broad language raises legal questions about UTMB’s record-keeping methods, though the university denies destroying any records as part of the agreement.

    UTMB is part of the University of Texas System, and therefore subject to record retention laws laid out in the Texas Government Code. Most public records must be retained within a state-approved time frame and cannot be destroyed unless granted an exception. A violation could amount to a criminal charge of tampering with a government record, a Class A misdemeanor, experts say.

    “You can’t contract away obligations under a statute,” said Bill Aleshire, an Austin lawyer and former Travis County judge who specializes in public record laws. “Those are public records and … Galveston can’t destroy records that are part of a publicly funded document. And Wuhan sure as hell can’t ask Galveston to destroy its records.”

    After the last two years, I don’t understand why anyone would trust a Communist Chinese scientist on any issue around the coronavirus pandemic. While Chinese officials have consistently denied that the pandemic began after a lab leak and blamed the spread of the coronavirus on natural origins, pointing to a large food and live-animal market as the virus epicenter. The lab-leak theory has not been ruled out but is usually brushed aside by Chinese officials.”

    Like

  3. Earth Day is a leftist scam. It’s all about control.

    “Earth Day 2022: Investing in Poverty, Suffering, and Human Degradation”

    https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2022/04/22/earth_day_2022_investing_in_poverty_suffering_and_human_degradation_828106.html

    “It is Earth Day 2022 — always falling on Lenin’s birthday, amusingly enough — the official theme of which this year is Invest In Our Planet™. As with every previous Earth Day, we will be bombarded with innumerable web sites both infantile and mendacious, crude propaganda exercises, myriad pleas for networking, virtue signaling as a central dynamic, mindless recommendations for localism and other useless, wasteful, and environmentally destructive silliness. And — of course — there will be the usual shameless groveling by a long queue of spineless corporate officials and public relations gasbags desperate to advertise their environmental bona fides so that the green alligators might eat them last.

    Above all, there will be vociferous exhortations for actions both collective and individual: There are “52 ways to Invest In Our Planet™,” almost all of which involve deeply dubious changes in diets, and the sacrifice of modern products, services, conveniences, and other consumption and lifestyle practices the central effects of which are lives longer, healthier, and more enjoyable, and a vastly cleaner environment to boot. (There also are dark proposals to kill large numbers of wildlife, on the basis of dishonest assertions about the effects of methane emissions.) What will be conspicuous by its absence is honesty about the upheavals and other adverse implications of Invest In Our Planet™. To wit: “This is the moment to change it all — the business climate, the political climate, and how we take action on climate.”

    Got that? We must “change it all.” “It’s going to take all of us. All in. Businesses, governments, and citizens — everyone accounted for, and everyone accountable. A partnership for the planet.”

    In the context of Earth Day 2022, that word “partnership” is vastly more mendacious than the proponents of Invest In Our Planet™ might care to concede. Say whatever you choose about the eternal human condition, that is, the myriad routes that individuals, families, communities, economic sectors, population groups, geographic regions, national economies, and nations viewed as cultures with historical commonalities have arrived at their respective current positions. An effort to “change it all” even in theory must create massive numbers of losers; that is why Congress has never been able to enact formal policies reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The same observation applies to the endless processes yielding such preposterous and irrelevant outcomes as the Paris agreement, an “achievement” that would engender only adverse environmental outcomes combined with the vociferous self-applause by and full employment for the international climate bureaucracy writ large, enjoying flights on private jets to endless conferences, meetings, and soirees at five-star resorts and restaurants financed by taxpayers and leftist foundations, not to mention thunderous ovations from editorial boards and attendees at all the right cocktail parties.

