Thousands of unborn children were found in the home of Dr. Ulrich Klopfer, an abortionist who passed away earlier this month. In 2015, the abortionist’s medical license was suspended after he allegedly failed to report an abortion performed on a 13-year-old girl.
The remains of 2,246 unborn children have been found inside the Will County, Illinois home of a now-deceased abortionist, Dr. Ulrich Klopfer, who passed away on September 3, according to a report by WGN-TV.
Klopfer reportedly used to practice abortions at the Women’s Pavilion in South Bend, Indiana, but had his medical license suspended in 2015 after allegedly failing to report an abortion preformed on a 13-year-old child.
The attorney for Klopfer’s family said that he discovered the fetal remains while going through the deceased abortionist’s property and making arrangements with the local coroner.
According to the Will County Sheriff’s Office, the attorney contacted authorities on Thursday, who arrived at the property, where they found the remains of 2,246 medically preserved unborn children inside Klopfer’s home.
Will County authorities are now reportedly conducting an investigation into the matter, adding that Klopfer’s family is in full cooperation.
Authorities say there is no evidence of any medical procedures having been conducted at the abortionist’s home.
This is an ongoing investigation. Follow Breitbart News for updates.
With overwhelming bipartisan support, the state last month
enacted Senate
Bill 584, which allows the legislature to rein in runaway
regulatory crimes.
Like the federal government, North Carolina’s regulatory
agencies are overzealously creating regulatory crimes. These are crimes defined
by executive branch agencies pursuant to authority delegated to them by the
legislature.
Most criminal regulations do not cover things we typically consider “criminal” like murder or burglary. Instead, they’re things like providing criminal penalties for violating complex rules for selling bedding or transferring money.
Such activities may seem less serious than traditional
crimes, but they can result in equally serious jail time.
As Heritage Foundation scholars have said time
and time
again, regulatory crimes are a problem. It’s all but impossible for the public
to know them all, and yet, as the maxim goes, ignorance of the law is no
excuse. You will pay a fine and may go to jail if you accidentally mislabel
bedding.
In the case of the federal government, experts
estimate that there are more than 300,000 regulatory offenses carrying
potential criminal penalties. Americans have been sent
to prison for breaking laws they didn’t even know existed and which did not
involve inherently blameworthy conduct.
Taking note of this problem, North Carolina passed a law in
2018 that required state and local agencies to report to the legislature all of
their rules that carried criminal penalties. Many agencies failed to comply,
and so, last month, the state enacted SB 584.
Section 3 of the law sets a new compliance deadline, and Section
5 adds a penalty for noncompliance: Any agency that fails to report to the
legislature in a timely manner loses its power to enforce new criminal rules for
two years.
Additionally, Section 6 automatically refers all new criminal
regulations proposed by state agencies to the legislature’s General Statutes
Commission, which will then review them and make recommendations to the general
session whether any of the regulations should have their criminal penalties
removed.
The law is an excellent first step to getting a handle on
runaway regulatory crimes. North Carolina has correctly recognized that
regulatory crimes are a problem, that to address that problem it must take inventory
of its regulatory crimes, and that the legislature should retain its authority
to review and vote on all crimes that the state creates.
The federal government should follow North Carolina’s
example.
For years, The Heritage Foundation has supported efforts to
count the federal criminal laws contained both in the United States Code and in
the Code of Federal Regulations. The Department of Justice and several
non-governmental organizations have tried, and failed, to do so.
But who better than to count criminal regulations than the
agencies that promulgated them? And what better way to encourage that effort
than to forbid agencies from enforcing new crimes if they don’t comply?
After all, if an agency is unable to count the crimes it has
created, it cannot be trusted to enforce more.
Congress should put aside political differences and rally in
support of a federal law mirroring SB 584.
North Carolina’s law passed the Republican-majority state legislature
with overwhelming
bipartisan support and was signed by its Democratic governor.
This is an issue that people on both sides of the aisle
can—and often do—agree on. A federal law that requires executive agencies to
count their criminal rules wouldn’t just be good policy, it would be a much-needed
win for bipartisanship.
A Christian legal group that specializes in religious liberty has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider the case of a florist who declined to provide flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding.
In June, the Washington state Supreme Court again ruled against Barronelle Stutzman, a businesswoman and great-grandmother who has said her faith did not allow her to contribute her talents to a regular customer’s wedding to another man.
“Barronelle serves and hires people from all walks of life,” Kristen Waggoner, senior vice president of the U.S. legal division of Alliance Defending Freedom, said Wednesday in a written statement.
“What she can’t do is take part in, or create custom floral arrangements celebrating, sacred events that violate her religious beliefs,” Waggoner said. “Because of this, the Washington Supreme Court upheld a ruling that threatens Barronelle with personal and professional ruin.”
Waggoner argued on Stutzman’s behalf before the state Supreme Court in 2016.
The U.S. Supreme Court had vacated the state high court’s ruling against Stutzman and ordered it to reconsider her case in light of last year’s Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. In that case, the court ruled that a Colorado civil rights panel was hostile toward Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who declined to make a custom cake to help celebrate a same-sex marriage.
Washington state’s high court came back with the same decision on Stutzman, “repeating verbatim much of what it said in its original decision,” according to Alliance Defending Freedom, which now wants the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the case.
Stutzman, 74, of Richland, Washington, faces fines for violating Washington’s anti-discrimination law by declining to provide and arrange the flowers from her shop, Arlene’s Flowers, for the gay customer’s wedding.
Waggoner said Stutzman’s Christian beliefs on marriage shouldn’t interfere with her First Amendment right to express herself as she chooses.
“Regardless of what one believes about marriage, no creative professional should be forced to create art or participate in a ceremony that violates their core convictions,” she said. “That’s why we have taken Barronelle’s case back to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Stutzman’s case goes back to March 2013, when customer Rob Ingersoll asked her to provide floral arrangements for his wedding to Curt Freed. Another florist provided the service.
A Supreme Court ruling allowing the Trump administration to implement a new asylum policy will help unclog the system and benefit those with “legitimate asylum claims,” one of the nation’s top immigration officials said.
The new asylum policy “requires those coming to the southern border of the United States who want to seek asylum to have first sought it in a country they passed through and have been rejected,” Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said during an interview Thursday at an Axios event in Washington.
Cuccinelli, speaking to Mike Allen, executive editor of Axios, noted that the new rules from the departments of Justice and Homeland Security don’t apply to migrants from Mexico. But, he said, the change raises the bar for others who travel through Mexico to reach the U.S.
“Frankly, from all over the world, [asylum-seekers] funnel through [the southern border],” Cuccinelli said. “So what they are doing is overwhelming the system. We can’t get through people with legitimate asylum claims.”
The Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday evening allowed the Trump administration to proceed as legal challenges go forward in lower courts.
Cuccinelli, a former Virginia attorney general who President Donald Trump appointed June 10, said his agency has faced constant lawsuits over its actions.
“Anything that we’ve done since I’ve gotten there, I believe there’s been a very strong legal foundation for it. However, we immediately get sued,” he said. “It’s sort of a joke in the office.”
Suing the government to prevent policies, rules, and laws from being executed has become a common tactic, Cuccinelli said.
In fact, he was the first state attorney general to sue the federal government over Obamacare.
