The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is another Democrat attempt to steal future elections

Stealing the 2020 Presidential Election was a rousing success for the Democrats.  Because of that they are attempting to ensure that they will have an easy time stealing all future presidential elections.  Their first attempt, the For The People Act, failed a couple months ago.  They are at it again with the Voting Rights Advancement Act, which is a rather repulsive name for this partisan refuse.  The sole purpose of this law is to overturn and outlaw all attempts to secure federal elections through measures such as Voter ID laws and cleaning up voter registration roles.

I first learned about this craven attempt at election theft from this action alert from the Heritage Foundation Stop H.R. 4, a Federal Veto of State Election Laws

H.R. 4 is a Leftist scheme to give President Biden’s bureaucrats in the federal government VETO power over state election integrity laws. Biden’s politicized lawyers in the Justice Department would use this veto power to overturn state voting laws they politically disagree with, such as extremely popular voter ID laws.

H.R. 4 would accomplish this by altering and weaponizing the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 for the Left’s partisan political gain.

This is a dangerously effective tactic, because the Voting Rights Act is generally a good and popular law. By stealing its good name for their new bill and partisan power grab, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer hope to gain mainstream America’s support by default.

It is exceedingly odious that this partisan nonsense invokes and changes the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because the original law:

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act made it illegal to deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color. Section 2 reinforces and strengthens the protections in the 15th amendment. And importantly, section 2 is still law (as it should be!).

When most people think of the VRA, section 2 is usually what they think of. With H.R. 4, Pelosi seeks to weaponize lesser known provisions of the VRA (sections 3, 4, and 5).

Here are the changes that this new legislation would make to the original Voting Rights Act.

H.R. 4 would change Section 3 to enact a fast and loose definition of discrimination. Under this new “disparate impact” definition, a voting law that applies to all equally, but potentially results in a statistical difference in impact, would now be in violation of the VRA. Under this loose definition, the federal government is given wide latitude to invalide state election laws without showing any actual intent to discriminate.

Furthermore, H.R. 4 would change the coverage formula for “preclearance” found in section 4, which determines which states the federal government essentially has veto power over. The power of preclearance is found in section 5 of the VRA, and it essentially creates a federal veto power over the election laws of certain states.

As you can see the whole notion of preclearence in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was  exploited by the Obama Administration to a overturn attempts to make elections more secure.  The Obama Administration’s abuse of preclearence was so over the top it was struck down by the Supreme Court.  This new legislation is just an end run around the Supreme Court

Preclearance is the process by which several states with a past history of voting rights violations were required by the VRA in the 1960’s to get pre-approval from the Department of Justice (DOJ) before they changed any state voting law.

Preclearance was originally supposed to expire after five years, but Congress extended it several times.

During the Obama years, Attorney General Eric Holder abused preclearance as a personal veto to stop states from passing common-sense voting reforms and lawsuits were filed challenging preclearance.

In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court found section 4 of the VRA unconstitutional. Because the formula for selecting states for preclearance had never been updated since the 1970’s, states were being continually punished for 50-year old mistakes that had been long rectified.

After Shelby County, Leftist partisans in the federal government no longer had veto power over state election laws, and states were able to pass many common-sense reforms, like voter ID.

The Federalist has come out swinging against this latest attempt by Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats to steal elections How H.R. 4 Would Let Leftist Extremists At The DOJ Control The Entire Nation’s Elections

Why are Democrats in Congress staging a series of show hearings to generate support for H.R. 4, “The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act”? Because, they claim, there is a wave of “voter suppression” going on across the country.

That is nothing more than a political fabrication. Requiring voters to show ID to authenticate their identity, or trying to ensure voter registration rolls are accurate and up-to-date, are not “voter suppression” and don’t prevent any eligible individual from registering and voting.

H.R. 4 isn’t just unnecessary and unjustified. It’s a dangerous bill that would give the partisan bureaucrats of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department administrative veto powers over states’ changes to election procedures.

As Cleta Mitchell noted in The Federalist earlier this month, H.R. 4 is “even more insidious” than its cousin, H.R. 1, precisely because “it would enable the vastly well-funded Democrat ‘voting rights’ apparatus to control American elections.” This control would extend over states’ election integrity measures like voter ID (even if passed by ballot referenda approved by all of the voters of a state).

Report from Louisiana: Turmoil in the Church

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – Few things have the potential to divide a church congregation more than a change of leadership. This sort of thing can be so complicated.

Full disclosure – I was born and raised in the Episcopal church, married there, but then life happened and for no single reason I can name, I quit attending. Then it just got easier and easier to sleep in on Sunday and I did not attend for many, many years. Even still, my rector was right there when I needed his services for my mother’s burial. That meant a lot to me.

Just under a year ago my husband and I started attending church once again; he had always been more avid about going than I had been, and he really missed church.

The second Sunday we attended the assistant rector announced he was leaving; he’d been offered a church in another state and he and his family decided to accept the offer. We were crushed: this fellow is young and is smart as a whip. But we wished him well and forged ahead.

The very next Sunday, our rector of many, many years announced his retirement. Vowing not to take this exodus personally, we took the news with some trepidation, knowing how tumultuous a decision on a new spiritual leader can be.

To assist with services, our Rector Emeritus was called back into service. This is a man who served as rector of our church for years before the current rector and the word “beloved” barely describes how much everyone in the church loves him. He is a kind, gentle soul. He has a voice that resonates and absolutely instills joy and comfort. Just hearing his voice restored calm and consistency to our services while the rector search committee does its work.

So, the date came for our current rector to leave. We gave him a lovely sendoff, shed some tears, and wished him well. Though he remains in the area, by the rules of the diocese, he cannot attend services with us for one year. Theoretically this rule aims to give any new guy a fighting chance to build his trust and rapport with his new congregation.

But we don’t have a new guy yet. Priests are in short supply, apparently.

We’ve been working with our beloved Rector Emeritus and a series of fill-in guys – guest preachers from various churches. The first guy who came was very different from what we have been used to and while he is not a candidate for us, we are grateful that he did come to lead our services.

We had yet another guy this past Sunday – one we know and like, but also not a candidate. Just a guy helping out.

Now we have heard from a very credible source that our beloved Rector Emeritus has been asked by the bishop to disappear because he “was trying to run things in the church.”

Devastated is too soft a word for how I took this news.

But, after I calmed down, I have to realize that however credible this source, it is still just a rumor. I don’t know for certain what transpired. But our beloved guy was not there Sunday. The congregation was told “he is taking some time off.”

Maybe.

But to leave us completely without a rector? None? That’s not like him.

Speculation is dangerous and I am working very hard not to do that. We will know more in the coming days.

There has been a great deal of turmoil in the Episcopal church in recent years as liberalism creeps in more and more. When the church codified and approved gay marriage in 2015 many conservative members left. Some were even outraged when women were allowed to become priests. Theological changes and doctrine has changed as well.

And there is still the search for a full-time rector. Inevitably someone will be unhappy with the choice. It’s all very upsetting, especially for someone who doesn’t do change well!

If you’re the praying sort, say a little prayer for our little church in Shreveport as we go through difficult times.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport and at Medium; she is the author of Cane River Bohemia: Cammie Henry and her Circle at Melrose Plantation. Follow her on Instagram @patbecker25 and Twitter @paustin110.

Chicago has most of the tools already to fight violent crime without additional federal help

By John Ruberry

Another federal crackdown on guns in Chicago is coming. Just like in 2017 when the Chicago Crime Gun Strike Force was created by the federal government. Obviously it didn’t work well–because here we are in 2021 coping with out of control violent crime in America’s third-largest city.

According to Hey Jackass here are Chicago’s recent homicide and shooting totals:

Year       Homicides  Wounded
2021 
(to date)   443        2,023
2020	    456	       1,902
2019	    303	       1,307
2018	    338	       1,433
2017	    425	       1,813
2016	    414	       2,050
2015	    283	       1,358
2014	    243	       1,227

Already as you can see more people have been wounded so far this year than in any year since 2014, with the exception of 2016. And there have been more homicides–the totals comprised by Hey Jackass include other deaths, such as self-defense shootings–than any year except 2020, when there were 456 homicides. We’re already at 443 with a little more than five months left in 2021.

“2020 did have a lot of shootings in it,” Saniie said. “But it’s also important to put this into perspective.”

Here’s your perspective, Saniie: As I wrote earlier in this entry, violence is out of control in Chicago. A few weeks ago I wrote, correctly of course, “Chicago has a street gang problem not a gun problem.” There are ten gang members for every cop in the city. But let’s talk about guns. Chicago has among the strictest gun laws in America. Oh, don’t believe the long-time apologists’ line that guns from out of state are responsibile for this, or previous, violent crime waves. David Harsanyi ripped that pathetic argument to shreds last year in the National Review. And of course those out of state guns don’t fire themselves.

Chicago has plenty of other laws on the books to fight crime. But Kim Foxx is not a forceful prosecutor. The essential website CWB Chicago, unlike the city’s mainstream media outlets, honestly reports on Chicago crime and holds no punches. Since New Year’s Day it has been documenting the people in Chicago “accused of killing, trying to kill, or shooting someone in Chicago this year while awaiting trial for another felony.” Many of those earlier crimes involve guns. So far CWB Chicago has found 30 such individuals.

According to the same site, 32 people “were charged with committing murder, attempted murder, or aggravated battery with a firearm while free on bail for serious felonies in 2020.”

I don’t have any firm numbers on people in Chicago charged with new felonies while on electronic surveillance because I can’t find any. Perhaps the Chicago Sun-Times, which deems itself “the Hardest Working Paper in America,” or the Chicago Tribune, both of which have greater resources than internet stand-alones, can find out how many ankle-bracelet offenders there are if they put forth the effort. Perhaps such work can reverse their long decline in revenue and subscribers. But alas, both newspapers have a narrative to advance. A false one when it comes to crime.

Even though she is a leftist ideologue like Foxx, Chicago’s mayor, Lori Lightfoot, is not politically close with the Cook County state’s attorney. They may even hate each other. But on the issue of crime they are in lockstep. Last week Lightfoot said Chicago “can’t arrest its way” of of its violence crisis.

Perhaps she is right. But Chicago–and Cook County–can jail and imprison its way, at least for now, out of its violent crime outbreak. But that probably won’t happen. Last month Foxx said that she might drop many low-level charges–her office hasn’t said which alleged crimes would be covered–because of a backlog of cases dating to the 2020 lockdown. Crime very well may pay in Chicago. Foxx is a supporter of “affordable bail.” Meanwhile Illinois’ no cash bail law goes into effect in 2023, two months after Gov. JB Pritzker, who signed that bill into law, faces voters. Al Capone and his henchmen picked the wrong ’20s decade to commit crimes, for sure.

Presumably Cook County judges and Foxx’s attorneys are well-rested from an easy 2020. They need to work harder and fulfil their duty to protect the public. Foxx can put on her lawyer hat and pitch in and help out in the courtroom, although if I was a criminal and she was the lead attorney against me I’d be confident of my chances for an acquittal.

While I’m sure federal assistance will help in fighting violent crime in Chicago, many of the tools are already in place for Lightfoot and Foxx to clean up Chicago now.

Only the Chicago Police Department needs to bring back stop-and-frisk searches, allow foot chases again, and reinstate its gang crimes unit, for starters.

John Ruberry regularly blogs from suburban Cook County at Marathon Pundit. And no, I did not vote for Kim Foxx.

The Biden Regime has officially instituted a Ministry of Truth

Ever since Joe Biden was illegitimately installed in the White House his administration has demonstrated a very remarkable disregard for the Constitution of the United States.  This was on full display last week when Biden’s press secretary announced that the Biden regime has deputized Social Media corporations formally as the official Ministry of Truth for the federal government of the United States.  This is in direct violation of First Amendment.

This New York Post article White House ‘flagging’ posts for Facebook to censor over COVID ‘misinformation’ fully documents the shameful business.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday the Biden administration is identifying “problematic” posts for Facebook to censor because they contain “misinformation” about COVID-19.

Psaki disclosed the government’s role in policing social media during her daily press briefing after Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on companies to purge more pandemic posts.

It absolutely not up to the federal government, or any level of government, to stop the flow of any type of information, whether it be disinformation or not.  Far too often governments label truthful information they do not like or is inconvenient to them as disinformation.

Censorship is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and is also a serious violation of the founding principles of the United States.  During the conference Biden’s press secretary and Surgeon General admitted to the censorship.

“We are in regular touch with the social media platforms and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff and also members of our COVID-19 team — given as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue, of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic,” Psaki said.

Murthy said “we’re asking [social media companies] to consistently take action against misinformation superspreaders on their platforms.”

This quote by the Surgeon General pings the irony meter,  The only way to ensure individuals can make informed decisions is if they have access to all of the information from all sides of every issue.

“Misinformation takes away our freedom to make informed decisions about our health and the health of our loved ones during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health misinformation has led people to resist wearing masks in high-risk settings. It’s led them to turn down proven treatments and to choose not to get vaccinated. This has led to avoidable illnesses and deaths,” Murthy said.

Those on the political left have been proven wrong over and over again during this pandemic when it comes to science and medicine.  They have been distorting science for decades now to create a climate of fear so they can strip away the freedom and rights of all people.  Their response to the Coronavirus pandemic is the latest installment of this.

The political left has a very long history of labeling any information contrary to the progressive ideology as misinformation.  Something that is well documented in this Federalist article Democrats’ Definition Of ‘Misinformation’ Is Whatever Hurts Them Politically Today

Psaki maintains the government has “a responsibility, as a public health matter, to raise that issue” of people allegedly dying en masse because of uncensored Facebook posts that don’t comport with the White House’s vaccine messaging. This isn’t a caricature of the White House’s position either. When a reporter asked President Joe Biden directly last week what his message is to sites like Facebook, Biden replied, serious as a heart attack, “They’re killing people.”

What’s going on here isn’t really an attempt to save Americans from disease. It’s a desperate attempt by the ruling class to save their own rear ends from information that threatens their ideological goals.

Democrats at the helm of the executive and legislative branches aren’t looking to squash so-called misinformation because it’s the only way to keep people from dying (which still wouldn’t justify their authoritarianism, by the way). Biden, Psaki, and their friends in Congress and Silicon Valley are working to snuff out their opponents’ speech because not only do they think it will help them politically, as it likely did in the 2020 election, but because they believe they can get away with it — again, as they did in the 2020 election.

Marsha Blackburn is often on the right side of issues.  She is with this statement Marsha Blackburn Slams ‘Authoritarian’ Joe Biden for Working with Big Tech to Censor Americans

These revelations are deeply concerning.  The blatant actions by your administration to work with big tech companies to censor Americans’ free speech are shocking – and arguably a violation of the First Amendment.  Communist countries such as Cuba are currently taking away their citizens’ right to use the internet to communicate; the U.S. government should be standing up to, not looking to mirror, authoritarian regimes such as these

Report from Louisiana: Inner City Blues

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – There has been a bit of a buzz in my neck of the woods this week about a “scorching” letter written by an Alabama tourist to Mayor Cantrell of New Orleans. This visitor took issue with the homelessness, blight, and open drug use in the city and implored the mayor to “be a leader” and clean up her city.

I can’t speak about NOLA, but I can’t argue with what this guy probably saw because I see the same thing here in Shreveport, and I suspect this is the case in many cities across the nation. In Shreveport, for example, the homeless population downtown can be seen everywhere; on every bench, in doorways of every abandoned building, and posted up in front of the public library. Some ask for money, most stare sullenly into space and avoid eye contact. It is sad to me, and I know that a wide variety of circumstances have brought them here. Some of this may be of their own doing, but not always.

Does this deter tourists? Probably, some.

More puzzling to me is that I don’t see this everywhere. I don’t travel widely, but I do travel. We recently returned from a trip to the Midwest to visit my husband’s family. As is our custom, we spent a day in Des Moines, exploring the vibrant downtown and then attending an iCubs baseball game. Shreveport doesn’t have minor league baseball, so we grab it when we can.

In Des Moines we did not see blight, homelessness, drug use, abandonment; I’m sure some of that is there, we just didn’t see it downtown. We walked blocks, inside the skywalks and outside on the street. Granted, a lot of the shops in the skywalks that we had seen before are gone. A lot of people are still working from home. But the majority of businesses there are booming and there are people living, working, and playing downtown.

It makes coming home to a dirty, crumbling city somewhat depressing.

I am not sure what the answer is. My husband would say it is the Democrats we seem to put into office. “Look at every city that ever had a Democrat mayor!” he screams. “It goes to hell!”

He’s not wrong.

Except the mayor of Des Moines is a Democrat.

Obviously, the blight and decay of our cities is the result of a combination of factors. For example, Louisiana only has two Fortune 500 companies, the highest of which ranks only 143 (CenturyLink). We are not a business friendly state with a rank of 49 on that list. I love my state for its natural beauty, but we have a lot of problems.

At the very least, we have got to get people back to work across this country. Everywhere we went on our travels we saw help wanted signs and places understaffed. Product shortages are evident. From the lowest to the highest, we have got to get this economy going and these jobs filled. The unemployment subsidies need to stop. ANYone who wants a job should be able to find one right now.

And while the tourist who wrote the letter to Mayor Cantrell will likely find his pleas falling of deaf ears in the mayor’s office, I hope he knows that a lot of other people see and agree with his words. We need to elect leaders who will step up and lead, who will do the right thing and not necessarily the popular thing, and who will get this country back on its feet.

It is overdue.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport and at Medium; she is the author of Cane River Bohemia: Cammie Henry and her Circle at Melrose Plantation. Follow her on Instagram @patbecker25 and Twitter @paustin110.

Our trip to Georgia, or where Floridians spend their summer vacations

Blogger at the summit of Black Rock Mountain

By John Ruberry

As you may have noticed I haven’t posted here for a couple of weeks. Mrs. Marathon Pundit were on vacation. And we traveled to, at least if you live in the Chicago area, to an unlikely place, Georgia. 

After MLB’s spineless commissioner, Rob Manfred, pulled the annual All-Star Game out of Atlanta over Georgia’s voting integrity bill, my wife and I decided to “buy-in” to Georgia. 

MLB moved the Midsummer Classic to Denver, the capital of Colorado, even though that state has more more restrictive voting laws than Georgia. The switch cost Atlanta-area businesses millions. Don’t forget Atlanta is a majority-black city–Denver is majority-white. Of the Georgia election bill, Joe Biden said, “This makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle.” 

If that comment makes sense to you, or if Manfred’s panicky substitution swap does, then you need to switch off CNN and MSNBC.

Georgia’s new election laws, by the way, are less restrictive than those in Biden’s home state of Delaware.

So on Independence Day Mrs. Marathon Pundit drove south to the Peach State to make up, in a very small way, for the tens-of-millions of dollars shipped off by Manfred to Colorado. There were some diversions. We spent the night of July 4th in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which is just north of the Georgia state line. We did some sighteeing there the next day, including time on Lookout Mountain, where a pivotal battle of the Civil War Siege of Chattanooga occurred in late 1863. But the lion’s share of that day was spent on the site of the Battle of Chickamauga a few miles south in Georgia. The two battles are often presented as one, or part of a campaign, which is why the these two locations comprise the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park.

Of our Civil War battles only Gettysburg, fought two months earlier in Pennsylvania, had more casualties than Chickamauga. Unlike Gettysburg, Chickamauga was a Confederate victory. After being routed in Georgia the Union army retreated to Chattanooga. The northern commanding general, William Rosecrans, was relieved of his duties and replaced by Ulysses S. Grant. His breaking of the siege set the stage for the army led by his close friend, General William Tecumseh Sherman, to capture the strategic city of Atlanta the next year. Sherman’s March to the Sea, where Union forces split the Confederacy a second time, ended with the capture of Savannah late in 1864. 

We eventually made it to Savannah too. 

Mrs. Marathon Pundit was stupefied by the sprawling expanse of the Chickamauga Battlefield and the hundreds of monuments there. Her hometown of Sece, Latvia, was the site of a World War I battle. With the exception of a German military cemetery, there are no commemorations of that battle there. C’mon Sece, at least erect an historical marker in town about the battle.

We wandered for the next two days in the luscious Blue Ridge Mountains, mostly hiking, in these state parks: Fort Mountain, Black Rock Mountain, Smithgall Woods, Unicoi, and Tallulah Gorge. The latter is where much of the classic but disturbing film Deliverance was filmed. Around the time that movie was shot Karl Wallenda crossed the gorge on a high-wire. In fact, the Great Wallenda accomplished that feat 51 years ago today. Our first night in the mountains we spent in Helen, Georgia. Its buildings are in a Bavarian style and it’s filled with German restaurants. While it only has about 500 residents, Helen is Georgia’s third-most visited town. And I encountered mobs of Floridians there.  

People often wonder where Florida residents go on vacation–after all the Sunshine State is of course one of America’s most popular vacation destinations. In the summer many Floridians head to the slightly cooler climes of Georgia’s Blue Ridge Mountains. Yes, Tropical Storm Elsa, which passed through coastal Georgia after pummelling Florida during our trip, might have chased some people up north, but not all of them. 

I almost forgot–we hiked the Applachian Trail too.

After a couple of days in South Carolina–at Abbeville, Beaufort, and Hunting Island State Park, with a quick return to Georgia for a walking tour of Augusta and lunch with a high school friend in nearby Evans, we spent our last two days in Georgia in historic Savannah, an even better walking city than Augusta. Our own March to the Sea was over. Then it was time to drive home. 

On our way back, the day of the Home Run Derby of the MLB All-Star Game, we planned to visit Stone Mountain Park, site of “the Mount Rushmore of the South,” the largest bas-relief in the world, which is comprised of carvings of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and Stonewall Jackson. But the weather that day was horrible–heavy rain–so we kept driving, straight through, back to Illinois. Stacey Abrams, the defeated Democratic candidate for Georgia governor in 2018, favors removal of the mountain carvings.

Stone Mountain Park is the most-visited attraction in the Peach State.

Abrams gave tacit support to a boycott of Georgia because of the voting reform bills, but she stealthily edited her USA Today op-ed call for one, but her disingenous act was later exposed. 

Abrams all but said to stay away from Georgia. 

So we visited. And and Mrs. Marathon Pundit and I had a wonderful time.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Critical Race Theory plus teachers unions equals grave trouble for our Constitutional Republic

For many decades those on the political left have been pushing the deeply untruthful idea that the United States was, is now, and will always be a deeply racist nation with no redeeming qualities at all.  They are doing this by focusing exclusively on our nation’s two biggest sins, slavery and segregation, while ignoring all of the tremendous good the United States has always done and always has stood for.  Leftists are doing this because they want to replace the Constitution, our founding principles of liberty and individual rights, and our free market economy with collectivism and socialism.  They very mistakenly believe that collectivism and socialism would bring about a perfect society rather than the absolute hell they always bring about.

Critical Race Theory is the latest attempt by the political left to  re-brand the United States as a deeply racist nation in the minds of school and college students, along with those who are gullible and misinformed.  CRT is the latest of many attempts, however, it is the most successful because it is being crammed down our throats by two of the most powerful allies of the political left in their attempts to destroy the United States, teachers unions and major corporations.

This Breitbart article Pollak: Critical Race Theory, Explained contains the best definition of Critical Race Theory that I have found after a lot of research.

Critical Race Theory claims that all of our institutions — our government, our economy, our culture — are based on racial hierarchy, with whites on top and blacks at the bottom. Even things that look race-neutral are, on closer inspection, racist.

The author of the article goes on to document the history of Critical Race Theory.  It pleases me greatly to see that Andrew Breitbart was one of the earliest critics of CRT,

It was the invention of a group of radical left-wing intellectuals known as the Frankfurt School, who developed it to achieve through cultural change what Marxism could not achieve politically.

Breitbart wrote: “It was, quite literally, a theory of criticizing everyone and everything everywhere. It was an attempt to tear down the social fabric by using all the social sciences … it was an infinite and unending criticism of the status quo, adolescent rebellion against all established rules and norms. … Critical theory does not create, it only destroys.”

Critical Theory spawned various offshoots. One of them was Critical Legal Theory, which said that the Constitution, our judicial system, and our laws could never be neutral or objective because they existed to protect those who created them.

This Breitbart News article Pollak: Eight Years Later, Andrew Breitbart Vindicated on Critical Race Theory sheds more light on the history of CRT.

The Critical Race Theory training was exposed by Christopher Rufo, a contributing editor for the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.

Yet the first to sound the alarm was Andrew Breitbart.

In a story that was only published after his death in March 2012, video that Breitbart had teased at the Conservative Political Action Conference just weeks before was finally released. It showed a young Barack Obama speaking at a protest at Harvard Law School in favor of Professor Derrick Bell, who had clashed with the university over the issue of faculty diversity.

More than that, Bell was the founder of the doctrine of Critical Race Theory.

Critical Race Theory holds that the United States is racist by design, because its Constitution and all of its other institutions emerged in a context where slavery was legal. According to the theory, the very institution of private property in the U.S. is corrupt because it was enshrined in a system that saw black people as chattels.

This American Thinker article What is Critical Race Theory? documents the Marxist roots of Critical Race Theory.

Instead of abandoning Marxist ideas to the dustbin of history, along with the notion of a flat earth, alchemy, and phrenology, American academics have simply substituted “race” for “class” and relabeled Marxism as Critical Race Theory.  The “capitalists” have been replaced with “whiteness,” and the oppressed are everyone else.

Like a bacterium that is resistant to antibiotics, Critical Race Theory is even more difficult to confront than Marxism, because those who oppose Marxism can only be slandered as “greedy capitalists,” while those who oppose CRT can be defamed as “racist.”  Even more ingenious is the substitution of Western civilization (i.e., the ideas of science and reason that began with the ancient Greeks, was adopted by the Romans, and thus spread throughout Europe) for “white supremacy.”  Thus, one cannot use reasoned arguments to refute CRT because rational thought is now considered a product of “white supremacy.”  (This is also how math can now be considered “racist.”)

Teachers Unions are at the forefront of making sure all school and college students in the United States are brainwashed with this hideous garbage, as you can see from this article Parents Don’t Want Critical Race Theory, So Of Course The Nation’s Largest Teachers Union Just Decided To Push It Harder

The nation’s largest teachers union, the National Education Association, was one of the most notable organizations to embrace boosting racist teacher training and curriculum across the country. In addition to voting to dig up dirt on organizations that oppose the implementation educating children to view the world through the lens of race and oppression during the virtual conference last week, the Democrat donor group also passed a leftist-driven resolution committing its more than 3 million members to a “study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society.”

In the past few weeks nine states have outlawed the teaching of Critical Race Theory.  As you can see from the title of this article Teachers Unions Urge Educators to Defy State Laws to Push Critical Race Theory teachers unions will not stop at anything in their quest to brainwash generations of school children into hating this great nation.

Teachers unions are not alone because A disturbing look at corporate Critical Race Theory brainwashing.

It is absolutely essential the all of us who truly believe in the principles of individual liberty, individual rights, the Constitution, and free market capitalism stand up to the left and make sure no more school children are brainwashed with this Marxist garbage

Thomas Jefferson tried to end slavery when he wrote the Declaration of Independence

Every time I post quotes by Thomas Jefferson on social media, something I do quite often because he has always been the founding father I most closely identify with, my Progressive friends trot out their customary talking points with maximum smugness.  I’m absolutely sure you know which ones I’m talking about.  The ones condemning Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves, which he inherited and tried desperately to free but could not because of Virginia law. and being a white supremacist.  Jefferson very hard to free all slaves on several occasions but failed. He was no white supremacist either. Neither charges are valid and are discussed in these two books: Jefferson Lies and The Real Thomas Jefferson. Both are extremely well documented and chock full of quotes.

As Independence Day rolls around every year liberal news agencies bash Thomas Jefferson for hypocrisy because they claim he only included white people when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, that he did not touch on slavery at all. They are dead wrong on this.   The original and complete text of Declaration of Independence, as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, is proof of hollowness if these charges. 

The truth of the matter is that the original complete text of the Declaration of Independence is proof that Thomas Jefferson was actually a failed abolitionist.  When he wrote the Declaration of Independence he included a clause condemning the King of England for England’s role in slavery. That criticism of slavery in our most seminal document would have ended slavery in the this newborn nation.  The clause was eliminated by the members of the Continental Congress who were from colonies that supported slavery.  Here is the deleted clause.

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.  This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain.  Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce.  And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Yes Joe Biden did threaten those of us who believe in the founding principles of the United States with military aircraft and nuclear weapons

On June 23rd Joe Biden made some extremely disturbing comments about the Second Ammendment.  They are captured in this official Whitehouse transcript: Remarks by President Biden and Attorney General Garland on Gun Crime Prevention Strategy

This particular part of the statement is very troubling because it demonstrates that Joe Biden operates under the delusion that the purpose of the Second Amendment is all about hunting.  That is a delusion that is shared by a majority of those on the political left.

For folks at home, here’s what you need to know: I’ve been at this a long time and there are things we know that work that reduce gun violence and violent crime, and things that we don’t know about. But things we know about: Background checks for purchasing a firearm are important; a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines — no one needs to have a weapon that can fire over 30, 40, 50, even up to 100 rounds unless you think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests or something; community policing and programs that keep neighborhoods safe and keep folks out of trouble.

This next quote contains so many dangerous falsehoods about the Second Amendment that I will discuss each one separately.

And I might add: The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.
 
Those who say the blood of lib- — “the blood of patriots,” you know, and all the stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government. Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots. What’s happened is that there have never been — if you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.
 
The point is that there has always been the ability to limit — rationally limit the type of weapon that can be owned and who can own it.

The statement about the Second Amendment limiting what kind of weapons we Americans can own is so egregious that even the liberal Washington Post Gives Biden Four Pinocchios for ‘False’ Cannon Claims

The Post also talked with University of Pennsylvania’s Kermit Roosevelt, who remarked, “I think what he’s saying here is that the Second Amendment was never understood to guarantee everyone the right to own all types of weapons, which I believe is true.”

However, Roosevelt noted that Biden’s statement “as phrased…sounds like the Second Amendment itself limited ownership, which is not true.”

The first half of the fact check demonstrates the bias of the Washington Post. Notice that the so called expert ends it with the phrase “which I believe is true” rather than any actual proof.  It was not until 1934 that the federal government began restricting what type of Americans can own, in direct violation of the Second Amendment.  This is chronicled in this Time Magazine article: Here’s a Timeline of the Major Gun Control Laws in America

1934 The first piece of national gun control legislation was passed on June 26, 1934. The National Firearms Act (NFA) — part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal for Crime“— was meant to curtail “gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.

1938  The Federal Firearms Act (FFA) of 1938 required gun manufacturers, importers, and dealers to obtain a federal firearms license. It also defined a group of people, including convicted felons, who could not purchase guns, and mandated that gun sellers keep customer records. The FFA was repealed in 1968 by the Gun Control Act (GCA), though many of its provisions were reenacted by the GCA.

As I discussed in a previous article, the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to make sure we the people could deal with an abusive federal government, contrary the lunacy spouted by Joe Biden..  This quote from the House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution August 17, 1789 by Elbridge Gerry informs us that the Second Amendment was added specifically so the people could deal with the federal government if it became abusive to the rights of the people of the United States.  

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.

It is abundantly clear from the transcripts of the drafting and ratification of the Second Amendment that the United States was never meant to have a standing army because standing armies proved to be a threat to the liberty of the people of any nation that had one.  Militias, which are meant to be made up of almost the entire population were meant to provide the defense of our local communities, States, and the United States.  Militias, made up of the people of the individual states were meant to be a barrier protecting the people of the United States from an abusive federal government.

When the Second Amendment was ratified all weapons held by the people of the United States were military weapons. The people of the United States, who make up the militia, were meant from the beginning to have the military type weapons.

The idea that the people of the United States would stand up against an abusive federal government is one of our most cherished and important founding principles.  Any president, including this illegitimate president, who would even contemplate using tanks, military aircraft, or nuclear weapons against Americans who are standing up for their rights should be impeached immediately.  Should any attempt be made by a president to use weapons of war on Americans simply standing up for their rights, that president’s legitimacy would immediately evaporate and the American people would rise up.  Most members of the American military would refuse such orders.

Report from Louisiana: On Blogging and new platforms

Photo by Thought Catalog on Unsplash

By: Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT — As usual, I am a little late to the party, but in January I decided to start writing on Medium in addition to keeping my own blog, as well as keeping my Monday slot here.

Medium is basically a blogging platform, but it seems to be a decent place to post from time to time because of the built-in audience.  Launched in August 2012 by Evan Williams, one of the co-founders of Twitter, Medium has a pretty solid, worldwide following. You can read three free articles a month before you hit the paywall. It’s not clear how many subscribers have signed up for the $5 monthly subscription fee but estimates range from 200,000 to 400,000. 

I kind of stumbled on Medium this spring when this article by Tomas Pueyo went viral and was showing up all over my social media. I thought the article was really well done and if that was any indicator of what kind of work was on Medium, I wanted to know more. I’ve been reading there ever since, and at some point I subscribed. 

On Medium you can tailor your home screen to the types of articles you want to see by simply following  specific categories. In the beginning I set mine to coronavirus articles, culture, history, humor, environment…that kind of thing. I have tweaked it a bit since then; you can also follow tags.  I like a mix of things to appear on my home screen. There is a category for writing, but I’m getting too many articles about how to write on Medium that are weighing my feed down. I am going to take that one off. I took the coronavirus category off as well; I’m tired of reading about that.

The site hosts professional and amateur writers and so again, pick and choose. Famous names include Susan Orlean (a favorite of mine – I loved The Library Book), Nikki Haley, Senator Marco Rubio, and many others. Authors are paid by internal views and engagement: how long someone spends on your article, claps (which is similar to the “like” button), and shares. A writer on Medium earns zero revenue from readers outside the Medium subscription base; external views do not earn money, but in theory they can lead to more Medium subscribers.  It is all about exposure and building a following. 

I have concerns about spreading myself too thin but I am curious to see if I can spark up a following on Medium which would then develop into a little extra cash in my pocket, which is always a good thing. Now that I am finally retired, I know that I will have more free time for writing, and so for the moment, I think I can handle three blogging platforms. My posts at each will be quite different because the audience for each is different.

To earn money on the platform, you have to sign up for a Strip account; it is very simple and safe. Once a month your earnings are transferred into your account.

So, how much have I earned in my six months there? About enough to buy a hamburger and beer for lunch. Not a lot. You’re probably not going to make enough to quit your day job. But my revenue is growing each month, so at least it’s going in the right direction, and I’m gaining followers. Articles on Medium have “a long tail”; that is, they earn money weeks after they’ve been published because the Medium algorithm filters them back around to land on someone’s homepage depending on their interests. For example, logging on to Medium right now, I have a selection of articles from today on back about four weeks.

I’m curious if any of you are Medium readers? If not, check the site out and let me know honestly what you think about it. Like I said, you get three free articles per month.