    And about making “everyone accountable.” To whom, precisely? Obviously, it is the Earth Day cheerleaders — the environmental leftists — who will sit in judgment of the rest of us, and who will determine the consequences to be meted out as an adjunct of such accountability. Will we imprison energy executives? What about the consumers of conventional energy? Will they be denied food, shelter, and other necessities? Only a child could fail to perceive the blatant totalitarian implications of “everyone accountable,” and the same is true for “chang[ing] it all,” a fundamental totalitarian imperative, in that one set of coercive edicts creates deep perversities and resistance that must be addressed with more coercion, and then more, in a process that leads inexorably toward a gulag-type system. No, that is not an exaggeration.

    In short, no amount of blathering about “partnerships” and “all of us” and the climate problem emergency crisis catastrophe existential threat — the eternal proclamation of apocalypse for which there is no evidence — can obscure the harsh reality that the pursuit of green utopia results automatically in the massive coercion that is the fundamental implication of “change it all” and “everyone accountable.” The central implication of efforts to reduce GHG emissions is a shift toward energy sources and complementary capital substitution massively expensive and unreliable, a harsh reality that the UK and Germany and many others have come to experience. In the Earth Day world of Invest[ing] In Our Planet™, unreliable and expensive energy can lead to only one possible outcome: rationing and favoritism based upon political criteria, foremost among them loyalty to the climate taskmasters.

    For the U.S., the simple correlation between (percent changes in) energy consumption and economic growth is 0.71. Between energy consumption and employment: 0.59. Between energy consumption and several measures of the poverty rate: around 0.4, a correlation that is striking in that poverty is the result of numerous parameters, such as poor-quality education, policies that reduce employment opportunity, childbearing out of wedlock, and other sociological factors. Increases in incomes are strongly correlated with increases in energy consumption; for the lowest and highest income quintiles the respective correlations are 0.55 and 0.92. It is difficult to believe that the analogous calculations for other advanced economies would differ by very much.

    Yes, correlation is not causation, but can anyone argue that these relationships are spurious? Accordingly, if the consumption of conventional energy is destroying the planet, then investments in human capital — education and training, health care, environmental protection, sanitation, etc. — also contribute to that purported outcome, as increases in human capital increase the demand for energy. That is why economic growth and expanded employment opportunity are a matter of indifference at best — anathema is the more likely stance — for the environmental left. It is therefore no exaggeration to observe that the central Earth Day imperative is fundamentally anti-human, an eternal truth that the proponents of Invest In Our Planet™ attempt to deny by claiming that unconventional energy has become as inexpensive or even cheaper than conventional energy. (They argue simultaneously that the massive subsidies, guaranteed market shares, and other subventions for the former should not be reduced.) Oh, please. If that were true, no coercion would be required; the market would shift to unconventional energy simply as a matter of self-interest. Needless to say, it is not true.

    If all it takes to save the planet is a “partnership” to “change it all,” no more Earth Days would be needed, as the planet would have been saved decades ago.”

    Like

  4. Just go away Hillary, you’re a serial liar.

    ——-

    ———

    ——

    Like

  5. I love the facepalm from the judge. 🙂

    ———

    Got that? According to the leftist lawyer, mentioning history and 1776 is now insurrectionist speak.

    🤡

    Like

  6. Watch now as Disney spends millions trying to unseat DeSantis, and on lawyers…..

    “Florida Gov. DeSantis signs bill eliminating Disney’s self-government, some other special districts”

    https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2022/04/22/florida-gov-desantis-signs-bill-eliminating-disneys-self-government-some-other-special-districts/

    “Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law that eliminates special districts created before 1968, including Disney’s Reedy Creek Improvement District.

    The governor signed several bills during a ceremony at a South Florida charter school Friday afternoon, including the special districts bill introduced by Rep. Randy Fine. The Reedy Creek Improvement District — created by state lawmakers in 1967 — acts as Walt Disney World’s own government with two cities and land in Orange and Osceola counties.”

    Like

  7. Boy this stuff sure seems to be everywhere, considering some say it isn’t happen.

    Links galore….

    “The Politics of LGBTQ++ Week in Education

    Your weekly report on education news.”