“My pessimism rolls in when I see rather nakedly political decisions from the bench,” Cuccinelli said of what he considers activist judges.
As an example, he cited “temporary protected status,” an immigration status that allows individuals from other countries to live and work in the United States for a limited time.
Cuccinelli said that by law temporary protected status can’t be a gateway to permanent resident status for immigrants, but a federal court said it could.
Because of this kind of judicial overreach, he said, the Trump administration is less willing to grant temporary protected status to those fleeing the wreckage of Hurricane Dorian.
On the other hand, Trump’s demands for Mexico to take stronger action in securing its own southern border have made his job easier, Cuccinelli said.
“We have never had better cooperation from Mexico with as serious a problem as we have right now,” he said. “They used to have a program where they would give you a 20-day pass to go through Mexico to get to the United States. They’re now defending their southern border.”
How did AR-15s become the plastic straws of the gun world? It’s simple: Demagogues need scapegoats. Yet just as banning plastic straws won’t make a dent in the ocean-polluting plastics problem, banning “assault rifles” (which aren’t) won’t save even one life.
It’s tragic how, just like faddish teenagers playing a dangerous or stupid social-media-driven prank, so-called adults go on misguided, media-driven, lynch-mob kicks. Remember when SUVs were demonized as planet killers approximately 15 to 20 years ago? Some environmentalists claimed that SUV drivers were essentially “hate group” members, and other vandalism-crazy greenies would, ironically, set fire to the vehicles to combat global warming. Yet SUVs currently appear more popular than ever, and all is quiet on the gas-guzzler front. What happened? The demagogues and their dupes have moved on to a different neurotic fixation.
Now the suburban soccer mom can drive her Panzer-size SUV (by the by, back in the “day” they were called “trucks” — ah, marketing) content in the “feeling” that she’s saving the environment because she supports banning plastic straws. Never mind that doing so likely won’t save even one marine mammal, since the U.S. is responsible for only one percent of ocean-polluting plastics, and straws account for just 0.025 percent of that. Never mind that anti-”strawism” began with erroneous claims in a nine-year-old’s science project (ugh, beam me up, Scotty). The lynch mob must be fed, and plastic straw users, well, really suck….
Joining straws in the dock, and giving new meaning to demonizing the one percent, are Assault Rifles™. Not only are they used in approximately just one percent of homicides, they aren’t even “assault rifles,” a term that had always referred to weapons that could be fired fully automatic or in more than one way (fully auto, three-shot bursts, etc). Now the term is being applied to semi-automatic (one trigger pull, one shot) rifles with certain cosmetic features (a military “look”), which is a bit like putting a Porsche body on a Yugo chassis and claiming the car will win races.
But, hey, as anti-gun crusader Josh Sugarmann once put it, these “weapons’ menacing looks,” coupled with the public’s confusion — “anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
Yeah, it’s a con.
That said, AR-15s are used in an inordinate percentage of high-profile mass shootings. But believing that outlawing them would reduce these incidents’ frequency makes as much sense as believing that banning the BMW 4 Series — which AutoBlog.com lists as the car most likely to be involved in a crash — would reduce the accident rate.
Quite apropos, AutoBlog’s subtitle boldly reminds readers, “Remember: People cause crashes, not cars.” The point is that outlawing a vehicle wouldn’t take the kind of people who drive it off the road; they’d just get into accidents in a different vehicle.
This point is even more relevant for AR-15-category rifles. The AR-15 is commonly used in mass shootings for two simple reasons: It’s the most popular rifle in America.
And it looks cool.
In reality, though, such a weapon isn’t the best choice for committing mass shootings, which generally involve attacking soft targets at close range. More effective would be a semi-automatic, 12-gauge shotgun or even a pump-action one (and a shotgun was used in the Aurora, Colorado, shooting in 2012).
In other words, not only would mass shooters simply choose a different weapon if AR-15-type rifles were somehow unavailable, but it’s arguable that the rifle’s criminalization could push them toward more effective weaponry.
Speaking of which, presidential contender Irish Bob O’Rourke said in March, echoing many, “I just don’t think that we need to sell any more weapons of war into this public.” He’d have been more accurate if he’d stopped after his first four words. But the pitch is rhetorically effective, conjuring up images of flesh-eviscerating machine-gun fire.
Yet leaving aside the common argument that allowing Americans the same firearms the military uses was the Second Amendment’s actual intent, first note that the AR-15 was never used by the US military. In fact, while the M-16 — which uses the same platform but isn’t limited to semi-auto fire — was, it was supplanted a while back by the M-4; this, in turn, is set to be replaced by an entirely different rifle that will likely even use different, more effective ammunition (critics have long bemoaned the M-16’s/M-4’s relative lack of stopping power).
Moreover, how many guns weren’t designed as “weapons of war”? Bolt-action rifles were once state-of-the-art weapons of war. So was the flintlock. Go back even further, and clubs were weapons of war, and many people are still killed with them today. Should we outlaw baseball bats?
In fact, far from devastating, the AR-15’s standard round is small caliber (the same diameter as a .22) and has the second least power of the 41 cartridges found on this Rifle Cartridge Killing Power List page (note: When loaded with 5.56mm ammo, the power is somewhat greater but still relatively lacking). In other words, you can acquire any number of hunting rifles far more devastating than an AR.
This, mind you, is why some states have prohibited the AR-15’s use in deer hunting; its relatively weak round may not kill the animal, but simply send it off wounded and suffering.
It’s also why the seven-year-old girl in the video below could fire the weapon with ease.
In contrast, I’ve seen a 240-pound man (who wasn’t prepared for the extreme recoil) almost knocked over by a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with a magnum shell.
So, we can outlaw AR-15-type rifles if it makes us feel better, but just as banning plastic straws won’t save marine life, it won’t save one human life. For this reason, it would also be followed by another scapegoated gun targeted for criminalization. Note here that Britain’s deadliest ever mass shooting, the Dunblane massacre in 1996, inspired sweeping anti-firearms laws — after being committed with handguns.
Oh, and London just surpassed N.Y.C. in homicides last year.
This is unsurprising since, as Professor Thomas Sowell illustrated, there’s no correlation whatsoever between stricter gun laws and lower murder rates.
This is why, more to fear than guns are demagogues — shooting off their assault mouths.
How did AR-15s become the plastic straws of the gun world? It’s simple: Demagogues need scapegoats. Yet just as banning plastic straws won’t make a dent in the ocean-polluting plastics problem, banning “assault rifles” (which aren’t) won’t save even one life.
It’s tragic how, just like faddish teenagers playing a dangerous or stupid social-media-driven prank, so-called adults go on misguided, media-driven, lynch-mob kicks. Remember when SUVs were demonized as planet killers approximately 15 to 20 years ago? Some environmentalists claimed that SUV drivers were essentially “hate group” members, and other vandalism-crazy greenies would, ironically, set fire to the vehicles to combat global warming. Yet SUVs currently appear more popular than ever, and all is quiet on the gas-guzzler front. What happened? The demagogues and their dupes have moved on to a different neurotic fixation.
