There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
Under God’s protection the young Moabite woman and the ancient Jewess, inseparable companions now forever, journeyed in safety back to Judah, back to the Messiah’s own little city of Bethlehem. There their return made considerable talk; for Elimelech had been a man of wealth and importance in the town and was well remembered. Moreover there seem to have been some small properties of his still remaining, upon which Naomi would have some claim.
Her old neighbors visited her in wonder, asking “Is this Naomi?” The question had unintended sharpness, for the name Naomi means sweetness. So that the unhappy widow cried out that they should not call her thus, but should rename her Mara, which means bitterness; “for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.
“I went out full, and the Lord hath brought me home again empty: why then call ye me Naomi, seeing the Lord hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?”
3:15 Peter urged believers to regard Christ the Lord as holy from the center of their being. This inner reverence for Christ should lead believers to be ready at any time, especially in the midst of persecution and suffering, to give a frank defense of the hope within them. On “hope,” cp. v. 5; 1:3, 21.
3:15 “Sanctify” means “set apart.” Having established a special dwelling for God in the heart, the Christian ought to be ready always to give an answer to those who seek a reason for his hope. The word “defense” is apologia (Gk.), from which the English word “apology” is derived. However, closer to the intent of Greek thought is the idea of Christian “apologetics,” an organized, thoughtful defense of the faith. The believer’s task is to know well the truths of the faith and to prepare to present them in a persuasive fashion.
3:15 always being prepared. Readiness to confess Christ is an important aspect of setting apart Christ as Lord.
defense. The word may suggest response to abusive or derisive inquiries from hostile people. Such a response includes an explanation of the main points of Christianity.
3:15always ready to make a defense Peter asserts that Christians should be prepared at all times to defend their faith and explain the source of their hope (compare Matt 10:19 and note).
3:15 sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. The meaning is “set apart in your hearts Christ as Lord.” The heart is the sanctuary in which He prefers to be worshiped. Live in submissive communion with the Lord Jesus, loving and obeying Him—and you have nothing to fear. always being ready to make a defense. The Eng. word “apologetics” comes from the Gr. word here translated “defense.” Peter is using the word in an informal sense (cf. Php 1:16, 17) and is insisting that the believer must understand what he believes and why one is a Christian, and then be able to articulate one’s beliefs humbly, thoughtfully, reasonably, and biblically. the hope that is in you. Salvation with its anticipation of eternal glory.
3:15 — … always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear .…
If someone were to ask you today why you are a Christian, what would you say? How would you answer someone who said there are many ways to God? How would you defend your belief in the resurrection of Christ?
3:15sanctify the Lord God: Believers should acknowledge the eternal holiness of Christ by revering Him as the Lord of the universe who is in control of all things. to give a defense: Peter assumes that the Christian faith will be falsely accused. He therefore encourages Christians to have rational answers to respond to those false accusations. Meekness is the same term translated gentle in v. 4. Meekness is not weakness. Scripture indicates that both Moses and Christ were meek men; however, they were certainly not weak men. Fear implies a high degree of reverence or respect.
3:15. Rather than being intimidated, Christians who face persecution for righteous living are to respond positively. The command to sanctify the Lord God in your hearts talks about one’s mindset or attitude. Believers avoid being troubled or intimidated by having the right perspective (Col 3:1–4).
But believers are not to be silent sufferers! They are to be ready and willing to verbalize their faith and give a defense to everyone who asks. This defense is an apology, an explanation that includes reasons. Peter’s assumption is that if believers have the right perspective people will want to know why they are reacting the way they are. Their response of faith will cause people to ask questions, and believers are to explain the hope they have.
3:15 In the last part of verse 14 and in this verse, Peter quotes from Isaiah 8:12b, 13, which says: “Nor be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled. The Lord of hosts, Him you shall hallow; Let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread.” Someone has said, “We fear God so little because we fear man so much.”
The Isaiah passage speaks of The Lord of hosts as the One to be reverenced. Quoting it, Peter by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says, sanctify the Lord Godin your hearts.
To reverence the Lord means to make Him the Sovereign of our lives. All we do and say should be in His will, for His pleasure, and for His glory. The lordship of Christ should dominate every area of our lives—our possessions, our occupation, our library, our marriage, our spare time—nothing can be excluded.
Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear. This applies primarily to times when Christians are being persecuted because of their faith. The consciousness of the presence of the Lord Christ should impart a holy boldness and inspire the believer to witness a good confession.
The verse is also applicable to everyday life. People often ask us questions which quite naturally open the door to speak to them about the Lord. We should be ready to tell them what great things the Lord has done for us. This witnessing should be done in either case with gentleness and reverence. There should be no trace of harshness, bitterness or flippancy when we speak of our Savior and Lord.
3:15. In their hearts Christians are to set apart Christ as Lord. Alexander Maclaren wrote, “Only he who can say, ‘The Lord is the strength of my life’ can go on to say, ‘Of whom shall I be afraid?’ ” (Expositions of Holy Scriptures, 16:42) Christians should overcome fear by sanctifying (hagiasate, “make separate from others”) Christ as their Lord (kyrion). As a result Christians should always be prepared (hetoimoi, “ready”; cf. 1:5) to give … the reason (apologian, the “defense” which a defendant makes before a judge; cf. Acts 22:1; 25:16) for their hope in Christ. Such an oral defense should be consistent with one’s “set-apart” conduct.
3:15. Instead of running away, Christians need a renewed allegiance. Set apart Christ as Lord means “to treat as holy or to regard with reverence.” Christians are to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Holy One and also as Lord. “Lord” is the New Testament term for the Old Testament personal name for God (see Exod. 3:14–15; 6:2–3), often transcribed as “Jehovah” but more properly as “Yahweh.” The New Testament applies the Old Testament title for God the Father to Jesus Christ, thus celebrating the deity of Christ.
The believer is to view Christ as holy, as worthy of reverence because of who he is. To reverence Christ as Lord means to believe that Jesus Christ is in control and that those who come against the believer are not. To have such reverence is to maintain a deep-seated confidence in Jesus Christ as the reigning Lord of the universe (see 3:22). When our lives are centered on Christ, who is in control of the universe, then we are able to respond properly to the uncertainties and inconsistencies of life.
When we have made this commitment, we can respond to harm by communicating a positive word regarding our hope in Christ rather than running away. Even while suffering unjustly, Christians are able to go on because of their hope in the future. Yancey observes, “When we awake in the new heaven and new earth, we will possess at last whatever we longed for. Somehow, from all the bad news, incredible good news emerges—a good without a catch in it somewhere. Heaven and earth will again work the way God intended. There is a happy ending after all” (Philip Yancy, Disappointment with God [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988], p. 245.)
From the opening words of chapter 1, Peter has emphasized the living hope of the believer (see 1:3). The unbeliever does not enjoy this hope but is connected only to an empty way of life, and a life of spiritual darkness (see 1:18; 2:9). One of the distinguishing marks of believers in Christ is their possession of hope. Christian hope is to be so real and distinctive that non-Christians will be puzzled by it and ask for an explanation. We should seize the opportunities of witness presented in these kinds of situations. Our response should be characterized not by smugness or vindictiveness but by gentleness and respect.
These words suggest that the believer should approach others carefully and kindly. A Christian should not attempt to ram the truth down someone’s throat or to speak patronizingly or critically to them. According to Grudem, “Such witness must be given with gentleness and (respect), not attempting to overpower the person with the force of human personality or aggressiveness, but trusting the Holy Spirit himself to quietly persuade the listener” (Grudem, 153).
3:15 “but sanctify” This is an AORIST ACTIVE IMPERATIVE, which implies a decisive past act of setting someone apart for God’s use. Believers must sanctify Christ in their hearts as Christ sanctified Himself for them (cf. John 17:19).
Notice that in 1 Thess. 5:23 it is God who sanctifies believers. Now believers are commanded to sanctify themselves. This is the covenant paradox of biblical faith (compare Ezek. 18:31 with 36:26–27). God is sovereign, yet humans are also free and must exercise that freedom in God’s will. And how are we to sanctify Christ?