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/04/lgbt-gone-wild-week-in-education/

    “There were a few stories in education this week that seemed to go beyond showing support for the LGBT community.

    Duke Divinity School Worship Service Praises ‘The Great Queer One’

    Maryland Teachers Feel ‘Bullied’ Into Displaying Gay Pride Flags Forcing School Board to Adopt New Policy

    University of South Florida Holding Separate Graduation Ceremony for LGBT Students

    This just isn’t cool.
    Oklahoma State U. Hosts Drag Queen Story Hour for Kids as Young as Two

    Such devotion.
    Harvard Student Project Helps ‘Gender Minorities’ With Health Services

    It’s all about identity.
    Dozens of Colleges and Universities Hold Separate Graduation Ceremonies Based on Identity

    Where do you even start with this?
    U. Waterloo Faculty Job Announcement: “Open Only to Qualified Individuals Who Self-Identify as Women, Transgender, Non-Binary, or Two-Spirit””

    Like

  8. Oppose this stupidity at your own peril. The rage mob will be activated against you.

    “Retaliation For Opposing Critical Race Training, Claims VA Former Assistant Vice-Principal In Lawsuit

    “she was branded a racist, severely and pervasively harassed, relentlessly humiliated, and ultimately compelled to resign from a job that she loved to preserve her mental health””

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/04/retaliation-for-opposing-critical-race-training-claims-va-former-assistant-vice-principal-in-lawsuit/

    “Emily Mais used to be the assistant vice-principal at Agnor-Hurt Elementary School in Virginia. Then she objected to critical race training and everything changed.

    She alleges that she was forced to quit after being branded a racist, and now she is suing the school board.

    Caroline Vakil reports at The Hill:

    Former administrator at Virginia school sues, says she was ‘branded a racist’ after objecting to teacher training curriculum

    A former administrator at a Virginia school has sued the Albemarle County School Board in Charlottesville, Va., alleging in a lawsuit that she was “branded a racist” after objecting to a teacher training curriculum which she said embraces critical race theory, or CRT.

    Emily Mais, a former assistant principal at Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, filed a lawsuit earlier this month against the county school board. At issue is the board’s use of a teacher training curriculum, which the lawsuit alleges “promotes racial division and encourages racial harassment.”

    “The curriculum sets up a classic Catch-22, in which a white person’s objections to the content of the curriculum are simply evidence that he or she is a racist who needs further training on the curriculum,” the lawsuit claims.

    “Unfortunately for her, Ms. Mais was caught in that Catch-22,” it continues. “When Ms. Mais complained about the curriculum and protested reverse racism, she was branded a racist, severely and pervasively harassed, relentlessly humiliated, and ultimately compelled to resign from a job that she loved to preserve her mental health.”

    Robert Zimmerman of Behind the Black has more on this:

    When Mais and other whites attempted to participate in these sessions, they were “…shut down or dismissed in front of other staff members and told they could not understand the topic because of the color of their skin.”
    Mais subsequently found herself increasingly harassed and threatened by other teachers for her attempt to speak at this session, led apparently by the teacher who had run one session, Sheila Avery.

    “Multiple employees” reportedly told Mais that Avery was “openly slandering” the administrator and “openly cursing about her and calling her vulgar names at work, telling other employees she was a racist and that she intentionally demeaned black people, and trying to turn other employees against her.”

    Examples of slanderous phrases included, “That white racist b***h” and “That two-faced racist b***h,” according to the lawsuit. Mais allegedly reported this harassment to “numerous [district] officials, none of whom take any action to stop it.”

    Faced with these constant displays of hate, Mais eventually was forced to resign. Her only crime? She rejected the district’s bigoted insistence that all whites are racists.

    You can read the full complaint here.”

    Click to access Mais-v-Albemarle-County-School-Board-2022-04-13-Complaint.pdf

    Like

  9. The majority of Democrats are delusional, and fall for fake news and misinformation all the time. This isn’t surprising at all. Some Never Trump RINO’s continue to believe Hillary’s Big Lie as well.

