“The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption — a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible.” —Thomas Jefferson (1801)
IN TODAY’S DIGEST
- Mob Boss Schumer Threatens Justices
- Bloomberg Is Out but NOT Gone, Sanders Sulks
- The Politicized Coronavirus Spending Deal
- The ‘Transgender’ Agenda: The Tip of the Totalitarian Spear
- Dan Crenshaw Tackles Climate Change
- Snopes Amateurs Take on The Patriot Post
- Daily Features: News Executive Summary, Videos, Best of Right Opinion, Short Cuts, Memes, and Cartoons.
Standing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building at a pro-abortion rally, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) gave a speech. He turned and pointed to the Court building, bloviating, “I want to tell you [Justice Neil] Gorsuch, I want to tell you [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
The reason the pro-abortion protesters had gathered was to voice their opposition to a case before SCOTUS — a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring that any physician performing abortions have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 minutes of the abortion facility. While there is nothing unusual about various groups rallying for their cause outside the Supreme Court, what was unusual and unprecedented was Schumer’s pointed threats directed at Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
In fact, Schumer’s threats against members of the Court were so beyond the pale that Chief Justice John Roberts took the unusual action of issuing a public rebuke of the senator, stating in part, “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”
Following Roberts’s rebuke, however, Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman essentially doubled down and defended Schumer’s threat by ridiculously asserting, “Sen. Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court.” In fact, Goodman’s blatant mischaracterization of Schumer’s threats was so obviously false that even Leftmedia outlet CNN called it false.
Furthermore, Goodman falsely equivocated Schumer’s threats with President Donald Trump’s recent criticism of Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, while blasting Roberts as biased for not calling out Trump. The truth is Roberts has opposed Trump for his criticism of the judiciary in the past, but, far more significantly, Trump has never issued any threat toward a member of any court.
On Wednesday evening, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) excoriated Schumer: “I would call on Schumer to apologize, but we all know he has no shame. So tomorrow I will introduce a motion to censure Schumer for his pathetic attempt at intimidation of [the] Supreme Court.” But it’s not only Republicans criticizing Schumer; Democrats, advisers, law professors, and pundits piled on, rebuking the Democrat leader for his excess.
Faced with wagons that were not circled around him, Schumer finally apologized this morning. “I should not have used the words I used,” Schumer said. “They didn’t come out the way I intended to.”
In any case, Schumer’s problem is that he views SCOTUS as the Left has for years — as the judicial arm of the DNC. Therefore, whenever the Court fails to rubber-stamp the Democrats’ leftist agenda, the Left falsely attacks the Court as supposedly acting in bias toward Republicans rather than the Constitution. Schumer’s aim was clearly to intimidate the justices into siding with leftist activists’ “living constitution” nonsense rather than the constitutionalists’ approach of using the plain language of the law. Those who use threats and intimidation to defend their position reveal that they have little rationale to support their argument.
According to Bloomberg, “After [Tuesday’s] results, the delegate math has become virtually impossible — and a viable path to the nomination no longer exists.”
But his campaign never really was about accumulating delegates or actually seeking the presidency. It was, from inception, about stopping Bernie Sanders.
As I noted in “Bloomberg’s Brokered Demo Convention Gambit” two months ago, the Sanders surge is creating a lot of heartburn for the Democrat Party. And regarding Bloomberg’s faux campaign, the stage podium Bloomberg wants is the big one at the Demo convention in July. That will enable him to broker a path for his preferred candidate. Biden’s views align most closely to those of Bloomberg, and he is the “establishment candidate.”
Endorsing Biden, Bloomberg declared: “I’ve always believed that defeating Donald Trump starts with uniting behind the candidate with the best shot to do it. After yesterday’s vote, it is clear that candidate is my friend and a great American, Joe Biden.”
In other words, Bloomberg’s gambit on a brokered convention was, and remains, to provide a gauntlet to a Sanders nomination if Sanders gets that far. Bloomberg apparently now believes Biden’s path to the nomination is secure, so he can exit and devote his money to defeating Donald Trump.