1. with our love for one another (cf. vv. 8–9)
2. with our lives (cf. vv. 13–14)
3. with our verbal witness (cf. v. 15)
“Christ as Lord” The King James Version has “Lord God,” which reflects Isa. 8:12–13, but the ancient Greek manuscripts P72, א, A, B, and C have “Christ as Lord,” which fits this context better.
“in your hearts” “Hearts” is an OT idiom referring to the whole person.
“always being ready to make a defense” This is the Greek term apologia, which is a compound of apo (from) and logos (word). It refers to a legal defense in a courtroom setting (cf. Acts 19:33; 22:1; 25:16; 26:1, 2, 24). This text is often used to encourage believers to be an evangelistic witness, which is surely needed, but in context this probably refers to official trials or interrogations. Notice that it is important for all believers to have a prepared, logical presentation of their faith in Christ, whether for a court or for a neighbor. Every believer should be ready to be a verbal witness!
“for the hope that is in you” Hope here is a collective word for the gospel and its future consummation. Believers live now in godly ways because of their confidence in Christ’s promises and return.
SPECIAL TOPIC: HOPE A partial list of Paul’s uses: 1. the Second Coming (Gal. 5:5; Eph. 1:18; 4:4; Titus 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:13) 2. trust in the gospel (Col. 1:23) 3. ultimate salvation (Col. 1:5; 1 Thess. 4:13; 5:8) 4. the glory of God (Rom. 5:2; 2 Cor. 3:12; Col. 1:27) 5. assurance of salvation (1 Thess. 5:8) 6. eternal life (Titus 1:2; 3:7) 7. redemption of all creation (Rom. 8:20) 8. faith (Rom. 8:23–25) 9. title for God (Rom. 15:13) 10. Paul’s desire for believers (2 Cor. 1:7)
“with gentleness and reverence” The first term was used of wives in 3:4, where it describes an attitude which is pleasing to God. This is true, not only in the interpersonal relationships of the home, but also of the believer’s relationship to others, even those who instigate persecution (cf. 2 Tim. 2:25).
The second term is used often in I Peter and also reflects a day of persecution and intimidation (cf. 1:17; 2:17, 18; 3:2, 15). We are to respect God and because of that, honor even unbelieving masters, husbands, and persecutors, as we witness to His power and kingdom.
15 Instead of fearing people, Christians are to reverence Christ. Peter completes the quotation from the previous verse, citing Isa. 8:13 and inserting “in your hearts” and “Christ”; thus instead of “Set apart [or sanctify] the Lord himself, and fear him” (the version in the LXX) our text reads “in your hearts set apart the Lord Christ.” The point of the text is clear. The heart is the seat of volition and emotion for Peter, the core self of the person. The call is for more than an intellectual commitment to truth about Jesus, but for a deep commitment to him (cf. 1:22). Christ is to be sanctified as Lord. This does not mean to make Christ more holy, but to treat him as holy, to set him apart above all human authority. This sense is clearly seen in the Lord’s Prayer, “Hallowed be thy name.” “To ‘hallow’ the name means, not only to reverence and honor God, but also to glorify him by obedience to his commands, and thus prepare the coming of the Kingdom.” Peter, then, asserts that Jesus is to be honored, reverenced, and obeyed as Lord. This quotation also reveals more about Peter’s Christology, for he takes a passage definitely speaking about God in the OT and refers it to Christ, making clear by his addition that that is the sense in which he is taking “Lord.” This way of expressing his high Christology is typical for Peter.
There is a proper response to nonbelievers (even persecuting ones) other than fear, one based on the Lordship of Christ. Peter expresses it in “make a defense to all who question you about the hope that is in you.” Both “make a defense” (Acts 25:16; 26:2; 2 Tim. 4:16) and “question” (Rom. 4:12; 1 Pet. 4:5) can indicate formal legal or judicial settings, but they were also used for informal and personal situations (Plato, Pol. 285e and 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 7:7 respectively). The “always” and “to all” in this passage indicate that the latter is in view. Rather than fear the unbelievers around them, Christians, out of reverence to Christ, should be prepared to respond fully to their often hostile questions about the faith. In m. Aboth 2:14 R. Eleazar gives a Jewish version of the same idea, “Be alert to study the Law and know how to make an answer to the unbeliever.” Jesus, of course, is likely the conscious basis for Peter’s teaching, for in the sayings recorded in Luke 12:4–12 he says, “Do not fear those who kill the body … fear him who … has power to cast into hell.… The Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what to say.”
What they will be questioned about is “the hope that is in you.” This is one of Peter’s favorite words for their faith (cf. the comments on 1:3, 13, 21). It is most appropriate in that it looks forward to good. In a time in which the Christians were likely experiencing rejection and suffering from their fellow-countrymen, their hope would indeed be the mark of a faith that was triumphing over their circumstances.
A Devotion to Christ
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, (3:15a)
Here the apostle again alludes to Isaiah 8:13, “Sanctify the Lord of hosts” (kjv). When believers sanctify Christ as Lord in their hearts, they affirm their submission to His control, instruction, and guidance. In so doing they also declare and submit to God’s sovereign majesty (cf. Deut. 4:35; 32:4; 1 Kings 8:27; Pss. 90:2; 92:15; 99:9; 145:3, 5; Isa. 43:10; Rom. 8:28; 11:33) and demonstrate that they fear only Him (Josh. 24:22–24; Pss. 22:23; 27:1; 34:9; 111:10; 119:46, 63; Prov. 14:26; Matt. 4:10).
Sanctify (hagiasate) means “to set apart,” or “consecrate.” But in this context it also connotes giving the primary place of adoration, exaltation, and worship to Christ. Believers who sanctify Christ set Him apart from all others as the sole object of their love, reverence, loyalty, and obedience (cf. Rom. 13:14; Phil. 2:5–11; 3:14; Col. 3:4; 2 Peter 1:10–11). They recognize His perfection (Heb. 7:26–28), magnify His glory (Acts 7:55–56; cf. Rev. 1:12–18), extol His pre-eminence (Col. 1:18), and submit themselves to His will (Mark 3:35; Rom. 12:2; Eph. 6:6; Heb. 10:36; 1 John 2:17), with the understanding that sometimes that submission includes suffering.
This honoring of Christ as Lord is not external, but in the hearts of true worshipers—even when they must face unjust suffering. That submission to and trust in the perfect purposes of the sovereign Lord yields courage, boldness, and fortitude to triumph through the most adverse situations.
A Readiness to Defend the Faith
always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; (3:15b)
It is not just endurance through the blessing of suffering that believers are to submit to; there is also the opportunity to defend the truth when they are being persecuted. Christians must be ready to make a defense of the faith. The Greek term for defense (apologia) is the word from which the English terms apology and apologetics derive. It often means a formal defense in a judicial courtroom (cf. Acts 25:16; 2 Tim. 4:16), but Paul also used the word informally to denote his ability to answer those who questioned him (Phil. 1:16). Always indicates believers’ need for constant preparedness and readiness to respond, whether in a formal courtroom or informally, to everyone who asks them to give an account for why they live and believe the way they do. Account is simply logos, “word,” or “message,” and it calls saints to be able at the time someone asks (present tense) to give the right words in response to questions about the gospel.
The gospel is identified as the hope that is in believers. Hope is synonymous with the Christian faith because the motive for believers’ embracing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is their anticipation of escaping hell and entering eternal glory (cf. Acts 26:6; Eph. 1:18; 4:4; Col. 1:23; Heb. 10:23). Thus hope becomes the focal point of any rational explanation believers should be able to provide regarding their salvation. (For further insights into the meaning of hope, see the discussion of 1:3 in chapter 2 of this volume.)
The believer’s defense of this hope before the unbeliever who asks must be firm and uncompromising, but at the same time conveyed with gentleness and reverence. Gentleness refers to meekness or humility, not in the sense of weakness but in the sense of not being dominant or overbearing (cf. Eph. 4:15, “speaking the truth in love”). The Lord Himself was characterized by this virtue, as was Paul: “Now I, Paul, myself urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:1a).
Reverence expresses devotion to God, a deep regard for His truth, and even respect for the person listening (Col. 4:6; 2 Tim. 2:24–26).
Christians who cannot present a biblically clear explanation of their faith (cf. 1 Thess. 5:19–22; 1 John 2:14) will be insecure when strongly challenged by unbelievers (cf. Eph. 4:14–15). In some cases that insecurity can undermine their assurance of salvation. The world’s attacks can overwhelm those who have not “put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation” (1 Thess. 5:8; cf. Eph. 6:10–17).
 Wilder, T. L. (2017). 1 Peter. In E. A. Blum & T. Wax (Eds.), CSB Study Bible: Notes (p. 1979). Holman Bible Publishers.
 Criswell, W. A., Patterson, P., Clendenen, E. R., Akin, D. L., Chamberlin, M., Patterson, D. K., & Pogue, J., eds. (1991). Believer’s Study Bible (electronic ed., 1 Pe 3:15). Thomas Nelson.
Come alongside. This is really the crux of it all. Just walk alongside people and enter into their lives. Listen. Talk. Laugh. Cry.
I am normally not a fan of ten steps to do this or five ways to do that, but I recently came up with these six things to remember about being a marketplace Christian. Think of them not as steps to get somewhere, but as ways to think which might be different than what’s gone before.
1. Assume everyone is searching for God. Why? Because everyone is. We were created this way. God has purposely frustrated humanity by creating us with eternity in our hearts, yet with an inability to fathom what that is or what it means (Ecclesiastes 3:10-11). He has done this so that we might reach out for him and find him though He is not far from any of us for in Him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:27-28).
2. Come alongside. This is really the crux of it all. Just walk alongside people and enter into their lives. Listen. Talk. Laugh. Cry. Find out where you can contribute and what you can learn. There’s something to give and something to receive in every relationship.
3.Point. You don’t tell someone what the truth is; you point to it. “There it is over there,” or “Here it is in my life.” This is why we need to learn to identify truth in the context of the world around us. Truth isn’t religious. You don’t have to get into a certain posture to see it. It’s not something that hasn’t been there all along.
4.Find out what people already know before you set out to tell them anything. Don’t ever think you have to clear the table and start over. This is why it’s so important to listen first. Find out what’s already on the table that you can use.
5.You don’t have to tell everything you know. Just the next thing.
6. You don’t have to correct everything someone says that is wrong. You are not the protector and defender of truth. You don’t have to decide where to draw the line. You don’t even have to be concerned if someone may be walking away with the wrong idea. You are not that smart anyway because you don’t know what’s in someone’s head. As long as they have something to think about, that’s a good thing.
And now here’s the one final thing that makes all this possible. It is the most important of all. (This is the one thing that makes all six of these make sense.) We don’t save anybody, convince anybody, “win” anybody to Christ or close the deal. All that is God’s business. The Holy Spirit is doing this all on His own terms and timetable. We are not salesmen, marketing reps, counselors or prosecutors. We are just friends who come alongside. And that’s a big deal.
Lord, you are such a faithful Shepherd. Thank you for leading me in “paths of righteousness,” especially when life seems uncertain.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff they comfort me.” Psalm 23: 4 (NIV)
I drove home through thick fog tonight. There have been fog patches around our home and in the area these past two weeks. I hardly ever drive through thick mist without thinking about my relationship with God. It becomes such a tangible representation of our faith journey through life and how dependent we are on our Guide to lead us every step of the way. How easily I could get caught up in Fear, forgetting what a faithful Shepherd we have. He is a loving God who never changes. He guides us through the foggy times and dances with us when the sun shines. Our Lord is, after all, the Light of the world and He is never far away.
Reflect: Where do you find comfort in times of uncertainty?
Prayer: Lord, you are such a faithful Shepherd. Thank you for leading me in “paths of righteousness,” especially when life seems uncertain.
Though Naomi’s picture of the sad lot before them had frightened one of the daughters-in-law and caused her to return to her parents, it had no such effect upon Ruth, the other. Ruth genuinely and deeply loved her adopted mother. To Naomi’s repeated order to depart, Ruth answered in those beautiful words of affection which have come echoing down to us through all the ages.
“Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.
“Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me.”
So Naomi embraced this devoted attendant, and together they set out upon their dangerous journey to the land of Judah.
Massive ‘mushroom cloud’ explosion at LA chemical plant An explosion at a chemical plant in Louisiana sent black smoke billowing into the air Wednesday afternoon in what witnesses are describing as a “mushroom cloud.” At least six people are reportedly injured as a result of the explosion. According to WGNO, Louisiana State Police said the explosion took place at a Westlake Chemical around its ethylene dichloride storage tanks.
Trump’s new social media network inviting influencers to join Truth Social – former US President Donald Trump’s newest social media platform – has begun reaching out to influencers via email and inviting them to “reserve their spots” on the app, according to Axios. In an email to several influencers obtained by the American news website, a representative from Truth Social’s VIP department named “Ana” asks the influencers to “reserve” their “preferred username for when we launch in late February/early March.”
Saudi Arabian journalist calls for breaking ties with ‘Palestinians’ Cracks in the relations between the Palestinian leadership and the Arab nations in the region began to appear after Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates signed the Abraham Accords normalizing relations with Israel in September 2020. Though Saudi Arabia did not sign the accords and does not have formal relations with Israel, news reports have surfaced indicating extensive behind-the-scenes diplomatic and intelligence cooperation between the countries based on the mutual threat posed by Iran.
UAE’s ‘Tower of Babel’ under threat of destruction by terrorists Following this threat, reports began circulating on the internet that the Ansar Allah movement, a part of the Houthi rebellion, had specifically threatened the Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building, located in Dubai. Upon its completion in 2009, the Burj Khalifa topped out at 2,722 feet, just over half a mile tall.
Seattle School District Removes ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ The politically correct attacks on the beloved classic To Kill a Mockingbird continued this week when a Seattle-area school district voted to remove the acclaimed novel from its 9th grade reading curriculum over complaints of racial insensitivity.
They Refuse To Believe The Truth Even When It Is Right In Front Of Their Eyes Truth is often stranger than fiction, and some people will never accept the truth no matter how much evidence you show them. In this article, I am going to discuss two brand new discoveries that are radically shaking up how scientists view human history. Many of the experts are having a really tough time explaining these new discoveries, because they seem to directly contradict long established narratives that have been taught as “truth” to young students for decades.
“[The judicial branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” —Alexander Hamilton (1788)
Still stinging from their loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat, Democrats aren’t about to let it happen again.
Eighty-three-year-old Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee, is being forcibly retired by bloodthirsty partisans after nearly 28 years on the High Court. The lack of an official announcement yesterday from the Court itself is remarkable, and it tells us a great deal — namely, that Breyer himself wasn’t ready to make the announcement.
In a faux show of solidarity, Breyer will attend Joe Biden’s remarks on his retirement at 12:30 this afternoon. But make no mistake: He’s being put out to pasture; he’s being kicked to the curb in favor of an as-yet unnamed black woman. So it goes in the race-obsessed world of the Left.
How do we know Breyer’s replacement will be a black woman? Because Joe Biden promised as much on the campaign trail, and because White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed it yesterday: “The president has stated and reiterated his commitment to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court and certainly stands by that.”
Moreover, Biden will choose the next Supreme Court justice based on skin color and female chromosomes because that’s what he and his fellow Democrats have been reduced to: buying votes by doling out identity-based favors. Frankly, we wonder how Biden’s obsession with racial preferences has been working out — especially his promise to choose a Jamaican Indian an “African American” woman as his vice president.
On that note, there’s been speculation that this is Biden’s big chance to dump the aforementioned Kamala Harris by nominating her to the High Court. Nope. While Biden would indeed love to dump the woefully unpopular Cackler, he wouldn’t dare do so in this manner. After all, he promised to appoint a black woman, not a deeply unlikable, dimwitted Jamaican Indian who isn’t even popular among American blacks. Aside from those optics, Harris failed to pass the California Bar Exam and, er, well, let’s just say she might not have earned every position she held. A nominee as brazenly unqualified as Harris, then, wouldn’t pass the judicial giggle test. So unless Biden is aiming for a three-fer — a nominee who is at once black, Indian, and idiotic — Biden won’t be offloading his veep to the High Court.
The odds-on favorite to fill Breyer’s seat is probably Ketanji Brown Jackson. She currently sits on highly influential DC Circuit Court of Appeals, having been placed there by Biden to fill the seat vacated by former Obama Supreme Court nominee and current awful Attorney General Merrick Garland. Jackson, who once clerked for Breyer, is just 51, so she also checks the all-important “age” box. As for a dark horse candidate, that’d be J. Michelle Childs. She too was appointed to the DC Circuit by Biden, and, at 55, also has plenty of years ahead of her. But here’s the kicker: Childs is from South Carolina, and she’s the favorite of another South Carolinian, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, whose crucial endorsement of Biden just before the do-or-die South Carolina primary pulled tired old Scranton Joe out of the dumpster and set him on the course to the Democrat nomination. Indeed, it’s not a stretch to say that without Clyburn’s help, Joe Biden wouldn’t be president today.
Regardless of whom Biden nominates, though, just remember: You were sexually assaulted by her 25 years ago. (Hey, turnabout is fair play, right?)
As for the angry leftists who forced Breyer out, it’s hard to blame them. To this day, they’re still cursing the once hallowed name of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who overstayed her welcome on the bench and thereby allowed Donald Trump to replace her with a constitutional conservative, 49-year-old Amy Coney Barrett (she turns 50 tomorrow), whose votes and opinions will likely grace the High Court until 2050 or so.
The Democrats can’t let that happen again — not with Republicans poised to retake majorities in the House and, crucially, the justice-confirming Senate in November’s midterms.
When Breyer was confirmed in 1994, all but nine Republicans voted for him. Clinton’s other appointee, Ginsburg, got all but three Republican votes. Those days, it’s safe to say, are gone forever — or at least for the foreseeable future.
Years ago, knowing that their leftist policies rarely enjoyed popular support and could rarely withstand constitutional challenges, Democrats began vesting our nation’s third co-equal branch of government, the judicial branch, with ever-increasing power. And now both sides see judicial nominations — and particularly Supreme Court nominations — as a blood sport.
One final thought: Could Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell somehow derail this nomination? It’s unlikely, but this is a 50-50 Senate, and a backroom power-sharing deal he made with Chuck Schumer could possibly come back to haunt the Senate majority leader — perhaps long enough to make him the Senate minority leader once again. It’s unlikely, sure, but it’s fun to imagine hard-left heads exploding once again.
A year after a big executive order, Team Biden tells us what ecofascist items are coming down the pike.
Conservative and conservation share the same root word, conserve, which Merriam-Webster defines as “to keep in a safe or sound state — especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of.” That’s a pretty good definition of what conservatives and conservationists do.
We preserve the Constitution and aim to avoid wasteful or destructive use of government. We steward the environment through wise use of resources.
Modern environmentalism, by contrast, is more often what we usually term “ecofascism.” It is wielding the destructive force of government or commandeering the private sector to achieve leftist climate objectives. The environment is just the pretext for the fascists.
First of all, don’t ever let anyone tell you that because conservatives oppose the Green New Deal and other ecofascist initiatives, we’re for dirty water or polluted skies. That’s utter rubbish, and politicians like Nancy Pelosi who routinely say or imply those things are lying for their own gain. Conservatives wish to conserve the environment in responsible, free-market ways.
Second, anytime you modify the word “justice” with another word, you usually don’t end up with justice. Think “social justice,” which is really just old-fashioned racism repackaged. Now, the Biden administration is treating us to “environmental justice” via one of last January’s slew of executive orders. Specifically the one titled “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.”
The Biden White House just yesterday released a lengthy “fact sheet” on how this is playing out throughout the entire federal government. Biden is, the sheet says, “laying the foundation for the most ambitious environmental justice agenda ever undertaken by an Administration and putting environmental justice and climate action at the center of the federal government’s work.” He has directed “all federal agencies” to make this the focus of action, because some communities are “marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution.”
One thing is indeed demonstrably true all over the world: Poor people more often live in the worst environments. Clean air and water are all-too-precious commodities, while trash and human waste litter the streets in third-world nations like Ethiopia, Somalia, and California. (Just kidding about that last one — California’s not a nation.)
Conversely, the wealthier an area is, the better the environment. How does an area get wealthier? Not with government handouts or regulations, that’s for sure. Free-market capitalism is responsible for more progress on cleaning up the planet than any other force in human history. Putting the weight of the federal government in that effort isn’t only bad, but it heavily bends the curve.
That’s why Biden’s “all federal agencies” directive is going to hurt the economy while not doing much to help the environment. Not only has Biden tasked the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Justice Department with this ecofascist agenda, he has created “the First-Ever White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council,” as well as things like an “Equity Commission” at the Department of Agriculture. Repeat this sort of left-wing nonsense across “all federal agencies.”
Again, this is leftist-run unmitigated government growth using the environment as a pretext.
What will this include? The Washington Post reports on one example: “The Biden administration says it will aggressively enforce air quality rules in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and other problem areas in the South.” Read: Republican states. That’s right; this has less to do with whether the environment is worse in Mississippi than in California than it does with targeting the right political opponents and bolstering the right constituencies.
To that last point about constituencies, Biden’s “fact sheet” says, “As part of the President’s historic commitment to environmental justice, he created the Justice40 Initiative to ensure that federal agencies deliver 40 percent of the overall benefits of climate, clean energy, affordable and sustainable housing, clean water, and other investments to underserved communities.” Translation: The federal government will count by race when divvying out taxpayer money for left-wing environmental boondoggles.
Do we want a clean planet and nation? Absolutely. Do we want fairness and equality and an end to discrimination? Definitely. Do we want this kind of fundamental transformation of what is supposed to be a constitutionally limited government to achieve the ends of green-on-the-outside-red-on-the-inside ecofascists? Heck no, because that is the worst way to achieve good ends.
Emails indicate virologists believed the scientific evidence pointed to the lab leak explanation for COVID’s origin.
A new batch of emails released by the House Oversight and Reform Committee makes clear that not only did medical researchers at the National Institutes of Health almost immediately suspect that the Wuhan lab in China was the most likely origin point for COVID-19, they also depict a politically motivated conspiracy to suppress the lab leak theory in favor of a natural origin narrative.
As far back as late January 2020, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci received an email from four virologists from the Scripps Research Institute. In the email, the four virologists indicated they had reviewed the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence and concluded that it was “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” The four virologists were unanimous in their opinion that the novel virus was not of natural origin but more likely a product that escaped a lab.
To be clear, in January 2020, virologists who had viewed the novel virus’s structural makeup had communicated to Dr. Fauci that a lab leak was the more probable explanation for COVID’s origin.
However, just days later, these same virologists had an apparent sudden change of heart. In an email dated February 4, 2020, Kristian Andersen, the lead virologist of the group, declared that theories maintaining that the virus may have leaked from a lab were “crackpot theories” that “relate to this virus being somehow engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case.” Then in March, Andersen and his fellow virologists published an article in the respected journal Nature Medicine in which they stated, “Our analysis clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
This article, along with a letter published in The Lancet signed by British research administrator Jeremy Farrar, effectively silenced dissenting opinions within the scientific community. So, the burning question is, what happened that changed these virologists’ opinion? The short answer appears to be politics.
According to Fox News, “Fauci hastily organized a call with dozens of worldwide virologists, and notes from the meeting … reveal that suspicions of the lab leak theory were suppressed over concerns of how the public would react to news of possible Chinese government involvement.” Francis Collins, then-director of the National Institutes of Health, asserted that “science and international harmony” were at stake should the Chinese government’s involvement become the focus. During this meeting it was then agreed that the lab leak theory should not be posited as it would add “fuel to the conspiracists.” Furthermore, Collins insisted that natural origin was “more likely.”
It now appears that Fauci and Collins conspired to suppress the lab leak theory, likely due to an overriding desire to be deferential to China. After all, the NIH was funding via EcoHealth Alliance gain-of-function research in Wuhan, and both Fauci and Collins happened to be defenders of the controversial research.
Colleges using race to determine whether minorities are admitted are violating the law.
This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases that have the potential to finally end race-based college admissions in the United States. Students for Fair Admissions has filed nearly identical lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, accusing both institutions of racial discrimination in their admissions practices.
Basically, these two schools got caught doing what hundreds of colleges and universities are doing across the country and have been doing for years. They cook their admissions processes by lowering the bar for certain minorities to achieve a racially diverse campus. Equality of result over equality of opportunity. Practicing racism to “correct,” or maybe even overcorrect, past racism. Students for Fair Admissions was formed to combat Harvard’s discrimination against qualified Asian candidates in favor of recruiting more black and Hispanic students who are less qualified.
Harvard and UNC naturally claim that they have done no wrong. The Washington Post perfectly encapsulated the view of the Left on the issue, writing that the pursuit of “diversity justifies some intrusion on the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, which generally forbids the government to make decisions based on race.” Wow.
The Supreme Court in the past has not exactly been very diligent about handling the issue of raced-based college admissions. In 2003, the High Court allowed race to be a “plus” factor for colleges seeking to construct a diverse student body. In 2016, it affirmed a lower court ruling that upheld the University of Texas’s race “conscious” admissions policy.
Things might be different this time. Chief Justice John Roberts doesn’t like to upset precedent, but he really doesn’t like racial quotas. He stated in 2006, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” Also illegal, thanks to the 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
And let’s not forget unworkable. Race-based admissions, like all the other programs that were spawned out of affirmative action, have caused more harm than good. The American college campus has never been more fractured. People are segregated by their ethnicity and race, with different clubs, different living quarters, even different graduations for minorities. This doesn’t lead to a united society; it only leads to more segregation.
Race-based admissions also does the most damage among those it purports to help. A significant portion of black male students drop out of college degree programs that they probably shouldn’t have been accepted to in the first place. They would have fared better in different programs. To the Left, to suggest this is racist. Yet colleges will lower admissions criteria for minorities because they know that some of them wouldn’t get in otherwise. Why the charade? It’s of no use if the person doesn’t even finish college, falsely led to believe that they didn’t have what it takes or that the racist system kept them down. Then again, perhaps by “racist system” they mean the failing inner-city public schools in which blacks are often trapped by Democrats. Either way, the one who flunks out ends up justifiably bitter for the experience.
Harvard claims that ending race-based admissions would cut the black and Hispanic student population in half. Which also means that half the black and Hispanic students at Harvard are there because of their race. Can knowing that feel good? It wouldn’t seem so.
Leftists are using this equity crusade to divide us all into groups, and it’s not because they want everyone to feel comfort in familiarity. It’s so they can control us better. But their ruse can be easily defeated.
Despite the rhetoric, a large majority of the American public is not big on quotas. Last year, voters in the People’s Republic of California soundly defeated an attempt to reintroduce quotas into the state university system. And comfortable majorities of Americans across racial groups believe that race should not be a factor in college admissions.
The people don’t want racial quotas in college admissions. The students don’t benefit from them. They’re illegal in the eyes of the law. And that’s another thing. The 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act are among the finest documents ever written to preserve the liberty and dignity of individuals. Maybe it’s time we let the law have its day.
A parliamentarian and Lutheran bishop are on trial for quoting the Bible and upholding the Christian view of marriage.
The ticklish thing about censorship is that it has become synonymous with authoritarianism. Censorship now occurs at the slightest perceived offense. In the United States, the Big Tech monopolies are the arbiters of online speech. A user can get kicked out if he or she expresses a “wrong” (a.k.a. conservative) opinion. Censorship fosters a modern-day witch hunt that begins online but usually ends with doxxing by self-righteous busybodies.
This phenomenon, known as “canceling,” has ruined lives, and no one is spared from its purge. As National Review’s Elyssa Koren puts it, “After all, who among us could survive having almost two decades’ worth of personal speech examined on the basis of the extraordinarily low bar of ‘insulting’ content?”
But as bad as this authoritarian digital fist is, it could always be worse.
In Finland, Päivi Räsänen, a member of parliament and grandmother of six, and a Lutheran bishop, Juhana Pohjola, are on trial for quoting the Bible and proclaiming the teachings of Christianity on marriage and sexuality.
Räsänen is a deeply devout Christian who was charged with three counts of “ethnic agitation” for so-called hate speech against the LGBT community, which consisted of a pamphlet written in 2004 on sexuality and marriage, a social media post quoting Romans 1:24-27, and comments made on a radio show. “According to my knowledge, the court has to for the first time take a stand on whether it is legal or not to cite the Bible,” says Räsänen.
Pohjola is charged with aiding and abetting Räsänen by printing her pamphlet. Not flinching one bit, Pohjola articulated his position: “I confess the God given dignity, value and human rights of those who identify themselves as homosexuals but at the same time call homosexual acts sinful and in discordance with the created order and the will of God as found in the Bible. We are all called to live according the good order of creation. According to the Christian view sexual life is meant to be in the confines of marriage between one man and one woman.”
The freedoms at stake here are religion and speech. Both Pohjola and Räsänen know they have not committed any crime. On the first day of trial, which was on Monday, the two Christians had a golden opportunity to share their faith with the court and profess the gospel.
The ramifications for this decision could have international consequences. Leaders from countries across the globe have weighed in on this injustice. From the U.S., Republican Senators Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, James Lankford, Jim Inhofe, and Mike Braun published a statement warning, “It could open the door for prosecution of other devout Christians, Muslims, Jews and adherents of other faiths for publicly stating their religious beliefs.”
The tragic truth is that Finland is a “Christian” country. On its flag is a blue cross on a field of white. The white represents the snowy landscape of Finland, the blue for its lakes, and the cross for Christianity. Unfortunately, Pohjola and Räsänen are fighting against a culture that has been so secularized that it is not really recognizable as a Christ-following nation. The bottom line is that the Scriptures are on trial; Pohjola and Räsänen are merely the scapegoats.
This legal scourging of free speech and freedom of religion is not limited to Finland. Canada has also sought to outlaw religious teachings by signing into law a bill outlawing LGBTQ+ “conversion therapy.” This law also is one that could be considered a “secular blasphemy law,” to borrow from Rubio and Co., because it definitely undermines the teachings of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
The U.S. isn’t much better, but if we’re not careful, it could quickly get much, much worse.
By attacking Republicans while downplaying the practice of race-based medicine, the AP shows its true colors.
Republicans slam. Republicans attack. And our very favorite: Republicans pounce.
These are the hardy perennials, the tired old tropes, of the mainstream media — the ones it reflexively employs to decry conservatives whenever conservatives decry progressives. When those on the Right express outrage at the awful practices and policies of the Left, the mainstream media expresses outrage at, well, the awful awfulness of the Right.
For example, when Republicans express concern that Critical Race Theory is being taught to our kids, the Leftmedia headline reads, “Republicans slam obscure college-level academic theory.” And when Republicans question the academic rigor of Nikole Hannah-Jones’s 1619 Project as a teaching tool, the Leftmedia headline howls, “Republicans attack award-winning history initiative.” And when Republicans blame the Biden administration’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan for the deaths of 13 American warriors, the CNN headline sneers, “Republicans point fingers at Biden moments after Kabul blasts.”
And just this week, the Associated Press predictably pounced on Republicans for having called attention to an overtly racist means of administering treatment for the coronavirus. Its headline reads, “New conservative target: Race as factor in COVID treatment.”
As the AP reports: “Some conservatives are taking aim at policies that allow doctors to consider race as a risk factor when allocating scarce COVID-19 treatments, saying the protocols discriminate against white people. The wave of infections brought on by the omicron variant and a shortage of treatments have focused attention on the policies.”
What we have here, then, is the Left’s Praetorian Guard working to downplay the bad behavior of its fellow travelers. But more specifically, we see the influence of CRT on the practice of journalism, and we see affirmative action in the administration of medicine. And here we thought the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly outlawed discrimination based on race.
Affirmative action is a brilliant euphemism. Think about how much better it sounds than “raced-based discrimination,” which is precisely what it is. And yet the AP shoots the messenger. “Medical experts say the opposition is misleading,” they harangue. “Health officials have long said there is a strong case for considering race as one of many risk factors in treatment decisions. And there is no evidence that race alone is being used to decide who gets medicine.”