    “Rasmussen Poll: Most Democrats Still Believe Russia Stole 2016 Election From Hillary

    “Fears of Russian interference in U.S. politics remain widespread, and Democratic voters overwhelmingly agree with Hillary Clinton that Russia is to blame for her defeat in 2016””

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/04/rasmussen-poll-most-democrats-still-believe-russia-stole-2016-election-from-hillary/

    “A new poll from Rasmussen Reports has found that most Democrats still believe the 2016 election was stolen from Hillary and that Trump only won because of interference from Russia.

    Any time that Trump or anyone else questions the outcome of the 2020 election, Democrats and the media call them conspiracy theorists promoting “the Big Lie.”

    It’s just different when Democrats do it.

    Paul Bedard writes in the Washington Examiner:

    Democrats still believe Clinton won in 2016

    Democrats and Hillary Clinton’s fans are sticking to their guns when it comes to believing that Russian meddling cost her the 2016 election.

    According to the latest Rasmussen Reports survey, 72% of Democrats said that “Russia succeeded” in changing the outcome of the election that vaulted former President Donald Trump into the White House.

    In findings that largely mirror surveys of Republican doubt of the 2020 election that Democrats mock, more than a majority of liberals told Rasmussen that they feel very strongly that Russia won 2016 for Trump.

    “Fears of Russian interference in U.S. politics remain widespread, and Democratic voters overwhelmingly agree with Hillary Clinton that Russia is to blame for her defeat in 2016,” said the analysis of the poll shared with Secrets.

    And Democrats largely fear Russia will try again in the fall congressional midterm elections, it added.
    This has been going on for decades. For Democrats, the only legitimate elections are the ones Democrats win.

    Here’s more from Rasmussen Reports:

    Democrats Still Believe Russia Changed 2016 Election

    Fears of Russian interference in U.S. politics remain widespread, and Democratic voters overwhelmingly agree with Hillary Clinton that Russia is to blame for her defeat in 2016.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it is likely that Russian interference changed the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, including 26% who say it’s Very Likely. Forty-six percent (46%) don’t think it’s likely Russian interference changed the 2016 election, including 32% who say it is Not At All Likely.”

    Like

  10. This seems almost a biblical concept.

    “New Tennessee bill: Drunk drivers who kill a parent will pay child support to that person’s children”

    https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2022/04/22/new-tennessee-bill-drunk-drivers-who-kill-a-parent-will-pay-child-support-to-that-persons-children-n464265

    “Whenever I hear of a new law passing (or on the verge of passing) somewhere, my libertarian reflex activates. Do we really need this? Will it do more good than harm? It’s a rebuttable presumption that whatever the new statute might be, it’s probably unnecessary in a culture that already overpenalizes behavior.

    That said, I like this one.

    The strongest criticism I can think of is that it’s unlikely to deter anyone. If you’re willing to risk killing someone and doing a long stretch in prison because you insist on driving when you’re wasted, the prospect of also having to pay child support to the victim’s family won’t make you think twice.

    But so what? The law aims to do justice. Forcing a reckless killer to make restitution to their victim’s children is just, whatever its deterrent potential.

    The Tennessee General Assembly on Wednesday became what is believed to be the first state legislature to pass a bill that would require drunken drivers to pay child support if they kill the parent of a minor…

    If signed into law, the measure would require those convicted of such crimes involving the death of a parent to pay child support for the victim’s minor children. It would last until each child reaches 18 years of age and has graduated from high school or until the class of which the child is a member when turning 18 has graduated…

    Courts would determine a reasonable amount of child support by considering the financial needs and resources of the child or children, the financial resources of the surviving parent or guardian — including the state if the child is in the custody of the department of children’s services — and the standard of living the children are used to.

    The bill is named after three children whose parents were killed by drunk drivers. One was a cop inspecting a manhole when he was run down by a woman under the influence, who then fled the scene.