As I noted before Bloomberg’s exit, regardless of whom Biden plugs into his VP ticket slot, his ticket “will be enthusiastically supported by Bloomberg, who … will provide Biden up to a billion in advertising graft against Trump in the general election.” And of course, if Biden wins the big one, he will be irrevocably beholden to Bloomberg. We call this arrangement a “quid pro quo.”
Responding to the endorsements, Sanders distinguished himself from Biden: “Joe is running a campaign which is obviously heavily supported by the corporate establishment. At last count he had received funding from at least 60 billionaires. Our campaign has received more campaign contributions from more Americans, averaging $18.50, than any campaign in the history of our country. … Joe and I have very different voting records. Joe and I have a very different vision for the future of this country and Joe and I are running very different campaigns, and my hope is in the coming months we will be able to debate and discuss the very significant differences that we have.” I suspect Biden will not fare well in the remaining scheduled debates.
Sanders then said, correctly, that the DNC is using its 2016 model to dump him: “This just confirms exactly what I said. It’s what the media has been talking about for months. How do we stop Bernie Sanders? How do we stop a movement of working people and low-income people? How do we stop a multi-generational, multi-racial movement, which is standing up for justice? What you do is you get candidates out of the race to rally around Joe Biden.”
Sanders’s leftist advocacy group, Democracy for America, rallied to his defense. DFA commissar Charles Chamberlain echoed, “Now, the head-to-head race between Biden and Bernie — the Democratic establishment versus our progressive movement — begins. If we want a progressive in the White House, we need to put everything we’ve got behind Bernie. The establishment always underestimates our movement and we’re once again the underdogs in this race for the presidency, but … we’re about to see Bernie like we’ve never seen him before.” Bern it down!
For his part, Donald Trump stirred the Demo division, saying, “The Democrat establishment is trying to take it away from Bernie Sanders. There’s no question about that in my mind.”
The Biden v Sanders contest provides a rewarding irony — for decades, the Democrat Party has built its political platform on a “divide and conquer” strategy, segregating Americans by race, gender, ethnicity, wealth, and a long list of political-identity movements, with the objective of creating an amalgam of “victim constituencies” that they endeavor to reconstitute in presidential cycles. However, in this and the last presidential cycle, the Democrats are victims of their own division.
Democrats now face the challenge they faced in 2016 (and back in 1968) — how to nominate an “establishment candidate” without alienating all the 18-30-year-old emotive voters needed for victory.
With other primaries just ahead, Biden’s path to the Demo nomination is still facing significant hurdles. For that reason, his backers, Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, et al., are not actually dropping out — they’re “suspending” their campaigns to ensure that at the convention their delegates are bound and can’t defect to Bernie’s dark side.
As of this writing, the delegate count is as follows: Biden 595, Sanders 528, Warren 65, Bloomberg 59, Buttigieg 26, and Klobuchar 7. A better indication of the contest between Biden and Sanders is to combine their faction delegates. Biden’s left-of-center faction includes Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar for a total of 687 delegates. Sanders’s far-left faction includes only Warren, and they hold 593 delegates. In effect, Biden leads Sanders by 94 delegates. No doubt the Sanders/Warren faction is discussing strategy about how to keep her constituents on board given that she is dropping out today.
It’s a long way to the 1,991 delegates needed for the Demo nomination, and while Bloomberg is out, his money is most assuredly not gone.
Finally, the Biden-Sanders match will be a referendum on Barack Obama, and Sanders is now running fake Obama endorsement ads, which make clear that Biden does not have that endorsement — yet. And for the record, Biden’s comeback clearly put relief on business concerns about the future of the economy, as equity markets surged Wednesday.
The Trump administration has been seeking $2.5 billion to provide for appropriate measures to contain the spread of coronavirus. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi complained that was “completely inadequate.” Well, if there’s one thing that has bipartisan consensus in Washington these days, it’s spending more money, so Congress just reached a deal to authorize $8.3 billion for coronavirus. The House passed the measure yesterday, and the Senate will soon vote.