Now the suburban soccer mom can drive her Panzer-size SUV (by the by, back in the “day” they were called “trucks” — ah, marketing) content in the “feeling” that she’s saving the environment because she supports banning plastic straws. Never mind that doing so likely won’t save even one marine mammal, since the U.S. is responsible for only one percent of ocean-polluting plastics, and straws account for just 0.025 percent of that. Never mind that anti-”strawism” began with erroneous claims in a nine-year-old’s science project (ugh, beam me up, Scotty). The lynch mob must be fed, and plastic straw users, well, really suck….
Joining straws in the dock, and giving new meaning to demonizing the one percent, are Assault Rifles™. Not only are they used in approximately just one percent of homicides, they aren’t even “assault rifles,” a term that had always referred to weapons that could be fired fully automatic or in more than one way (fully auto, three-shot bursts, etc). Now the term is being applied to semi-automatic (one trigger pull, one shot) rifles with certain cosmetic features (a military “look”), which is a bit like putting a Porsche body on a Yugo chassis and claiming the car will win races.
But, hey, as anti-gun crusader Josh Sugarmann once put it, these “weapons’ menacing looks,” coupled with the public’s confusion — “anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
Yeah, it’s a con.
That said, AR-15s are used in an inordinate percentage of high-profile mass shootings. But believing that outlawing them would reduce these incidents’ frequency makes as much sense as believing that banning the BMW 4 Series — which AutoBlog.com lists as the car most likely to be involved in a crash — would reduce the accident rate.
Quite apropos, AutoBlog’s subtitle boldly reminds readers, “Remember: People cause crashes, not cars.” The point is that outlawing a vehicle wouldn’t take the kind of people who drive it off the road; they’d just get into accidents in a different vehicle.
This point is even more relevant for AR-15-category rifles. The AR-15 is commonly used in mass shootings for two simple reasons: It’s the most popular rifle in America.
And it looks cool.
In reality, though, such a weapon isn’t the best choice for committing mass shootings, which generally involve attacking soft targets at close range. More effective would be a semi-automatic, 12-gauge shotgun or even a pump-action one (and a shotgun was used in the Aurora, Colorado, shooting in 2012).
In other words, not only would mass shooters simply choose a different weapon if AR-15-type rifles were somehow unavailable, but it’s arguable that the rifle’s criminalization could push them toward more effective weaponry.
Speaking of which, presidential contender Irish Bob O’Rourke said in March, echoing many, “I just don’t think that we need to sell any more weapons of war into this public.” He’d have been more accurate if he’d stopped after his first four words. But the pitch is rhetorically effective, conjuring up images of flesh-eviscerating machine-gun fire.
Yet leaving aside the common argument that allowing Americans the same firearms the military uses was the Second Amendment’s actual intent, first note that the AR-15 was never used by the US military. In fact, while the M-16 — which uses the same platform but isn’t limited to semi-auto fire — was, it was supplanted a while back by the M-4; this, in turn, is set to be replaced by an entirely different rifle that will likely even use different, more effective ammunition (critics have long bemoaned the M-16’s/M-4’s relative lack of stopping power).
Moreover, how many guns weren’t designed as “weapons of war”? Bolt-action rifles were once state-of-the-art weapons of war. So was the flintlock. Go back even further, and clubs were weapons of war, and many people are still killed with them today. Should we outlaw baseball bats?
In fact, far from devastating, the AR-15’s standard round is small caliber (the same diameter as a .22) and has the second least power of the 41 cartridges found on this Rifle Cartridge Killing Power List page (note: When loaded with 5.56mm ammo, the power is somewhat greater but still relatively lacking). In other words, you can acquire any number of hunting rifles far more devastating than an AR.
This, mind you, is why some states have prohibited the AR-15’s use in deer hunting; its relatively weak round may not kill the animal, but simply send it off wounded and suffering.
It’s also why the seven-year-old girl in the video below could fire the weapon with ease.
In contrast, I’ve seen a 240-pound man (who wasn’t prepared for the extreme recoil) almost knocked over by a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with a magnum shell.
So, we can outlaw AR-15-type rifles if it makes us feel better, but just as banning plastic straws won’t save marine life, it won’t save one human life. For this reason, it would also be followed by another scapegoated gun targeted for criminalization. Note here that Britain’s deadliest ever mass shooting, the Dunblane massacre in 1996, inspired sweeping anti-firearms laws — after being committed with handguns.
Oh, and London just surpassed N.Y.C. in homicides last year.
This is unsurprising since, as Professor Thomas Sowell illustrated, there’s no correlation whatsoever between stricter gun laws and lower murder rates.
This is why, more to fear than guns are demagogues — shooting off their assault mouths.
In watching Thursday night’s Democrat debate, I first felt as though I was watching a conservative spoof on a Saturday Night Live skit.
There was Bernie Sanders, playing the crazy and deranged college professor, quite literally spitting insanity. Kamala Harris was dancing, laughing, and spouting gibberish, leaving the distinct impression she was hiding an empty rectangular bottle under her podium. Julián Castro was screaming maniacally at Joe Biden about something he didn’t say.
Andrew Yang proudly informed the audience that he is Asian, so he knows a lot of doctors, while Spartacus was promising to release 17,000 criminals back into American communities as a good start. I’d likely vote for any of those criminals over Cory Booker. Joe Biden made the profoundly stupid point that only violent criminals should be in prison, forgetting to add Republicans to that list.
The longer I watched the debate, the more it started to sound like a stage full of radicalized college professors trying to impress their radicalized students. From Beto O’Rourke’s claim that America’s founding can be traced to the first slave brought here in 1619 to the “white supremacy” sweepstakes in which O’Rourke, Julián Castro, and Cory Booker pushed their poker chips to the center of the table to see who could most obnoxiously condemn America, it gave off the nauseating ideological odor of a college classroom.
Sarah Sanders made one of the best observations in recent weeks when, reflecting on the Democrats running for president, she observed, ”I’m pretty sure they don’t even like America.” She’s right. They don’t.
For those who are wondering how the Democrats could have produced such a distinguished slate of the sanity-challenged, it is because of radical liberal control of America’s colleges and universities. The Marxist radicals of yesterday became college professors of today, seizing ideological control of much of America.
Just as Saudi-funded Salafist religious schools have radicalized large swaths of the Islamic world, American universities are radicalizing an increasingly large share of America. This is aided by the fact that nearly 70% of kids now go to college, where most of them are taught not to think.
Every candidate on stage is convinced that the lion’s share of Democrat primary voters are radical Marxists. Sadly, they’re all largely right, which is why any candidate who sounds remotely reasonable is running about the same percentage of voter support as you. These candidates should know their voters, since every one of them is likely a product of America’s universities. It is hard to overstate the damage this institution is inflicting on America but that outcome was on fully display during the Democrat debate.
A favorite Andrew Breitbart observation explains exactly what is going on. He said, “You send your kids off to college. They love you. You walk away with a Cornell mom T-shirt. You are walking away going, ‘This is great,’ and come Thanksgiving, your kid tells you that you are an imperialist and a racist and a homophobe.”
He could have added that your child will inform you that he is feeling the Bern, and you should, too. All that for the bargain basement price of $250,000 or so. This is a tragedy that is regularly playing out in American households as parents receive back kids they barely recognize.
My first experience with the radicalization of academia happened about twenty years ago, when I was working on a Master of Arts in Literature degree at a mainstream public Virginia university. I had never actually met a Marxist, but my first professor informed us that he was one. I was bewildered that such an anachronistic creature still existed in the United States and looked at him with the same morbid curiosity I might have reserved for a two-headed snake.