    It’s the first of its kind in the U.S. but it won’t be the last. Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Alabama are looking at similar bills and lawmakers in Texas, Wisconsin, and North Carolina are in touch with the sponsor of the Tennessee bill. The woman who spearheaded the campaign in Tennessee, and who’s now raising her grandson after her son was killed by a drunk driver, says she’s had interest from 17 states. The Tennessee legislation passed the state House 93-0 and the state Senate 32-0. How’s that for bipartisanship in a polarized age?”

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Surprised?

    Didn’t think so.

    ———

    That was the whole point of installing the judge who let pedophiles off easy.

    Like

  12. Go woke, go broke.

    Enjoy shareholders!

    —–

    Like

  13. The censorship of views they disagree with continues at Twitter.

    ——–

    Like

  14. ——

    Like

  15. ———

    Like

  16. ——–

    It is what Jonah does best….

    Like

  17. Soooooo principled….

    ———

    Like

  18. Favreau’s self awareness…… zero….

    Maybe shut up and sit this one out….

    ——–

    Like

  19. It’s nice to see some on the right are fighting to win now, rather than just rolling over like the establishment types.

    ——–

    Like

  20. Like I said, about time. No more rolling over and showing your bellies. The days of the establishment wusses like Romney, McCain, Murkowsky, Kinsinger, and the rest of the NTers is over. It’s our party now. And we’re playing by the new rules, the ones Dems have played by for years. No more hand wringing and whining about your norms and principles while you knuckle under to Dems and the media yet again.

    Take your “principled loserdom” and stuff it where your guts should be. 🙂

    https://www.newsweek.com/against-principled-loserdom-opinion-1699917

    “I was in New Haven this past week for a couple of events at Yale, one of which was a William F. Buckley, Jr. Program debate for a primarily college-age audience on “common good conservatism.” During the debate, I argued on behalf of the more “muscular,” more forceful and less “liberal” approach to political economy and political gamesmanship frequently associated with the ascendant “New Right.”

    My interlocutor, the amiable lawyer and National Review writer Dan McLaughlin, offered a substantive defense of orthodox “Reaganism” and an attitudinal appeal for conservatives to remain the “grown-ups in the room.” According to this logic, it is incumbent upon conservatives—actually, right-liberals—to act as righteous stewards of civic decency and defenders of the sacrosanct norms of liberal proceduralism, no matter how much our political foes have strayed.

    To drive home the point, it was only a day after the Yale debate that McLaughlin and his National Review colleague Charles C.W. Cooke publicly criticized Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his fellow Sunshine State Republicans for acting this week to dissolve The Walt Disney Company’s autonomous Reedy Creek Improvement District near Orlando—a move Republicans ushered through as just comeuppance for Disney’s voluble opposition to Florida’s recent Parental Rights in Education law. To spike the football in such a fashion, so goes the narrative, would be “indecent.” To punish a high-profile enemy within the confines of the rule of law, making a woke corporate behemoth pay for its advocacy of the civilizational arson of corroded childhood sexual innocence, would be gratuitous and—egad!—”illiberal.”

    The problem with this logic is that it is, to its core, a loser. It was a political loser in the presidential general elections of 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012, and it was a political loser in the 2016 Republican presidential primary, when Donald Trump—the most pro-“winning” rhetorician and the single candidate least besotted with liberal pieties—shocked the establishment and prevailed. And it is a substantive loser because the Right’s vision of a more naturally ordered, just and solidaristic society will obviously be—indeed, has demonstrably been—hindered by unilaterally abandoning the playing field of moralistic legislation and statesmanship to the one-way cultural ratchet of progressivism.

    Proponents of the status quo are analogous to the complacent coffee-sipping dog in the “this is fine” online meme, willfully oblivious to the cultural rot, fever pitch-level fractiousness and ruinous decadence engulfing American society like an inferno. At this increasingly late hour of our republic, what status quo defendants meekly offer is, to borrow a phrase from the Claremont Institute’s Matthew J. Peterson, the “suicidal anti-politics of ‘principled’ loserdom.”

    To engage in such an “anti-politics,” where genuine political statesmanship—what a younger George F. Will once called “statecraft as soulcraft”—is eschewed and the highest goods one can fight for in the public arena are sacrosanct liberal neutrality and supply-side tax cuts, is to habituate a culture of losing. Such is the fundamental nature of responding to left-wing culture warriors seeking to chemically castrate children with cheerful hand-waving about slashing the capital gains tax rate. It is to be part of a controlled opposition that cheerfully accepts inveterate losing, as long as the Washington uniparty still passes some neoliberal consensus policies that redound to ruling class interests. The “principled loserdom” mentality leads to what another Claremonster, Michael Anton, referred to in a famous 2016 essay as the “Washington Generals”—the exhibition basketball team known for once losing 2,495 games in a row. As Anton wrote, in this scenario, “your job is to show up and lose.”

    But “principled loserdom” is wrong. The American Founders were not content to fight against the British Crown and accept losing, so long as their lofty principles were followed along the way; on the contrary, they pledged their “lives…fortunes and…sacred honor” to the cause in the Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln was not content, either, to fight to preserve Union and accept losing, so long as his high-minded principles were followed along the way; on the contrary, he was motivated by his great moral conviction, as espoused in his 1854 Peoria Speech, “that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.””

    Like

  21. Joe Biden and Democrats built this. Yet more blood on their hands.

    A good man dies trying to save drug smugglers, who thanks to Biden’s open border policy are flooding the country with fentanyl and other illicit drugs by simply walking them across.

    ———

    Like

  22. They built this too.

    ———

    Like

  23. I’m enjoying watching Republicans cancelling a corporation, who has a long history of exploitative labour practises and political immunity. Amused by what set off DeSantis but I’ll take the win. The Republicans are demonstrating that its entirely okay for the government to intervene in businesses and punish those who won’t subscribe to the party line. Now if only it was policies I could approve of.

    No one cares about Hilary. She stopped being relevant years ago. The only ones still paying attention to her are Republicans — the Clintons have been occupying their minds rent free for decades.

    Russia did intervene in the US election. It makes a practise of intervening or attempting to intervene in many elections world wide as does the US. The fact Republicans wish to ignore this is strange and allows it to happen again. Was Russian interference the swing factor? Perhaps, but Clinton campaign ineptness was also a problem. Did the Russia’s want Trump over Clinton? definitely. One can argue his presidential record but there’s no denying the general perception prior to the election was America is in trouble if Trump wins; hence the Russians favored Trump.

    Interesting Tennessee bill. Western law makes justice a state concept removing the victim’s family from the process. In the Middle East and elsewhere, compensation to victim’s families is the norm, which the US gov’t participated in in Iraq — they frequently paid families of friendly fire victims. Interestingly, financial compensation is a core part of sharia law.

    Interesting claim on Twitter — DeSantis bans all K-5 math textbooks except the one published by a company owned by Viriginia governor’s private equity firm. Not sure if its entirely true but I’m sure there’s more than parent rights involved when you start banning math textbooks.

    Like

  24. People need to relax when corporate or HR mandate training. In five years or so they will move on to something equally as ridiculous. Five years ago,we were supposed to institute some new discipline procedure except the board didn’t pay the money so it failed then the same people moved on to equity in education — marginalized people, racism, gender identity, etc. Our staff meetings and PD sessions are now focused on this trend — half is useless and the other half is common sense. The worst part is listening to admin discuss ideas they just heard of because of their own PD sessions and you were aware of for over a decade — an insult to my intelligence. Instead of getting mad, I ignore it and either nap or work on planning. Harder to do now that our staff meetings are live as opposed to online but I still ignore most of it.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.