“If they want to give more, we’ll do more,” President Donald Trump said last week. “We’re going to spend whatever is appropriate.”
The Wall Street Journal reports, “The agreement came as the total number of people in the U.S. with the virus reached 153, with 11 deaths linked to coronavirus, as of Wednesday afternoon. Ten of the U.S. fatalities have been in Washington state. World-wide, more than 90,000 people have contracted the virus, and more than 3,000 have died.”
Despite the appearance of agreement, however, partisanship reigns. “Lives are at stake,” Pelosi lectured last Thursday. “This is not a time for name-calling or playing politics.” Yet playing politics is exactly what Democrats have done. Rather than push through funding Pelosi thought was adequate, she deliberately delayed working on a package to allow the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee time to run ads ahead of Super Tuesday attacking Republicans for not “doing something.”
Such cynicism is, unfortunately, par for the course with Democrats, who, as Rahm Emanuel so infamously put it, “never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve took the emergency step of cutting interest rates to try to stabilize the stock market. It doesn’t seem to have worked, as this week’s market rollercoaster ride reveals. Trump has pitched a temporary payroll tax cut, as well, which we estimate will have virtually no effect — it didn’t when Barack Obama tried it — because it would be temporary. The better course is for the administration task force to continue its work to take serious and appropriate measures to contain the spread of the virus without creating or worsening panic.
In their pursuit of unassailable power by any means necessary, American leftists have decided that tolerance and tyranny are interchangeable terms. Nothing says that clearer than their efforts to force feed the “transgender” agenda to children in school — without parental knowledge or permission.
On January 26, the California Teachers Association (CTA) held a meeting where members decided to change existing policy and add “transgender and non-binary youth” to the list of students who can leave class for medical reasons — absent their parents’ permission. “While the updated policy does not include ‘hormone therapy’ explicitly, the rationale discussed by CTA’s civil rights committee in making the policy change indicates that’s the final goal,” the Epoch Times reports.
The Epoch Times learned of this development when concerned teachers reported it to the news site. And while the changes have not been made publicly available, CTA spokeswoman Claudia Briggs confirmed the new policy reads as follows: “CTA believes comprehensive school based health care clinics are needed to bring caring and responsive services to young people. The clinics shall provide cisgender, transgender and non-binary youth equal and confidential access to decision-making rights for students and their families.”
These changes arise from a statement printed by the CTA Report of Board of Directors, Committees, and Items of New Business in June 2019. It is equally provocative: “Current interpretation of California state law does not allow trans students to begin gender identity confirming hormone therapy without the consent of both legal guardians, however it does allow for cis minors to receive hormones (e.g. birth control) without the barrier of parental permission. This inequity of decision-making forces some children to go through the wrong puberty and can negatively impact the child’s mental health.”
Note the incrementalism. The CTA wants to frame hormone therapy per se as a civil-rights issue, not a medical one. Thus the same progressives who succeeded in usurping parental rights regarding birth control — which in many states extends to minors getting actual abortions without parental permission or knowledge — now demand the “right” to usurp parental rights regarding life-altering hormone therapy in pursuit of “sex change.”
Of course, the CTA insists that hormone therapy is identity confirming rather than the rejection of chromosomal and biological reality — the “sexual dysphoria” — it really is.
“Teachers and others public school educators adopted this policy, belief statement, to ensure that all students have equal rights regardless of zip code, skin color, language they speak and who they love,” Briggs insists. “The intent of the policy is not to circumvent parents or guardians.”
Nonsense. California’s Family Code 6925, in place since the 1990s, allows minors to receive birth control and/or abortions without parental consent. And in 2013, the state enacted Assembly Bill 1266, a.k.a. the “School Success and Opportunity Act.” It states that school employees are not allowed to inform parents about a child’s “gender identity” unless the child gives consent. Moreover, while “The California Healthy Youth Act & 2019 Health Education Curriculum Framework” allows parents to opt out of sex education, it requires them to expose their children to materials that discuss gender, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.