But I soon realized that I was the anachronism in that environment. Every professor was some form of Marxist thinker. They couched it in various terms such as post-colonialism, feminism, deconstructionism, queer theory, or some other “ism,” but they all believed that the U.S. is hopelessly corrupted by white patriarchy and that the institutions needed to be overthrown, replaced by some form of socialist power structure. The literature we studied was just a backdrop for these professors to project their various theories on their students.
They were extremely effective at it. Propaganda works, especially when couched in academic terms that appeal to the students’ intellectual vanity. Out of all my classes, only one other student offered even a peep of protest, an Army officer who was equally bemused by what he was hearing.
Fast-forward several years, and I was working on a Master’s degree in international relations at a graduate school that largely services military students. One would think the professors would be a bit more conservative, considering the student population. Wrong. They were actually worse. They added anti-Semitism to the Marxist and post-colonialist stew. What was most depressing was just how much the students were carried along on the waves of the professors’ radicalism. It was the Breitbart observation playing out in a military context.
It continues to get worse as academia further devolves. While in high school, one of my kids went to a selective program hosted by an elite university focused on creative writing. She was the only non-liberal in the program, teacher and student alike. She heard the usual bromides that conservatives in these situations hear, which went something to the effect of “We actually like you. You’re not like all those other horrible people.” It was a real eye-opening experience for her. Most of her fellow attendees at that program are now in Ivy League schools. Based upon her experience at that program, my daughter chose Hillsdale College and hasn’t looked back.
It is in the American university where the battle is being lost. Parents sacrifice for and encourage their sons and daughters to attend these universities with the best of intentions, thinking they are the gateway to a better life. The university returns them as Bernie Sanders acolytes who think Beto O’Rourke whispers words of wisdom.
This also explains the increasing media radicalization. These propagandists are the product of these same universities. Conservatives who think media bias is the biggest threat in the country aren’t quite right. These media representatives are a product of academia. They were propagandized first before becoming mouthpieces themselves. Just about every candidate on stage was radicalized at an American university. Every K–12 teacher in America also has a liberal arts university degree, which again explains how so many schools have morphed from educational institutions into propaganda factories.
These universities are doing all in their power to ensure they reach all the students with their propaganda and social engineering. Even engineering and science majors are forced to take classes from these propagandists in the interest of producing “well rounded students,” a euphemism for indoctrinated liberals. There are only a handful of colleges left that aren’t infected with this disease.
This is why every Democrat on a debate stage sounds like he or she despises America. These candidates, many of them shifting left with the political winds, are chasing increasingly propagandized voters who are a product of colleges and universities. They are radicals chasing a growing number of radicalized votes.
Fletch Daniels blogs at deplorabletouchdown.com and can be found on Twitter at @fletchdaniels.
In watching Thursday night’s Democrat debate, I first felt as though I was watching a conservative spoof on a Saturday Night Live skit.
There was Bernie Sanders, playing the crazy and deranged college professor, quite literally spitting insanity. Kamala Harris was dancing, laughing, and spouting gibberish, leaving the distinct impression she was hiding an empty rectangular bottle under her podium. Julián Castro was screaming maniacally at Joe Biden about something he didn’t say.
Andrew Yang proudly informed the audience that he is Asian, so he knows a lot of doctors, while Spartacus was promising to release 17,000 criminals back into American communities as a good start. I’d likely vote for any of those criminals over Cory Booker. Joe Biden made the profoundly stupid point that only violent criminals should be in prison, forgetting to add Republicans to that list.
The longer I watched the debate, the more it started to sound like a stage full of radicalized college professors trying to impress their radicalized students. From Beto O’Rourke’s claim that America’s founding can be traced to the first slave brought here in 1619 to the “white supremacy” sweepstakes in which O’Rourke, Julián Castro, and Cory Booker pushed their poker chips to the center of the table to see who could most obnoxiously condemn America, it gave off the nauseating ideological odor of a college classroom.
Sarah Sanders made one of the best observations in recent weeks when, reflecting on the Democrats running for president, she observed, ”I’m pretty sure they don’t even like America.” She’s right. They don’t.
For those who are wondering how the Democrats could have produced such a distinguished slate of the sanity-challenged, it is because of radical liberal control of America’s colleges and universities. The Marxist radicals of yesterday became college professors of today, seizing ideological control of much of America.
Just as Saudi-funded Salafist religious schools have radicalized large swaths of the Islamic world, American universities are radicalizing an increasingly large share of America. This is aided by the fact that nearly 70% of kids now go to college, where most of them are taught not to think.
Every candidate on stage is convinced that the lion’s share of Democrat primary voters are radical Marxists. Sadly, they’re all largely right, which is why any candidate who sounds remotely reasonable is running about the same percentage of voter support as you. These candidates should know their voters, since every one of them is likely a product of America’s universities. It is hard to overstate the damage this institution is inflicting on America but that outcome was on fully display during the Democrat debate.
A favorite Andrew Breitbart observation explains exactly what is going on. He said, “You send your kids off to college. They love you. You walk away with a Cornell mom T-shirt. You are walking away going, ‘This is great,’ and come Thanksgiving, your kid tells you that you are an imperialist and a racist and a homophobe.”
He could have added that your child will inform you that he is feeling the Bern, and you should, too. All that for the bargain basement price of $250,000 or so. This is a tragedy that is regularly playing out in American households as parents receive back kids they barely recognize.
My first experience with the radicalization of academia happened about twenty years ago, when I was working on a Master of Arts in Literature degree at a mainstream public Virginia university. I had never actually met a Marxist, but my first professor informed us that he was one. I was bewildered that such an anachronistic creature still existed in the United States and looked at him with the same morbid curiosity I might have reserved for a two-headed snake.
But I soon realized that I was the anachronism in that environment. Every professor was some form of Marxist thinker. They couched it in various terms such as post-colonialism, feminism, deconstructionism, queer theory, or some other “ism,” but they all believed that the U.S. is hopelessly corrupted by white patriarchy and that the institutions needed to be overthrown, replaced by some form of socialist power structure. The literature we studied was just a backdrop for these professors to project their various theories on their students.
They were extremely effective at it. Propaganda works, especially when couched in academic terms that appeal to the students’ intellectual vanity. Out of all my classes, only one other student offered even a peep of protest, an Army officer who was equally bemused by what he was hearing.
Fast-forward several years, and I was working on a Master’s degree in international relations at a graduate school that largely services military students. One would think the professors would be a bit more conservative, considering the student population. Wrong. They were actually worse. They added anti-Semitism to the Marxist and post-colonialist stew. What was most depressing was just how much the students were carried along on the waves of the professors’ radicalism. It was the Breitbart observation playing out in a military context.
It continues to get worse as academia further devolves. While in high school, one of my kids went to a selective program hosted by an elite university focused on creative writing. She was the only non-liberal in the program, teacher and student alike. She heard the usual bromides that conservatives in these situations hear, which went something to the effect of “We actually like you. You’re not like all those other horrible people.” It was a real eye-opening experience for her. Most of her fellow attendees at that program are now in Ivy League schools. Based upon her experience at that program, my daughter chose Hillsdale College and hasn’t looked back.