Ah, those mysteriously unnamed “medical experts,” those “anonymous sources” who say this or that. But who said anything about “race alone” being the decisive factor? The problem, of course, is that it’s a factor at all. But this doesn’t seem to bother the AP, which uncritically notes: “St. Louis-based SSM Health, which serves patients in Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma and Wisconsin, required patients to score 20 points on a risk calculator to qualify for COVID-19 antibody treatment. Non-whites automatically got seven points.”
No doubt feeling some righteous legal heat, SSM Health has since changed its ways. “SSM Health has continued to evaluate and update our protocols weekly to reflect the most up-to-date clinical evidence available,” a company statement now reads. “As a result, race and gender criteria are no longer utilized.”
Good for them, because legal challenges were indeed looming, including one from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a conservative legal nonprofit that on January 14 threatened to sue SSM Health.
Beyond the legal implications, thoughtful liberals warn of a political backlash. As Ruy Teixeira and John Judis wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal: “Liberal political scientists and many Democratic officials seem determined to … divide the country up by race and ethnicity. This practice, which is unpopular outside elite media, universities and nonprofits, contributed to the rise of Mr. Trump. If it continues, Democrats could pay a lasting political price.”
So the practice of apportioning medical treatment by race is at once ethically, legally, and politically perilous, and yet the AP instead trains its outrage on conservatives. And they wonder why we don’t trust the mainstream media.
Some good economic news: U.S. GDP accelerated at the end of last year as the fourth-quarter growth rate hit 6.9%, well ahead of the predicted 5.5%. “The strength of the economy last year stood in stark contrast to the collapse in activity in early 2020, but also speaks to the success of both the public and private sector in quickly adapting to the unprecedented challenges created by the pandemic,” stated Jim Baird, chief investment officer at Plante Moran Financial Advisors. The fourth quarter served to help push up the annual GDP for 2021 to 3.9%.
U.S. trade deficit tops $1 trillion: 2021 saw the U.S. set a new record on its international trade deficit, which reached $1.08 trillion, according to MarketWatch. The previous record, set in 2020, was $893.5 billion. While the deficit indicates that America has been bouncing back economically, it’s also an indication that U.S.-based goods production and businesses are lagging behind international production. And increasingly relying on foreign production of goods won’t ultimately solve the ongoing supply chain crisis.
On a horse with no name: Famed musician Neil Young recently issued an ultimatum to Spotify over its hosting of Joe Rogan’s podcast. Due to Rogan’s willingness to entertain alternative views on COVID, the aging rocker told the tech company, “They can have Rogan or Young. Not both.” Well, he got his wish. Spotify elected to drop Young, stating, “We regret Neil’s decision to remove his music from Spotify, but hope to welcome him back soon.” It looks like Young is back on that no-name horse.
YouTube permanently bans Bongino: Conservative radio host Dan Bongino was permanently booted from Google-owned YouTube on Wednesday after he dared to suggest that masks are “useless.” YouTube explained its decision by pointing to its suspension rule that penalizes someone for posting content on another channel. Then again, did he quit? Bongino mocked the tech giant, stating, “Hilarious watching the @YouTube communists desperately try to save face after we told them to go f%^* themselves. They’re claiming we ‘tried to evade suspension.’ Really? By posting a final video LITERALLY titled ‘Why I’m Leaving YouTube’?”
Biden’s disapproval rating keeps climbing: It’s becoming clearer by the day — Americans really don’t like how Joe Biden is running things. Multiple recent polls now show an average 53% of us disapprove of his leadership. Biden’s approval to disapproval is now 15 points underwater, 41% to 56%, respectively. Maybe the most surprising number comes from younger Americans age 18-29 who give Biden a whopping 63% disapproval rating, the highest of any demographic category. Biden’s refusal to back off his hard-left policy agenda and move to the center makes it difficult to see these numbers changing anytime soon.
“Betraying the American people”: Leaked video shows Biden night flights of illegals (New York Post)
While illegal immigration sets records, Team Biden says Ukraine matters because borders should be “inviolate” (Daily Wire)
DHS secretary has a disastrous meeting with Border Patrol agents (Townhall)
Around the World
ISIS rapidly regaining territory in areas where Trump wiped them out (Daily Wire)
Five Ukrainian soldiers shot dead inside missile factory (Fox News)
Editor’s Note: Each week we receive hundreds of comments and correspondences — and we read every one of them. Click here for a few thought-provoking comments about specific articles. The views expressed therein don’t necessarily reflect those of The Patriot Post.
“Tyranny seldom announces itself. … In fact, a tyranny may exist without an individual tyrant. A whole government, even a democratically elected one, may be tyrannical.” —Joseph Sobran (1946-2010)
“The Biden threat that there would be ‘severe sanctions’ if Russia invaded Ukraine probably has no effect on Putin. First, when he seized all of Crimea, the Obama-Biden administration threatened severe sanctions and nothing seemed to hurt Russia much. Second, at a time when Biden’s war on American energy has raised the price of oil and forced him to beg Russia and Saudi Arabia to increase production to lower the price, Putin must be reveling in the absurdity of Biden’s words versus Biden’s actions.” —former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
“Oil is the largest source of foreign income for Russia. Every dollar per barrel increase is a windfall Putin can spend on the Russian military and foreign adventures. In October 2020, with President Donald Trump’s energy independence policy, the price of crude was $39.90 a barrel. Today, with Biden’s anti-American energy policy, the price of crude has jumped to $85.43 a barrel. So, despite Biden’s strong words about sanctions, the effect of his policies has been a $45.53 a barrel increase in profit (or 114.11%) for Putin to pay off his oligarchs, buy better military equipment, and engage in foreign adventures. Any supposed sanctions Biden imposed would have to overcome this windfall — and then go much deeper — for Putin to even feel it.” —Newt Gingrich
Non Sequitur Award
“BANNING ABORTION IS FORCING PREGNANCY. BANNING ABORTION IS FORCING PREGNANCY. BANNING ABORTION IS FORCING PREGNANCY. BANNING ABORTION IS FORCING PREGNANCY. BANNING ABORTION IS FORCING PREGNANCY. BANNING ABORTION IS FORCING PREGNANCY.” —ACLU of Virginia
“For those of us willing to acknowledge where babies come from, this argument falls flat. Laws against abortion don’t force women to be pregnant; they require parents who conceived a child after engaging in the act by which children are conceived not to enact lethal violence as a means of ending pregnancy or avoiding parenthood. Forbidding parents to kill their children is not the same thing as forcing them to be parents; they already are parents, in nearly every case because of an act they freely chose. It isn’t an act of ‘force’ to require them to act like parents rather than kill their child because they’d prefer to pretend it never existed.” —Alexandra DeSanctis
Children in the Womb Unavailable for Comment…
“We are focused on the most vulnerable. And based on my experience, the most vulnerable are women and girls, racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQI+ people, indigenous people, people with disabilities, migrants, and children in the foster care system.” —Kamala Harris
The Man Doth Protest Too Much
“My kids should be ‘done’ with Covid, but they haven’t whined or complained at all, unlike these grown-ass men and women who lament about wearing masks in public, showing vaccination cards, or forfeiting indoor brunches with their friends. In fact, it’s offensive when people say these obnoxious human trolls are acting ‘childish’ with their refusal to the bare minimum to flatten the pandemic. My actual children don’t act ‘childish’ — they wear their masks, sanitize their hands, social distance, and understand we make these sacrifices during the pandemic to ensure private and public safety.” —The Daily Beast’s Wajahat Ali
“It reflects America’s cruelty, right? We’re a generous country. But, at the same time, we have also had cruelty, white supremacy, misogyny. America says go ahead and die, but just don’t die on my lawn.” —Wajahat Ali
Read the Room, Nancy
“There comes a time, whether or not you’re Nancy Pelosi, or whether or not you’re, you know, Tom Brady, that sometimes you have to hang up the cleats when it comes to being leader of your particular party or leader of your organization.” —CNN’s Bakari Sellers
“I hope Manchin & Sinema don’t forget that Biden called them white supremacists when they refused to abolish the filibuster. Think HARD about that during hearings to replace Supreme Court Justice Breyer.” —Liz Wheeler
“It is the year 2022 and there has never been a polyamorous genderqueer indigenous furry on the Supreme Court. I hope President Biden does the right thing.” —Matt Walsh
Face coverings are no longer required by law anywhere in England, and a legal requirement for vaccination passes for entry into nightclubs and other large venues has been scrapped. However, some businesses and transit networks still require masks.
Newswatch AM January 27h: Who will President Biden nominate to the Supreme Court now that Justice Stephen Breyer is stepping down?; Fed hiking interest rates to fight inflation; members of Congress from both parties facing threats, with some …
For over a year, Americans have been subjected to relentless pressure to take experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots and, more recently, to even have the shots given to children who have a miniscule risk of becoming seriously sick or dying from coronavirus. The shots are widely available, free for the taking, and nonstop marketed by politicians, government bureaucrats, and people in the media as “safe and effective.”
But, many Americans have been smartly rejecting claims pushed on them by government and media. Americans have done their own investigating and found that the shots have known serious dangers, as well as additional likely serious dangers yet unknown because of the lack of proper examination of consequences of taking the rushed into distribution shots. Many Americans have also learned that the shots do not stop people from getting, spreading, and dying from coronavirus. Plus, many Americans know people who have been hurt by the shots.
A large percentage of Americans have just said no to the drug pushers from the beginning. So strong has been the conviction of many individuals against taking the purported miracle drugs that they have said “no” even though it means they will be fired from their jobs due to vaccine mandates and excluded from many activities due to vaccine passports.
Many other Americans, who took the initial shots after giving in to the pushers or after giving the pro-shots propaganda the benefit of the doubt, have since declared, “no more.” Some were hurt by the shots they took and do not want to go through more of the same or worse. Others investigated the shots, learning about the drugs’ safety and efficacy deficits. Others, who never bought the propaganda in the first place but allowed themselves to be pushed into the initial shots, are adamant in their rejection of more.
You will not find much objective discussion in the big money media about the safety and efficacy of the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots. But, you will find recognition that resistance to the vaccine push has been strong and widespread, even if the topic is brought up just to belittle the resisters. One example of that recognition is a Tuesday Associated Press article by Mae Anderson that begins with the following observations regarding the Americans choosing to decline taking the shots:
The COVID-19 booster drive in the U.S. is losing steam, worrying health experts who have pleaded with Americans to get an extra shot to shore up their protection against the highly contagious omicron variant.
Just 40% of fully vaccinated Americans have received a booster dose, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And the average number of booster shots dispensed per day in the U.S. has plummeted from a peak of 1 million in early December to about 490,000 as of last week.
Also, a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that Americans are more likely to see the initial vaccinations — rather than a booster — as essential.
‘It’s clear that the booster effort is falling short,’ said Jason Schwartz, a vaccine policy expert at Yale University.
Overall, the U.S. vaccination campaign has been sluggish. More than 13 months after it began, just 63% of Americans, or 210 million people, are fully vaccinated with the initial rounds of shots. Mandates that could raise those numbers have been hobbled by legal challenges.
Vaccination numbers are stagnant in states such as Wyoming, Idaho, Mississippi and Alabama, which have been hovering below 50%.
It seems to be quite frustrating for the big money media and authoritarians in government that so many Americans are choosing to make up their own minds not to take the shots, or not to allow the shots to be given to their children, instead of just doing as they are told. That exercise of independent decision making in the face of intense pressure to go along, though, reassures people who highly value freedom that there is yet hope for the country.
Tucker Carlson’s opening commentary on the January 27, 2022, edition of ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight:’
TUCKER CARLSON: So here’s a weird story – so many of those these days – if you were anywhere near the Supreme Court in Washington this past spring, you may have seen a black box truck with New Jersey plates and a billboard on the side parked by the side of the road. The message read “Breyer, Retire. It’s time for a Black woman Supreme Court justice. There’s no time to waste.” Those billboards were funded by a group of progressive Democrats called Demand Justice, which weirdly enough is run by an extremely White guy called Brian Fallon, which is a little strange if you think about it. If Brian Fallon is so passionate about giving leadership roles to Black women, why hasn’t he resigned from his job and given it to one? You wonder that about a lot of people. Joe Biden, for example. In any case, you’ve got to hand it to Brian Fallon. Either he is remarkably prescient or someone in power was listening to him, because just this morning was announced that Stephen Breyer is indeed retiring from the Supreme Court. And you notice the passive construction there. It was announced. Because Breyer himself did not announce his retirement. It’s not even clear Breyer knew the announcement was going to happen. Someone leaked that news with or without Justice Breyer’s consent. They didn’t wait for him to do it himself. Why? Well, because Democrats understand they’re likely to lose the Congress this November. They want to control Breyer’s seat while they still can. So what are they going to do with that seat? We don’t need to guess. Joe Biden was very clear about his plans nearly two years ago as he was running for president. He didn’t tell us what he was going to do about COVID or foreign policy or the economy, but he was very precise about the Supreme Court. Here’s Biden in March 2020 on the debate stage of CNN: JOE BIDEN: I committed that if I’m elected president and have an opportunity to appoint someone to the courts will be I’ll appoint the first Black woman to the courts. If my cabinet, my administration will look like the country and I commit that, I will in fact appoint a, I’ll pick a woman to be vice president. I will appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court. That was Biden’s promise. All right. But which Black woman exactly? Biden didn’t tell us. Biden didn’t mention the Supreme Court nominee’s legal qualifications or judicial philosophy or ability to perform one of the most important jobs in the country. He didn’t even tell us she was a nice person. All he said was she’s going to be Black and she’s going to be female, because to him, that’s all that mattered. You almost got the impression that Joe Biden believes all Black women are the same. They’re identical. It was certainly the assumption in the Delaware of Joe Biden’s youth 60 years ago. Biden doesn’t seem to have changed much. You wonder if anyone sitting there in CNN’s audience that night even noticed this. It’s possible we’ve all marinated for so long in the casual racism of affirmative action that it seems normal now to reduce human beings to their race. But imagine if this was happening to you. How would you feel? You go to law school, you win a clerkship, you get a seat on some lower court. One day you’re nominated to be one of the top nine judges in the country. And you’re proud of that. Why wouldn’t you? Your parents are proud. Your friends are proud. But Joe Biden, all Joe Biden can talk about is your skin color. Patronizing doesn’t even begin to describe what this is. This is exactly why decent Americans hated segregation. It dehumanized people. Now, Biden claims that his race counting is essential so that the court and the rest of his administration “look like America.” Of all the lies that Joe Biden tells, this could be the easiest to check. We have the latest census numbers, and we can promise you with dead certainty that Joe Biden’s nominees look nothing like America, not even close. Is that a problem? Well, the problem for Biden is that once he starts saying things like this, once he begins to promise to represent every possible ethnic voting bloc equally, like some ward boss in 1950 Chicago, people are going to start to wonder about their representation. As long as we’re divvying up the spoils like carrot cake, where’s my slice? So, Biden will nominate a Black woman. Great, she’ll represent about seven percent of the population. But where’s Biden’s Pacific Islander nominee? Mazie Hirono, is probably writing an outrageous letter about that right now. No doubt she is. And why isn’t there an American Indian on the court or a genderqueer or someone from the chronic fatigue syndrome community or a justice with cognitive disabilities? Why isn’t there an Afghan refugee under consideration? You can laugh, but suddenly these are entirely fair questions, and by the way, Joe Biden, you claim that trans lives matter, really, do you really mean that? Then prove it? What kind of woman is this anyway you plan to nominate? What are her pronouns? You can see where this is going, where it always goes. Identity politics always ends with tribal warfare. It’s funny the Biden people can’t see that maybe they can see it and don’t care, or maybe it’s the entire point of the exercise. Whatever the explanation, the White House has no choice at this point but to make good on Joe Biden’s promise. Usual race mongers spent all day demanding it. Here’s CNN: GLORIA BORGER: It is a history-making moment. … It will change the way the court looks. And we cannot understate that. ABBY PHILLIPS: For this particular president, where he is today, with a need to give something that is of great importance to his supporters, people who put him into office, especially Black women, this is a really important moment. LAURA COATES: I never had the luxury of leaving any part of my identity at the door before I walked into a courtroom. Walked into a boardroom. Walked onto these very sets on CNN. I brought with myself the entirety of being a Black woman, the lived experience of what that’s like in a country like this. I think it’s incumbent upon our country to recognize that if we do not bring all of America and the holistic views of people including Black women then we are doing a disservice to any objective evaluation of laws in this country. Oh, this is so great, that lady, especially. Here you have the most privileged people in the United States of America telling you at high volume with total certainty, they’re victims. Now that could describe most of CNN’s programming, actually. But that was especially hysterical. That oppressed woman is Laura Coates. Laura Coates went to an expensive private school in Minnesota. Then she headed off to Princeton, and then she went to law school. Now she’s on TV, all because of how victimized she has been. It’s almost enough to make you like America when you learn that someone that completely marginalized is now so powerful. Sounds like a success story. But no, explains Laura Coates. In fact, it’s still more evidence that America is an evil and racist place. JOHN KING: What would it be like for somebody on the Supreme Court? Finally, who looks like you? LAURA COATES: I would be overjoyed and thrilled. How much does John King hate himself? He’s got to, right, on some level saying stuff like that. What would it be like to finally see some of the Supreme Court who looks like you. Thank God. Finally, Laura Coates can have some justice in this country at long last. Maybe someone will send her to Princeton for free again just to make it official. She’s been liberated. But wait a second, color counters. What about Clarence Thomas? He’s sort of vaguely looks like Laura Coates, the lady you just saw on TV. Same race anyway. Does he count? No, he doesn’t count. Clarence Thomas isn’t a race monger. He believes in the Constitution of the United States. He’s a Supreme Court justice. Therefore, he’s not really Black. See how that works? He doesn’t count. So who are the potential nominees CNN has declared are authentically Black and therefore eligible for this job? Well, let’s see. There’s Sherrilyn Ifill. She’s not even a judge. She’s some kind of political activist who works at the NAACP. Her primary credential, and she listed this prominently in her online biography herself, is that she was one of Glamor Magazine’s Woman of the Year in 2020. Laugh, if you will. But I mean, why is that not a qualification? Glamor Magazine’s Woman of the Year in 2020? Sends her forth to the Supreme Court. And then look at her Twitter page. Ifill’s Twitter page is full of racist attacks against dreaded White people. Here’s one example from July of 2018. “Truth and reconciliation efforts have little chance in many places because Whites view truth-telling is an act of violence.” Really? They do? All Whites? Yes. According to Sherrilyn Ifill, they’re all the same. Same skin color. Same belief. Now, that’s a common attitude on the left is not a reassuring attitude for a Supreme Court justice. We’ll see how she does. Meanwhile, CNN is also recommending a woman called Eunice Lee. Eunice Lee may be a perfectly nice person, we don’t know, but she first became a judge in August 2021. That was, let’s do the math, less than six months ago. Candice Jackson Academy has even less experience and she may be nice as well, but she reached the bench for the first time in July of last year. The other nominees on CNN’s list have more judicial experience. We’ll give you three guesses to how they got that experience. How’d they get there? Wilhelmina Mimi Wright, became an associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court back in 2012. Now, the sad thing about what we’re about to tell you is Mimi Wright may be the best judge ever, the smartest person ever. But as always, the media minimized her, dehumanized her in its coverage. The media celebrated her nomination not because of her legal ability, which they barely describe, but because of the way she looks her skin color. And that is a big part of why Gov. Mark Dayton appointed her in the first place. He said that. Here’s how the Star Tribune covered her appointment. “Dayton’s historic choice first black female Supreme Court justice.” That was the headline. Unmentioned is how she might do on the Supreme Court. Again, nobody wins in identity politics. The people it’s designed to help are completely dehumanized and patronized, reduced to colors rather than human beings. And in some cases, the rest of us get really crappy service because the best people aren’t being chosen. That’s just true. Ability is the only criterion that matters. Skin color is relevant. Ketanji Brown Jackson got the same treatment. To be fair, we should note that, unlike other candidates CNN is putting forward, Brown Jackson has authentically suffered in her life. She’s not joking. She literally went to Harvard with Joy Reid. REID: I happen to know Ketanji Brown Jackson. I know her as Ketanji Brown, when we were in college, so I think she’s wonderful. Imagine what that was like. You went to college with Joy Reid? I was in Fallujah. You went to college with Joy Reid, who suffered more? Well, after leaving the rough and tumble of Cambridge with Joy Reid, Brown Jackson wound up on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last summer. What were her credentials? Here’s how ABC News covered her confirmation at the time. They told us Jackson is “the first Black woman confirmed to an appellate court in a decade,” and she now is one of five Black female Circuit Court judges currently serving. But hey, who’s counting? You have to wonder – Brown Jackson, and we don’t know, may be a super great person, a really smart person – but would you feel if you were her? What about her achievements? Irrelevant. The media focused on her race, and maybe there was a reason for that because her actual record as a judge is honestly pretty awful. She’s been overturned unanimously by the D.C. appellate court multiple times in just the past few years. So you have to wonder at this point since we’re going by skin color and gender, why Joe Biden is ignoring the obvious choice. Why doesn’t Biden strike a real blow for equity and just nominee Bridgett Floyd? Who’s that? Well, it’s George Floyd’s sister. She’s not a judge or a lawyer or whatever. But at this stage, who cares? Clearly, that’s not the point anymore. This law stuff. As Nebraska Senator Roman Hruska once said in defense of one of Richard Nixon’s dumber judicial nominees “even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They’re entitled to a little representation, aren’t they?” Well, sure, they are, Bridgett Floyd could be justice for the rest of us. Or at least a slice of the rest of us.
… a much more relevant question is what the Fed’s balance sheet runoff – i.e., Quantitative Tightening (QT) – will look like both strategically and tactically.
As a reminder, two weeks ago Deutsche Bank predicted some $3 trillion in balance sheet normalization as the Fed undoes the emergency actions from the covid crisis which doubled the Fed’s asset holdings from 20% to almost 40% of GDP.
(Reformation Charlotte) If you’ve followed Reformation Charlotte at all over the last year, you are most likely well-aware that we believe The Gospel Coalition (TGC) to be a subversive progressive propaganda machine designed to turn the Evangelical Church sharply to the left. TGC employs a broad range of activists — from feminism to homosexuality to social justice — and most of them are tied either to the Southern Baptist Convention or to the Presbyterian Church (PCA).
The Gospel Coalition is home to several gay activists including Sam Allberry, co-founder of Living Out along with Ed Shaw. Living Out is a ministry that is designed to promote a celibate homosexual identity within the Church, normalize same-sex attraction, and promote alternative methods of intimacy — which include man-to-man physical intimacy — for homosexuals who never marry. View article →
WASHINGTON, D.C—Justice Stephen Bryer has announced he is retiring from the Supreme Court, sparking intense speculation for who Biden will be nominating to replace him. In response, the President has pledged to nominate a woman of color for SCOTUS, since diversity hires have always strengthened his Presidency.
“I gotta go with what works, folks. And just like choosing my VP, I will select someone for SCOTUS based solely on her race and her gender,” said President Biden. “I did that last time and look how well it’s worked out for me. Everyone loves and approves of Kamala! She’s got a great laugh, comes across as extremely relatable, and just look at how she handled the border crisis so well!”
According to White House sources, the President is not interested in things such as competency, character, or any knowledge of the Constitution whatsoever. Instead, he’s made only interested in immutable physical characteristics assigned at birth.
“What this country and what this court needs right now is a pair of X sex chromosomes and someone with more melanin in their skin,” continued President Biden. “Someone who can call me racist today and praise me tomorrow, that’s what we need!”
At publishing time, President Biden committed to begin the process of replacing all of his administration with diversity hires. He vowed to not stop until his entire administration was a diverse coalition of exclusively black women.
COPENHAGEN (Reuters)— Denmark aims to scrap all remaining domestic COVID-19 restrictions next week, following on from similar announcements in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the Netherlands in the past week despite high numbers of Omicron infections in Europe.
Masks became a political and cultural flash point, prompting endless inaccurate information from the media, thanks chiefly to Dr. Fauci’s groundless advice that they were helpful to prevent the spread of COVID-19.