The ostensible reason? The framework states, “Dispelling myths, breaking down stereotypes and linking students to resources can help prevent bullying, self-harm, feelings of hopelessness, and serious considerations of suicide.”
If there is anything more “mythical” than the idea that a boy can become a girl, or vice versa, simply by saying so, one is hard-pressed to imagine what it is.
In a better world, the “T” would face expulsion from the LGTBQ community, and children would be required to wait until adulthood before making life-altering decisions. In this one, a reordering of reality itself — in pursuit of totalitarianism — must be accommodated.
Americans must be clear on that last point. If reality itself can be determined solely by self-identification — “my truth” on steroids — then two plus two can eventually equal five, as more and more concessions become incrementally demanded. Thus above all else, a government-enforced transgender agenda must be seen for what it truly is: The tip of the totalitarian spear.
It’s called the New Energy Frontier, and it’s a joint plan by Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who propose a free-market strategy to address the challenges posed by climate change. Crenshaw cogently observes that conservatives have all too often allowed leftists to put them on the defensive. Since conservatives reject leftists’ extreme solutions to a problem leftists artificially inflate into a crisis — a problem such as rising global CO2 levels — conservatives, Crenshaw says, are effectively labeled as “being too heartless or too stupid to solve the original problem.”
The plan “focuses specifically on carbon capture, a field in which there is already promising innovation,” Crenshaw explains. “For instance, the company NET Power, located near my district in Houston, has developed a natural-gas electricity plant that has the capacity to power 5,000 homes, while capturing and recirculating CO2 back through the plant via an innovative thermodynamic cycle. As a result, the system produces zero net emissions.”
Furthermore, the House GOP’s plan rejects the Democrats’ often-promoted carbon tax in favor of a carbon-capture tax credit that incentivizes technological development rather than penalizing industry. The U.S. leads the world in CO2 emissions reduction due in large part to the development of fracking technology that has led to our nation’s natural-gas boom. Leftists always resort to taxes, which suppress innovation. Crenshaw argues it’s time for a carrot instead of a stick.
Crenshaw asserts that “conservatives can either tackle the issue of carbon emissions sensibly by proposing workable solutions, or run the risk of allowing the Democrats to do it for us — with policies that would offer marginal environmental benefits at a devastating cost to the economy.” The Crenshaw-McCarthy bill is a welcome proactive approach.
The self-proclaimed “fact checker” website Snopes has long been known among conservatives as a biased leftist rag. Yet the site still enjoys some measure of authoritativeness that greatly exceeds its professionalism.
It wasn’t long ago that Snopes was embroiled in a kerfuffle over its multiple “fact checks” of the satirical Babylon Bee. That was utterly laughable, and yet Snopes doubled down.
Well, we recently discovered that Snopes has done equally credible (which is to say not at all credible) “fact checks” on your humble Patriot Post team. Sort of.
“Patriot Post” has been tagged four times by the site, and not one of the four is even remotely accurate. One story debunks an article from another website that Snopes says was also published by “the equally unreliable PatriotPost.us.” Snopes flags three other stories it claims “originated solely with the Patriot Post, which is part of a network of fake news sites that deal in political clickbait trolling and falsely label themselves as ‘satire.’”
If you read further, however, Snopes sort of clarifies that the actual offending site is “PotatriotPost.com,” a seemingly now-defunct satirical website aimed and making fun of conservative sites like ours. Its header said “Patriot Post,” but the amateurs at Snopes made no effort to distinguish this cut-rate satire site from our legitimate enterprise by the same name.
The one story we found that actually did have to do with our content fared no better.
In August last year, we published a meme riffing on the popular and mostly in-jest conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide. It was clearly labeled “PatriotParody.US,” and we have never seriously written anything claiming the Clintons had something to do with Epstein’s demise. Yet in order to “fact check” our humor meme, Snopes (or its source) deliberately cropped the part of the image that made this clear, and then the site used an incorrect link to our site to locate the original meme.
Snopes does conclude, “Although the meme may have circulated online without this context, it originated on a page labeled ‘humor’ and thus should not be viewed as a statement of fact.” It’s rating: “Labeled Satire.” Well that’s a relief.