It is in the American university where the battle is being lost. Parents sacrifice for and encourage their sons and daughters to attend these universities with the best of intentions, thinking they are the gateway to a better life. The university returns them as Bernie Sanders acolytes who think Beto O’Rourke whispers words of wisdom.
This also explains the increasing media radicalization. These propagandists are the product of these same universities. Conservatives who think media bias is the biggest threat in the country aren’t quite right. These media representatives are a product of academia. They were propagandized first before becoming mouthpieces themselves. Just about every candidate on stage was radicalized at an American university. Every K–12 teacher in America also has a liberal arts university degree, which again explains how so many schools have morphed from educational institutions into propaganda factories.
These universities are doing all in their power to ensure they reach all the students with their propaganda and social engineering. Even engineering and science majors are forced to take classes from these propagandists in the interest of producing “well rounded students,” a euphemism for indoctrinated liberals. There are only a handful of colleges left that aren’t infected with this disease.
This is why every Democrat on a debate stage sounds like he or she despises America. These candidates, many of them shifting left with the political winds, are chasing increasingly propagandized voters who are a product of colleges and universities. They are radicals chasing a growing number of radicalized votes.
Fletch Daniels blogs at deplorabletouchdown.com and can be found on Twitter at @fletchdaniels.
It’s a fallacy to suggest that in the news media, business trumps politics. CNN and MSNBC’s dismal ratings are in direct proportion to their deliberate decision to embrace far-left anti-Trumpism. The same holds true for Hollywood, except in their case it’s not just anti-Trumpism that excites. The hatred is deeper. They are committed to levels of anti-Christian bigotry never before seen in their industry. There’s no discernible market demand for this bigotry, but it’s the mindset of the industry that believes Christianity must be insulted at every opportunity.
Throughout the Democrat presidential debate Thursday night, the candidates were positively entertaining in their quest to out-pander each other (can we say Yang?) – on health care, of course, but especially on race, then guns. The agreed-upon talking point since the day he was elected has been that “Trump is a racist” even though for the first seventy-one years of his life, no one had ever, even once, suggested such a thing.
Trump had long been friends with nearly all high-profile African-Americans from all walks of life in New York. He has helped countless African-American individuals, schools, and charitable organizations. The man has never demonstrated an iota of racism or even race consciousness. But as we all know by now, the truth is not a left-wing value as Dennis Prager often reminds. They don’t like Trump, so any slur, any fabricated indictment of his character is A-OK, a sanctioned furtherance of the agenda to transform America into their dystopian utopia.
White supremacy? Sounds like a plan. Let’s go with it. No made-up accusation is over the line. No plan to eviscerate the Constitution is a bridge too far. The left loathes the limits our Constitution places on our government. Thank God for the genius of our Founders. Without them, we would not have prevailed to this day. As for the loathsome Beto’s vow to “take our guns,” he has no idea the power of the sleeping giant he has awakened. Americans who revere the Constitution are filled with a terrible resolve.
Will we survive the socialist plan our Left has for us? Only time will tell. Given the Left’s promulgation of homelessness, (they pass out needles and ban straws), their commitment to the further dumbing down of education and their disdain for Judeo-Christian values, to open borders and all that entails, and their fidelity to Marxist socialism, if they take the White House, the House and the Senate, America as we know it will be over. The US will become a class-stratified society like that of old Europe, France before their Revolution. Our elites will see to it that their lives are not impacted in any way by the legislation they mean to impose on the rest of us. That is not part of their plan.
The American Revolution was fought to free the American colonies from the tyranny of and taxation by England. That same liberty-loving spirit led to the Civil War; freedom-loving Americans fought to end slavery. The Republican Party was founded to do exactly that. Any faux historian that says different is lying. America was founded in 1776, its nationhood cemented with the ratification of the Constitution in 1788.
Legitimate historians are rare these days; nearly all have been politicized by academia and its power to persuade, and by its love of Howard Zinn’s slanderous and wholly inaccurate version of US history. The NYT’s silly claim that we have been a nation since 1619 when, according to them, the first slave arrived in the New World is utter nonsense. Academia is now, with a few exceptions, thoroughly corrupt, committed only to the leftist indoctrination of the unsuspecting young.
Only the perceived crimes of America matter now. We are all to be indicted for being born here. We are to be condemned and punished if born Caucasian, as if we had a hand in the nature of our birth. And yet it is those of us who love America and are familiar with our history who care nothing about the color of anyone’s skin. It is the Left that defines people and judges people by their race and not their character. How else to explain their affection for illegal migrant criminals like those terrorizing Montgomery County, Maryland, one example that is being replicated across the country.
The debate of Thursday night should be a huge wake-up call for all freedom-loving Americans. Every one of the Democrat candidates wants to curb nearly all of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights – speech, assembly, the right to bear arms. They mean to restrict our access to health care, fuel, food, electricity, mobility by car or air, goods in markets.
In short, they well and truly intend to transform the country beyond what Obama did on his watch and not in a good way. They mean to punish all of us who support Trump because, like Hillary, we are to them deplorable for loving our country. They are not alone. The DNC debate audience in Houston were mind-numbed clapping seals. The more punitively race-conscious and socialist the candidates’ promises, the more they applauded.
The fact that there have been no American flags on the stage at any of the Democrat debates says it all. One thing is certain: This election season is going to be a bumpy ride. Like the colonists of 1776, we are looking at the choice between freedom and tyranny. All Americans need to be cognizant of the deadly seriousness of their vote in 2020. Trump’s style and his tweets may offend some but his dedication to the preservation of America is boundless. He has pledged his life and fortune to the cause. Gratitude is in order
Throughout the Democrat presidential debate Thursday night, the candidates were positively entertaining in their quest to out-pander each other (can we say Yang?) – on health care, of course, but especially on race, then guns. The agreed-upon talking point since the day he was elected has been that “Trump is a racist” even though for the first seventy-one years of his life, no one had ever, even once, suggested such a thing.
Trump had long been friends with nearly all high-profile African-Americans from all walks of life in New York. He has helped countless African-American individuals, schools, and charitable organizations. The man has never demonstrated an iota of racism or even race consciousness. But as we all know by now, the truth is not a left-wing value as Dennis Prager often reminds. They don’t like Trump, so any slur, any fabricated indictment of his character is A-OK, a sanctioned furtherance of the agenda to transform America into their dystopian utopia.
White supremacy? Sounds like a plan. Let’s go with it. No made-up accusation is over the line. No plan to eviscerate the Constitution is a bridge too far. The left loathes the limits our Constitution places on our government. Thank God for the genius of our Founders. Without them, we would not have prevailed to this day. As for the loathsome Beto’s vow to “take our guns,” he has no idea the power of the sleeping giant he has awakened. Americans who revere the Constitution are filled with a terrible resolve.
Will we survive the socialist plan our Left has for us? Only time will tell. Given the Left’s promulgation of homelessness, (they pass out needles and ban straws), their commitment to the further dumbing down of education and their disdain for Judeo-Christian values, to open borders and all that entails, and their fidelity to Marxist socialism, if they take the White House, the House and the Senate, America as we know it will be over. The US will become a class-stratified society like that of old Europe, France before their Revolution. Our elites will see to it that their lives are not impacted in any way by the legislation they mean to impose on the rest of us. That is not part of their plan.
The American Revolution was fought to free the American colonies from the tyranny of and taxation by England. That same liberty-loving spirit led to the Civil War; freedom-loving Americans fought to end slavery. The Republican Party was founded to do exactly that. Any faux historian that says different is lying. America was founded in 1776, its nationhood cemented with the ratification of the Constitution in 1788.
Legitimate historians are rare these days; nearly all have been politicized by academia and its power to persuade, and by its love of Howard Zinn’s slanderous and wholly inaccurate version of US history. The NYT’s silly claim that we have been a nation since 1619 when, according to them, the first slave arrived in the New World is utter nonsense. Academia is now, with a few exceptions, thoroughly corrupt, committed only to the leftist indoctrination of the unsuspecting young.
Only the perceived crimes of America matter now. We are all to be indicted for being born here. We are to be condemned and punished if born Caucasian, as if we had a hand in the nature of our birth. And yet it is those of us who love America and are familiar with our history who care nothing about the color of anyone’s skin. It is the Left that defines people and judges people by their race and not their character. How else to explain their affection for illegal migrant criminals like those terrorizing Montgomery County, Maryland, one example that is being replicated across the country.
The debate of Thursday night should be a huge wake-up call for all freedom-loving Americans. Every one of the Democrat candidates wants to curb nearly all of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights – speech, assembly, the right to bear arms. They mean to restrict our access to health care, fuel, food, electricity, mobility by car or air, goods in markets.
In short, they well and truly intend to transform the country beyond what Obama did on his watch and not in a good way. They mean to punish all of us who support Trump because, like Hillary, we are to them deplorable for loving our country. They are not alone. The DNC debate audience in Houston were mind-numbed clapping seals. The more punitively race-conscious and socialist the candidates’ promises, the more they applauded.
The fact that there have been no American flags on the stage at any of the Democrat debates says it all. One thing is certain: This election season is going to be a bumpy ride. Like the colonists of 1776, we are looking at the choice between freedom and tyranny. All Americans need to be cognizant of the deadly seriousness of their vote in 2020. Trump’s style and his tweets may offend some but his dedication to the preservation of America is boundless. He has pledged his life and fortune to the cause. Gratitude is in order
August 2017, Charlottesville: Police disappear even as belligerents advance toward each other, and fighting in the streets begins. The same tactic had been used successfully in Ferguson and Baltimore. Who but President Obama and the respective governors could have given the orders to stand down? Who else but mayors and police chiefs could have expedited such counterintuitive commands?
Democrats got their optics. CNN could chant each day that the USA is full of white nationalists and right-wing criminality. Obama must’ve been proud. Anyone could see that white supremacists lurked on every street.
Funny thing: If you wait around for these people to turn up on their own, you will probably find they are as rare as Sasquatch.
Seriously. Does anyone know a white supremacist? Do they have any spokespeople on television? Do they have networks as liberals do? Do they have bestsellers and big rallies? Do they run departments at great universities? Do they control foundations? Central casting wants to know: where do you find these people? Probably you can’t, not unless you have top-level politicians willing to create riots on demand.
If you want something both menacing and commonplace, look in a completely opposite direction. Look for red supremacists. That would be hard-left people in control, or scheming to be in control. But how can we know when they are present?
Consider that Americans split 50-50 on most of the main issues in this country: gun control, abortion, capital punishment, conscientious objection, voting age, drinking age, et al. Surely, the hard Left works to change opinion on these issues. But typically, there are no giant anomalies to prove what effect red supremacists are having.
Education is the opposite story. When it comes to reading, writing and arithmetic, 99% of American parents want children to have these skills. Naturally they get them, right? Wrong, and that’s how you know that some serious subversion is going on. Red supremacists seem to be everywhere in education. Examining K–12 is remarkably revealing, like taking an x-ray of the whole country.
The gains that all parents want are routinely withheld from American children. Reading is down. Math is down. Factual knowledge (AKA cultural literacy) is down. Order and coherence in the classroom are down. Satisfaction among teachers is down. Satisfaction among parents is down. The kids cry themselves to sleep. Who voted for any of these things? Nobody. They were somehow imposed from on high.
Red supremacists are stealthy and secretive. But you can detect their heavy hand. Just look for aspects of education that are blatantly underperforming. There the red supremacists are in charge. What you call underperforming, they call “the long march through the institutions.” They call it victory.
This takeover has unfolded slowly throughout the 20th century. It’s the big unreported story. John Dewey started implementing his vision around 1900. He wanted to build scores of ed schools, indoctrinate teachers with his socialist theories, and send them out to the countryside to brainwash future generations. The Comintern (Communist International) arrived in 1921, thousands of agents indefatigably chiseling away at every part of society.
If you observed a bunch of farmers using buckets with holes in them, you would know that red supremacists had taken over farming. The strategy is simple: make people use what does not work.
The big gimmick in K–12 was to kick out phonics in 1931 and make children memorize sight-words. Literacy went into decline and has never recovered.
QED: Red supremacists wanted less literacy and used a fake instructional method to reach this goal. But it seems they got greedy; they went too far too fast and became too obvious. Fifty million functional illiterates! Now the tide is turning as more people figure out the great hoax known as Whole World, Whole Language, and other aliases. (Many feel that the situation today is like watching the German army retreat from Russia in 1944. Very satisfying.)
Now we have to ask, who are these wretched creatures willing to dumb down children and steal reading from them? They are sometimes called socialists, collectivists, totalitarians, communists, commies, or red supremacists — that is, people who think Marxist is a compliment. They never stop working. They give us a glimpse inside the novel 1984. They’re always enthusiastic, always eager to do what their leaders tell them. If they gain enough power, they will make life hell for everyone, themselves included. That’s what happened in Russia, Italy, China, Cambodia, and Venezuela.
For education to improve, red supremacists must lose power. That’s how complete their grip is. If enough Americans start fighting back, improvement can happen. For a change, children will learn to read in 1st grade. They will know where Alaska is on a map of the world. They will be able to multiply 23×36 in a timely way. For now, education is sabotaged by theories and methods that hurt children. Anyone who looks closely at these gimmicks knows they were designed with hostile intent.
Sight-words are the paradigm of bad education. Other gimmicks are almost as destructive. Constructivism slows down the acquisition of knowledge even as educrats claim it’s a miracle cure. Likewise, New Math/Reform Math/Common Core Math impede learning arithmetic by the simple device of introducing difficult topics before students are ready.
All this stuff is best called Dumb Ed. Nobody but red supremacists would go near it.
August 2017, Charlottesville: Police disappear even as belligerents advance toward each other, and fighting in the streets begins. The same tactic had been used successfully in Ferguson and Baltimore. Who but President Obama and the respective governors could have given the orders to stand down? Who else but mayors and police chiefs could have expedited such counterintuitive commands?
Democrats got their optics. CNN could chant each day that the USA is full of white nationalists and right-wing criminality. Obama must’ve been proud. Anyone could see that white supremacists lurked on every street.
Funny thing: If you wait around for these people to turn up on their own, you will probably find they are as rare as Sasquatch.
Seriously. Does anyone know a white supremacist? Do they have any spokespeople on television? Do they have networks as liberals do? Do they have bestsellers and big rallies? Do they run departments at great universities? Do they control foundations? Central casting wants to know: where do you find these people? Probably you can’t, not unless you have top-level politicians willing to create riots on demand.
If you want something both menacing and commonplace, look in a completely opposite direction. Look for red supremacists. That would be hard-left people in control, or scheming to be in control. But how can we know when they are present?
Consider that Americans split 50-50 on most of the main issues in this country: gun control, abortion, capital punishment, conscientious objection, voting age, drinking age, et al. Surely, the hard Left works to change opinion on these issues. But typically, there are no giant anomalies to prove what effect red supremacists are having.
Education is the opposite story. When it comes to reading, writing and arithmetic, 99% of American parents want children to have these skills. Naturally they get them, right? Wrong, and that’s how you know that some serious subversion is going on. Red supremacists seem to be everywhere in education. Examining K–12 is remarkably revealing, like taking an x-ray of the whole country.
The gains that all parents want are routinely withheld from American children. Reading is down. Math is down. Factual knowledge (AKA cultural literacy) is down. Order and coherence in the classroom are down. Satisfaction among teachers is down. Satisfaction among parents is down. The kids cry themselves to sleep. Who voted for any of these things? Nobody. They were somehow imposed from on high.
Red supremacists are stealthy and secretive. But you can detect their heavy hand. Just look for aspects of education that are blatantly underperforming. There the red supremacists are in charge. What you call underperforming, they call “the long march through the institutions.” They call it victory.
This takeover has unfolded slowly throughout the 20th century. It’s the big unreported story. John Dewey started implementing his vision around 1900. He wanted to build scores of ed schools, indoctrinate teachers with his socialist theories, and send them out to the countryside to brainwash future generations. The Comintern (Communist International) arrived in 1921, thousands of agents indefatigably chiseling away at every part of society.
If you observed a bunch of farmers using buckets with holes in them, you would know that red supremacists had taken over farming. The strategy is simple: make people use what does not work.
The big gimmick in K–12 was to kick out phonics in 1931 and make children memorize sight-words. Literacy went into decline and has never recovered.
QED: Red supremacists wanted less literacy and used a fake instructional method to reach this goal. But it seems they got greedy; they went too far too fast and became too obvious. Fifty million functional illiterates! Now the tide is turning as more people figure out the great hoax known as Whole World, Whole Language, and other aliases. (Many feel that the situation today is like watching the German army retreat from Russia in 1944. Very satisfying.)
Now we have to ask, who are these wretched creatures willing to dumb down children and steal reading from them? They are sometimes called socialists, collectivists, totalitarians, communists, commies, or red supremacists — that is, people who think Marxist is a compliment. They never stop working. They give us a glimpse inside the novel 1984. They’re always enthusiastic, always eager to do what their leaders tell them. If they gain enough power, they will make life hell for everyone, themselves included. That’s what happened in Russia, Italy, China, Cambodia, and Venezuela.
For education to improve, red supremacists must lose power. That’s how complete their grip is. If enough Americans start fighting back, improvement can happen. For a change, children will learn to read in 1st grade. They will know where Alaska is on a map of the world. They will be able to multiply 23×36 in a timely way. For now, education is sabotaged by theories and methods that hurt children. Anyone who looks closely at these gimmicks knows they were designed with hostile intent.
Sight-words are the paradigm of bad education. Other gimmicks are almost as destructive. Constructivism slows down the acquisition of knowledge even as educrats claim it’s a miracle cure. Likewise, New Math/Reform Math/Common Core Math impede learning arithmetic by the simple device of introducing difficult topics before students are ready.
All this stuff is best called Dumb Ed. Nobody but red supremacists would go near it.
At CNN’s climate change freak show telethon, Buttigieg — the South Bend, Ind. mayor, 2020 Democratic Party presidential hopeful, and Harvard- and Oxford-educated Rhodes scholar — said in front of the entire world that defeating climate change will perhaps be more difficult than defeating the Nazis in World War 2.
This is the kind of candidate Democrats vote for, and with whom Republicans want you and me to compromise. If the election were held tomorrow, Buttigieg would receive tens of millions of votes.
I want Buttigieg to look in the eyes of a D-Day veteran — who spent hours in a boat full of feces, urine, and vomit, and who fought nearly a week at the beaches of Normandy, France, wondering if he’d live another second — and say that. Over 16 million Americans served our Armed Forces in World War 2; approximately half a million are still alive. Would Buttigieg muster up the intrepidity to utter his utterly inane statement to our surviving servicemen and women, or their families?
Would he say it with a straight face to the veterans of the other 18 Allied nations, or to their loved ones?
On my podcast, I often posit that there are only two types of Democrats: those who believe the balderdash that comes out of their mouths and those who don’t. The only Democrats more dangerous than the ones who don’t believe the bull they peddle (the politicians) are the ones who do (Democrat voters).
Had I been given the opportunity to pose one question to Buttigieg, it would have been this: “do you actually believe what comes out of your mouth?” I’ve asked numerous members of my audience, my production team, and like-minded friends and associates if they believe Buttigieg is sincere. Almost everyone believes that Buttigieg’s remark was the lowest form of pandering, and I concur.
As a bonus, Buttigieg served in the United States Navy, from 2009 to 2017, in the Middle East, where Islamic supremacists, influencers of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, have been warring and murdering for thousands of years.
Buttigieg the Tragic Figure
Most of the Democrats running for president unequivocally strike me as amalgams of loathsomeness, hypocrisy, and ideological shapeshifting. Take, for example, the shrew, Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Imagine lying for decades about your “heritage” to get ahead and then, when caught, actually whitewashing your own life story and personal history. Warren recently removed from her campaign website the DNA test results that she claimed “proved” her American Indian ancestry. Warren, a onetime conservative, “evolved” into a Democrat because it was good for Liz Warren, Inc.; her “transformation” has made her yet another affluent, white Democrat multimillionaire, who doesn’t believe any of the nonsense that comes out of her mouth.
How about former Vice President Joe Biden (D-Del.), who is now claiming that he opposed the Iraq War in 2002, even though he was one of the 29 Democrat senators (out of 50) who voted to authorize military force? Biden’s revisionist history is so farcical that even his former boss’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, took him to task for distorting his own legislative record.
Democrats such as Biden and Warren simultaneously stand for everything and stand for nothing. They’re the most dangerous type of politicians.
In Buttigieg’s case, however, there is a tragic sadness — a hybrid of the English playwright Christopher Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus protagonist, who sells his soul to the Devil to gain the powers of a deity, and Terry Malloy, Marlon Brando’s “I coulda been a contender” character from On the Waterfront.
To be clear, I hold no sympathies for Buttigieg’s wilting campaign; like most Democrats, his goals are to take my children, my money, and my freedoms. Just ask the South Bend residents who didn’t vote for Buttigieg if they’re satisfied with his tenure as their mayor, a position he’s held since 2012. South Bend’s rates of violent crime and property crime — oftentimes the gateway drug to violent crime — are well above Indiana’s and the national rates and have been for decades. In addition, residents and police have the usual antagonistic relationship found in Democrat-controlled cities. South Bend has had only Democrat mayors for the last 17,000 consecutive days; Buttigieg is just the latest in a long line of Democrats who have failed at governing.
It’s because he’s young that I have such a visceral, adverse reaction to him. As I make clear in my upcoming first book, 10 Warning Signs Your Child Is Becoming a Democrat, Buttigieg, 37, is the anthropomorphic embodiment of everything that’s gone terribly wrong with our youths. The guy could have been a most formidable voice for the features and benefits of American constitutional nationalism. Rather, to quote Malloy, he’s just a bum — wasted talent and intellect. Buttigieg is anti-science (he believes that life begins at first breath); he’s anti-merit (sorry, Pete, but being gay is neither a skill nor an accomplishment); and he’s anti-reality — he regurgitates the usual debunked Democrat and DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex) conspiracy theories, lies, and myths about firearms, white supremacists in every neighborhood, and American history. At the CNN climate change town hall, Buttigieg made a complete fool of himself; seems that Harvard and Oxford aren’t sending us their best.
For all the narratives about the DMIC Chia Pet Robert “Beto” O’Rourke being the next Barack Obama, it’s actually Buttigieg who most resembles Obama — the overachieving, articulate young man. Instead of being the antithesis of Obama, Buttigieg has ingratiated himself with the “fundamental transformation” cult.
To paraphrase Marlowe, Buttigieg could have been the face that helped persuade our young and minorities to better comprehend that Democrats are the U.S.’s original hate group, who care only about conquering the rest of us, and who want us living in fear of government — one of the precursors to tyranny.
It’s not the responsibility of America First nationalists to change the minds of Democrats — the exception being young voters. It’s our responsibility to conquer them at the polls, in our schools, and in our culture. Want evidence of why this is more urgently necessary than ever? Look no farther than Buttigieg.
Rich Logis is host of The Rich Logis Show, at TheRichLogisShow.com, and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your Child Is Becoming a Democrat. He can be found on Twitter at @RichLogis.
Is Pete Buttigieg the dumbest smart person ever?
At CNN’s climate change freak show telethon, Buttigieg — the South Bend, Ind. mayor, 2020 Democratic Party presidential hopeful, and Harvard- and Oxford-educated Rhodes scholar — said in front of the entire world that defeating climate change will perhaps be more difficult than defeating the Nazis in World War 2.
This is the kind of candidate Democrats vote for, and with whom Republicans want you and me to compromise. If the election were held tomorrow, Buttigieg would receive tens of millions of votes.
I want Buttigieg to look in the eyes of a D-Day veteran — who spent hours in a boat full of feces, urine, and vomit, and who fought nearly a week at the beaches of Normandy, France, wondering if he’d live another second — and say that. Over 16 million Americans served our Armed Forces in World War 2; approximately half a million are still alive. Would Buttigieg muster up the intrepidity to utter his utterly inane statement to our surviving servicemen and women, or their families?
Would he say it with a straight face to the veterans of the other 18 Allied nations, or to their loved ones?
On my podcast, I often posit that there are only two types of Democrats: those who believe the balderdash that comes out of their mouths and those who don’t. The only Democrats more dangerous than the ones who don’t believe the bull they peddle (the politicians) are the ones who do (Democrat voters).
Had I been given the opportunity to pose one question to Buttigieg, it would have been this: “do you actually believe what comes out of your mouth?” I’ve asked numerous members of my audience, my production team, and like-minded friends and associates if they believe Buttigieg is sincere. Almost everyone believes that Buttigieg’s remark was the lowest form of pandering, and I concur.
As a bonus, Buttigieg served in the United States Navy, from 2009 to 2017, in the Middle East, where Islamic supremacists, influencers of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, have been warring and murdering for thousands of years.
Buttigieg the Tragic Figure
Most of the Democrats running for president unequivocally strike me as amalgams of loathsomeness, hypocrisy, and ideological shapeshifting. Take, for example, the shrew, Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Imagine lying for decades about your “heritage” to get ahead and then, when caught, actually whitewashing your own life story and personal history. Warren recently removed from her campaign website the DNA test results that she claimed “proved” her American Indian ancestry. Warren, a onetime conservative, “evolved” into a Democrat because it was good for Liz Warren, Inc.; her “transformation” has made her yet another affluent, white Democrat multimillionaire, who doesn’t believe any of the nonsense that comes out of her mouth.
How about former Vice President Joe Biden (D-Del.), who is now claiming that he opposed the Iraq War in 2002, even though he was one of the 29 Democrat senators (out of 50) who voted to authorize military force? Biden’s revisionist history is so farcical that even his former boss’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, took him to task for distorting his own legislative record.
Democrats such as Biden and Warren simultaneously stand for everything and stand for nothing. They’re the most dangerous type of politicians.
In Buttigieg’s case, however, there is a tragic sadness — a hybrid of the English playwright Christopher Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus protagonist, who sells his soul to the Devil to gain the powers of a deity, and Terry Malloy, Marlon Brando’s “I coulda been a contender” character from On the Waterfront.
To be clear, I hold no sympathies for Buttigieg’s wilting campaign; like most Democrats, his goals are to take my children, my money, and my freedoms. Just ask the South Bend residents who didn’t vote for Buttigieg if they’re satisfied with his tenure as their mayor, a position he’s held since 2012. South Bend’s rates of violent crime and property crime — oftentimes the gateway drug to violent crime — are well above Indiana’s and the national rates and have been for decades. In addition, residents and police have the usual antagonistic relationship found in Democrat-controlled cities. South Bend has had only Democrat mayors for the last 17,000 consecutive days; Buttigieg is just the latest in a long line of Democrats who have failed at governing.
It’s because he’s young that I have such a visceral, adverse reaction to him. As I make clear in my upcoming first book, 10 Warning Signs Your Child Is Becoming a Democrat, Buttigieg, 37, is the anthropomorphic embodiment of everything that’s gone terribly wrong with our youths. The guy could have been a most formidable voice for the features and benefits of American constitutional nationalism. Rather, to quote Malloy, he’s just a bum — wasted talent and intellect. Buttigieg is anti-science (he believes that life begins at first breath); he’s anti-merit (sorry, Pete, but being gay is neither a skill nor an accomplishment); and he’s anti-reality — he regurgitates the usual debunked Democrat and DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex) conspiracy theories, lies, and myths about firearms, white supremacists in every neighborhood, and American history. At the CNN climate change town hall, Buttigieg made a complete fool of himself; seems that Harvard and Oxford aren’t sending us their best.
For all the narratives about the DMIC Chia Pet Robert “Beto” O’Rourke being the next Barack Obama, it’s actually Buttigieg who most resembles Obama — the overachieving, articulate young man. Instead of being the antithesis of Obama, Buttigieg has ingratiated himself with the “fundamental transformation” cult.
To paraphrase Marlowe, Buttigieg could have been the face that helped persuade our young and minorities to better comprehend that Democrats are the U.S.’s original hate group, who care only about conquering the rest of us, and who want us living in fear of government — one of the precursors to tyranny.
It’s not the responsibility of America First nationalists to change the minds of Democrats — the exception being young voters. It’s our responsibility to conquer them at the polls, in our schools, and in our culture. Want evidence of why this is more urgently necessary than ever? Look no farther than Buttigieg.
Rich Logis is host of The Rich Logis Show, at TheRichLogisShow.com, and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your Child Is Becoming a Democrat. He can be found on Twitter at @RichLogis.
