34 Search results

Undermining the system—attempting to disenfranchise the American people—is wicked.

Bill Kristol has announced he thinks Joe Biden shouldn’t run for a second term. 

Here is Kristol in July 2020: “A lot of people who want to get rid of Trump would be reassured that Biden is a capable person, he is not senile, he is not, you know, going to be captured by AOC two months into his presidency and stuff, so I think it is a reassurance thing for Biden.” Right. You know.

And here he is again in October 2020:

I think from my point of view, it’s been easier also to support the Democrats this year, because Joe Biden is the nominee. The center did hold in the Democratic Party, something the conservatives now are busy denying that’s the case. They’re pretending that the nominee is Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or AOC or something, even after Biden defeated the wall. There’s also a sign [that the conservatives] are not accepting [the] good news, which is [that] it looks like we might get a centrist democratic administration which could restore some stability and some sensible governance to the country. And that’s a good thing.

In fairness to Kristol and the other Democrats who supported Biden, one might say that they could not have known how bad Biden would be, how left-wing crazy he would be. But it was perfectly apparent that he was senile and that he was—how to put it delicately?—not bright, and certainly not honest. 

Biden’s election was facilitated by an utterly corrupt media, which worked tirelessly to suppress the reality that Biden was not capable of discharging the duties of the presidency, and that the Hunter Biden laptop clearly indicated that he and his son were very likely corrupt.

It was also clear that the Democratic Party was lurching left. For months, party leaders had disgracefully supported the George Floyd riots, which left two-dozen people murdered, scores of police injured, and did an estimated $2 billion in property damage. It would have taken some fortitude to stop the party from moving all the way over to cloud cuckoo land. 

Who among the Democrats possessed such fortitude? What force in the party could Kristol possibly have had in mind who would moderate Sanders, Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the other crazies? An aging Joe Biden? Anyone who actually thought that shouldn’t be invited on talk shows to discuss American politics. 

Let’s face it: the Biden record has been awful. He botched the Afghanistan withdrawal; he has mismanaged the economy, pushing inflation to Jimmy Carter levels; he has promoted senseless green policies that have driven up gas prices to levels not seen in decades; he has refused to enforce immigration laws, and has flown illegals around the country in the middle of the night to unsuspecting communities; he sold petroleum from the reserve to the Chinese; he promoted unrestrained abortion like China and North Korea; he has consigned black children to public school hellholes—all of these policies have driven his approval record among the American people to historic lows. 

Biden is incompetent and really always has been. And the crowd that put him in office knew that during the campaign. And yet—and yet—they were willing to foist this incompetent old man on the country! If that isn’t wicked, what is?

And the most Bill Kristol can offer is that he thinks Biden shouldn’t run again in 2024? Please!

Meanwhile, a correspondent writes that “it’s a bit rich for someone who voted for Trump twice to call those who voted for Biden ‘wicked.’” But why? What’s the reasoning behind that? 

What did Donald Trump do that was half as objectionable? Or remotely as wicked as this corrupt old “president” and his corrupt handlers?

Has there ever been anything more wicked than the Democrats’ three-year Russia collusion hoax attempt to remove the duly elected Donald Trump from office? Surely that retires the wickedness cup.

Policy disputes are one thing. There will always be policy disputes. But undermining the system—attempting to disenfranchise the American people—is different. That’s what Democrats tried to do while Trump was president. And it’s what they’re still trying to do by importing into the country millions of illegal, illiterate immigrants, who, they assume, will vote for the party of welfare.

Is that really what Bill Kristol wants? That’s wicked!

Published:

July 30, 2022
American Greatness

If Congress is going to discriminate against 18-21 year-olds by requiring them to jump through certain hoops to buy a gun, shouldn’t it also impose the same rules on “similarly situated” people?

Ten Republican senators apparently have signed onto a proposal to make it more difficult for people under the age of 21 to buy a gun. Four of the 10 are retiring, and the other six are not up for reelection this year, which suggests they know the legislation will be unpopular with Republicans. If 10 Republicans vote with Democrats, the legislation (which has not been fully drafted yet) would survive an attempt to filibuster it. 

There are at least three obvious points to make: first, if the 18-to-21-year-old group (for convenience they’ll be referred to as “kids”) are not considered to be as wise as people 21 years of age and older, why are they allowed to vote? That’s the kind of query that the kind of Republican who would limit the gun rights of the under-21 crowd tends to shrug off without comment—because there really is no comment that makes sense.

Second, what’s the reason for picking on the kids? Presumably their ages (18-to-21) aren’t random numbers on a roulette wheel or a Ouija board vouchsafed to us. There must be some sort of correlation between something and something else: presumably between the number of murders by kids and the number of murders by . . . a different group. And presumably the number of murders by the kids must be sufficiently higher than the number of murders by any other group you could think of to justify picking on the kids and not also picking on that other group.

Well, almost. If it turned out that the number of murders committed by the 118- to 120-year-old group was significantly higher than the number of murders committed by the kids, it might be fair to conclude that that still wasn’t much of a problem. How many people of that age are there, after all? If there are only 10 of them, and they commit five murders, that means 50 percent of them committed murder, but five murders are hardly a national catastrophe—with inflation going through the roof, baby formula in short supply, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens streaming over our southern border (bringing disease, crime, and fentanyl with them), crime rising in our cities (mostly run by entrenched Democrats), and a whole lot more. We really haven’t got time to focus on a few trigger-happy centenarians.

Also, how many of the kids who have committed murder, in any given year, were girls? Does that matter to anyone? Does that matter to the aforementioned 10 Republican senators? Can they tell the difference between boys and girls? And if they can, would they admit it in public? As of February 2017, 93.3 percent of federal inmates were men, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. That suggests that whatever the problem is with kids and guns, it’s a problem with boys not with girls. And in that case, whatever rule the Congress is about to produce should apply only to boys, not to girls. Place your bets that the Republicans will make a distinction between boys and girls? Please! And where are the feminists when we need them? 

Here’s a third, two-part problem: part one is that, as Crisis Magazine reports, contrary to popular belief, most mass shooters are black. “Consider that young black men make up less than 6% of the population. Yet, according to an aggregation of news sources, this demographic committed 68% of mass shootings in 2019, 73% of the mass shootings in 2020, and so far [April 2021], 70% of mass shootings in 2021. For those same years, white men committed 14%, 14%, and 14%. Latinos held steady at 14%, 14%, and 16%. Asians committed 4% in 2019, and none in 2020 and 2021.” 

Part two is that blacks commit “regular” murder (i.e., not mass shootings) at about the same rate as the kids (the boy kids), and that rate is higher than the rate at which the rest of the population commits murder. 

If Congress is going to discriminate against kids (by passing special legislation that requires them to jump through certain hoops to buy a gun, hoops that older people don’t have to jump through), shouldn’t it also impose the same rules on “similarly situated” people? If blacks commit murder at the same rate as kids, or if blacks commit more mass shootings than whites, shouldn’t the legislation now supported by the 10 Republicans, as well as by all the Democrats, include, specifically, blacks?

If not, why not?

Published:

June 16, 2022
American Greatness