We don’t point this out to complain that Snopes was unfair to us. We do, however, expect a purportedly reputable fact checker to go through the rigors of actually getting it right when debunking fake news. Instead, Snopes published falsehoods about our website because its primary mission is advancing leftist propaganda.
Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column
Read Afghanistan — What’s Left to Win?. The question isn’t “How long will the treaty last?” but “Why are we still there?”
If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email every Wednesday, update your subscription here.
SCALPED: Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren to drop out of 2020 race (National Review)
LIFE CARE CENTER QUANDARY: As U.S. virus death toll hits 11, feds investigate nursing home near Seattle (AP)
GOLDEN STATE PROTOCOLS: California declares state of emergency after first death (The Sacramento Bee)
AIDING HEZBOLLAH: Defense Department linguist in Iraq charged with espionage, shared secret names with romantic interest (CNBC)
OH, BY THE WAY: FISA court bans officials involved in Carter Page wiretaps from seeking surveillance (Washington Examiner)
PARENTS WEREN’T NOTIFIED: Wisconsin high school closes gender-neutral bathroom after alleged sexual assault (MRCTV)
THESE PEOPLE VOTE: Woman discovers plant she’s been watering for two years is actually plastic (Fox News)
POLICY: There is no “conservative case” for labor unions (Misrule of Law)
POLICY: Trump’s immigration policies and border wall are working (Issues & Insights)
HUMOR: Paid mourners weep as Michael Bloomberg exits primary (The Babylon Bee)
For more of today’s editors’ choice headlines, visit In Our Sights.
The Patriot Post is a certified ad-free news service, unlike third-party commercial news sites linked on this page, which may also require a paid subscription.
Video: Chris Matthews Walks Off ‘Hardball’ Set After ‘Retiring’ — Should conservatives applaud the accelerated exit of the bombastic liberal septuagenarian?
Video: The Marxist vs. the Moron — Super Tuesday has made it clear: The Democrat nomination is between the marxist and the moron.
Video: Sanders Runs Faux Endorsement by Obama — Sanders is treating Obama’s old remarks as an endorsement — reiterating Biden doesn’t have one.
For more of today’s columns, visit Right Opinion.
For the record I: “We had years where people were saying a couple hundred thousand dollars in barely literate Facebook ads from Russians caused Donald Trump to win. Here you had a guy spend nearly $1 billion and he went nowhere. It’s a humiliating defeat for Michael Bloomberg.” —The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway
For the record II: “So Russia influenced the election with $200,000, $300,000 in Facebook ads — and Mike Bloomberg couldn’t get more than 50 delegates with $600 million dollars?” —Fox News’s Bret Baier
Chris Matthews, call your old office: “Bernie Sanders is going to fight. He’s got unlimited resources effectively, he’s going to fight for the next three months. Nothing is going to stop this from being a kind of Bataan Death March over the course of the next three months, with each of these candidates going at each other hammer and tongs. That is not avoidable I think.” —MSNBC analyst John Heilemann (Matthews was just ousted after similar remarks about Sanders.)
Alpha jackass: “I want to tell you, Neil Gorusch, and you, Brett Kavanaugh, you have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you, if you go forward with these awful [anti-abortion] decisions.” —Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.” —Chief Justice John Roberts)
Friendly fire: “Having watched the Schumer clip a few times, it really was out of line! Not just for norms reasons (though I think those matter) but also because idle threats are dumb and expose impotence.” —MSNBC’s Chris Hayes
And last… “Chuck Schumer violated US law by making threatening statements on the grounds of the Supreme Court. He’s not above the law. He’s not special. I don’t want to hear verbal condemnations from Republicans. Arrest him and hold him accountable. The law is the law.” —Matt Walsh
For more of today’s memes, visit the Memesters Union.
For more of today’s cartoons, visit the Cartoons archive.
Join us in prayer for our Patriots in uniform and their families — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way, and for our nation’s First Responders. We also ask prayer for your Patriot team, that our mission would seed and encourage the Spirit of Liberty in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis