“Where there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community.” —Benjamin Rush (1788)
IN TODAY’S DIGEST
- Barr Blasts Dems in House Testimony
- Leftist Bullies Cause, Then Celebrate Mike Adams Suicide
- Is Tom Cotton Picking on the 1619 Project?
- The Ominous China/Russia Alliance
- About Those Unarmed Black Men Killed by Cops…
- Biden Policies Covered With Sanders Fingerprints
- The Double Standard of the Menu Police
- Daily Features: News Executive Summary, Videos, Best of Right Opinion, Short Cuts, Memes, and Cartoons.
Attorney General William Barr will testify before the House Judiciary Committee today and judging by his opening statement he’ll come out swinging. Barr will hone in on two major topics: the thoroughly debunked Russia-collusion hoax and the illegitimate anti-law enforcement narrative currently being used to incite and justify the wave of violence and rioting roiling several major U.S. cities.
Regarding the collusion hoax, Barr is brief but pointed as he deftly defends himself against the Democrats’ spurious allegations that he is a stooge of President Donald Trump. “Ever since I made it clear that I was going to do everything I could to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus ‘Russiagate’ scandal, many of the Democrats on this Committee have attempted to discredit me by conjuring up a narrative that I am simply the President’s factotum who disposes of criminal cases according to his instructions,” Barr icily observes. He insists Trump has not ever “attempted to interfere in” the AG’s decisions. “On the contrary,” Barr says, “he has told me from the start that he expects me to exercise my independent judgment to make whatever call I think is right. That is precisely what I have done.”
Turning to the leftist rioting and violence that erupted following the unjust death of George Floyd, Barr acknowledges that the history of negative experiences of many black Americans has fed their negative perception of law enforcement. However, he argues that signifiant strides have been accomplished since the Civil Rights movement. Barr asserts that blaming the problem on “systemically racist” police departments is an “oversimplification” that unjustly stereotypes and vilifies America’s increasingly racially diverse law enforcement.
Barr doesn’t back down from the hard truth, noting, “The leading cause of death for young black males is homicide. Every year approximately 7,500 black Americans are victims of homicide, and the vast majority of them — around 90 percent — are killed by other blacks. … Each of those lives matter.” He then points out the irony that the push for defunding the police in these urban communities, which Democrats have been calling for, will result in greater suffering for black lives.
He also attacks the Leftmedia’s and Democrats’ oft-repeated fallacious notion of “peaceful protesters,” writing, “To state what should be obvious, peaceful protesters do not throw explosives into federal courthouses, tear down plywood with crowbars, or launch fecal matter at federal officers. Such acts are in fact federal crimes under statutes enacted by this Congress.”
In a clear rebuke aimed directly at the Democrats, Barr states, “As elected officials of the federal government, every Member of this Committee — regardless of your political views or your feelings about the Trump Administration — should condemn violence against federal officers and destruction of federal property. So should state and local leaders who have a responsibility to keep their communities safe. To tacitly condone destruction and anarchy is to abandon the basic rule-of-law principles that should unite us even in a politically divisive time. At the very least, we should all be able to agree that there is no place in this country for armed mobs that seek to establish autonomous zones beyond government control, or tear down statues and monuments that law-abiding communities chose to erect, or to destroy the property and livelihoods of innocent business owners. The most basic responsibility of government is to ensure the rule of law, so that people can live their lives safely and without fear. The Justice Department will continue working to meet that solemn responsibility.”
This is just Barr’s opening statement. We expect a lot more fireworks throughout the hearing.
Mike S. Adams, professor of sociology and criminology at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, took his own life last week. At UNCW and in public speaking, as well as in columns for Townhall and The Daily Wire, Adams was a stalwart defender of free speech, the Second Amendment, and the sanctity of life, and he stood bravely — often alone in his position in academia — for conservative and Christian values. He was 55.
What makes Adams’s death all the more tragic and, frankly, outrageous is that he spent decades being bullied by hateful leftists at his university and elsewhere, only to be bullied even in death by celebrating leftists.
Adams fought a seven-year legal battle against UNCW to achieve the tenure he was initially denied — tenure that was granted to professors with far less in the way of accomplishment yet denied to Adams because of his political beliefs. Previously an atheist liberal, Adams converted to Christianity and later to conservatism. His friend and attorney David French wrote, “Prior to his religious and political conversion, his student and peer teaching evaluations were remarkably high (teaching evaluations were important for retention and promotion). After his conversion, his student evaluations remained sky-high (routinely among the best in the department), but his peer evaluations plunged.”
Adams frequently used acerbic wit and provocative rhetoric, but neither Adams nor conservatives in general are the aggressors in the culture war. The aggressors are the “social justice” warriors who want to fundamentally transform America.
But like the bullies they are, all leftists can do is scream that people like Adams dare to fight back.
Even after news broke that Adams had committed suicide, the bullies at NBC headlined, “Professor who announced retirement after racist and sexist tweets died by suicide.” NBC’s hack “journalist” David Li offered no evidence for those charges, other than linking to UNCW’s vacuous statement earlier this summer. That statement likewise offered no evidence of the charges, and administrators only grudgingly conceded that Adams was protected by free speech even while declaring they “stand firmly against” him.
Other Leftmedia stories — including one in 2016 by the “LGBT” activist division “NBC OUT” — derided Adams for such things as calling “transgenderism” a mental illness, rejecting same-sex marriage, and calling out a homosexual Muslim student for embracing a religion that demands her own execution.
These are, of course, mainstream conservative opinions, not “racist and sexist” language. But if there’s one thing you don’t do in Marxist-dominated academia, it’s challenge the Rainbow Mafia.
The last straw, however, was the “racist” one. Near the end of May, Adams took on North Carolina Governor Rory Cooper’s pandemic shutdown with his typical edgy humor, tweeting, “This evening I ate pizza and drank beer with six guys at a six seat table top. I almost felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina. Massa Cooper, let my people go!”
This time, he didn’t fight the predictable outrage; he negotiated his exit from UNCW on August 1.
Those of us who dare challenge the Left know how vengeful the radicals can be. As Mark Steyn lamented, “If you’re doing the heavy lifting on an otherwise abandoned front of the culture war, what you mostly hear, as Mike Adams did, is the silent majority’s silence.” Thus, we know that the will to fight can sometimes leave even the toughest and, in Adams’s case, the seemingly happiest warrior. For those of us in our humble shop who corresponded with Mike over the years, we also know that his blood is on the hands of the leftist bullies, including those in the UNCW administration, whose cruel hatred knows no bounds.
Yet they do not have ultimate victory. Finally, Mike, you can rest in peace.
But why stop there? It’s also racially divisive and spiritually corrupting, especially in its effort to rewrite our nation’s founding from 1776 to 1619, the year the first slaves arrived in what were then the American colonies. Worst of all, the project may be coming to a school near you. But not if Tom Cotton has his way.
Last Thursday, the junior senator from Arkansas introduced legislation that would remove federal funding from schools that saw fit to allow the abomination into their classrooms. “The New York Times’ 1619 Project,” said Cotton in a press release, “is a racially divisive, revisionist account of history that denies the noble principles of freedom and equality on which our nation was founded. Not a single cent of federal funding should go to indoctrinate young Americans with this left-wing garbage.”
Cotton also warned that schools and districts around the country have begun incorporating the 1619 Project into their curricula, including those in Chicago, Newark, Buffalo, and Washington, DC.
So at a time when a little bit of racial reconciliation could go a long way, the young and malleable students in these majority-black schools will be fed a steady drip of anti-white poison from the mind of a New York Times journalist and vile racist named Nikole Hannah-Jones, whose contributions to constructive racial discourse include this gem: “The white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world.”
But don’t take her word for it. Instead, consider the words of some of our nation’s leading historians: It’s “a very unbalanced, one-sided account,” said Princeton professor James McPherson, author of Battle Cry of Freedom, perhaps the definitive history of the Civil War. “It has the authority of the New York Times behind it, [and yet it’s] so wrong in so many ways,” said the eminent Revolutionary War historian Gordon Wood. And it’s “not only ahistorical,” but “actually anti-historical,” said Civil War historian James Oakes.
Perhaps the project’s most vicious lie is about the raison d'etre of the American Revolution. As The Washington Times put it, “Mrs. Hannah-Jones applies her argument to Revolution, claiming that the colonists fought for independence on the grounds that an America untethered from Britain would allow the institution of slavery to flourish. This assertion is so wrong, so factually inaccurate, that leading historians … of both conservative and liberal persuasions systematically went through her research and found no evidence supporting her contention.”
This eight-minute video offers a deeper dive into the shoddiness of the 1619 Project, but suffice it to say that Senator Cotton is on solid ground in opposing the project as a historical resource. And this might help explain why he’s under such withering (albeit dishonest) fire from the Left for a comment he made recently — a comment that has since been whipped into something it never was.
“We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country,” said Cotton, “because otherwise we can’t understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction.”
As National Review noted, however, “Media outlets and journalists then stripped Cotton’s quote of all context to make it appear that he endorsed slavery as a necessary evil in general, rather as an evil necessary to the consolidation of the union specifically.” Which he didn’t.
If the mainstream media wants to argue that Cotton is defending slavery, they’re telling us a lot more about themselves than they are the good senator from Arkansas.
America is enduring troubling times at home that are being compounded by the growing alliance between Russia and China. In fact, much of the economic and social discord in this country may very well be caused by these two countries working in tandem to undermine America and the established international order. America’s leftist intelligentsia want to downplay that worrisome prospect as a paranoid conspiracy theory, but rest assured it is very real.
During the height of the Cold War, one of America’s biggest foreign policy fears was the unity of the communist bloc. The Soviet Union and China represented an outsized chunk of the world in terms of land, population, and natural resources. It was believed that by working together, the communist superpowers would swamp the free world by virtue of their size alone.
In reality, the alliance between the two communist dictatorships was not as strong as we were led to believe. Differing opinions on the future of communism, how to proceed with the world’s communist revolution, and violent border disputes almost brought the Soviets and the Chinese to war in 1969. President Richard Nixon took advantage of the Sino-Soviet split and brokered agreements that changed the face of geopolitics.
Unfortunately, those well-crafted gains have long since evaporated. Russia shed communism but remains a potent authoritarian force in the international order. China, though still communist, dabbles in a state-directed market economy while pursuing cruel dictatorial policies at home and abroad. Both countries may have started down different paths, but they remain committed to shaping a world order that includes a diminished United States.
In fact, as foreign policy analyst Thomas Jocelyn writes, the relationship between Russian president Vladimir Putin and Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping is “arguably the most dangerous relationship on the planet today.”
Jocelyn examined a recent phone call between the two leaders in which they heaped praise on one another for their mutual cooperation on combating the COVID-19 pandemic, a pandemic for which China is at fault for spreading. Xi went so far as to say that the work of China and Russia “added strategic substance to China-Russia relations in the new era.”
What does that new era look like?
The new era of the Xi-Putin partnership includes praise and support for each other’s domestic power grabs. Putin recently pushed through a slew of amendments to Russia’s frighteningly malleable constitution that included removing term limits, enabling Putin to stay in office well into his 80s, assuming he keeps winning rigged presidential elections. Putin’s currently 67 and by outward appearances healthy as a horse, so he won’t be going anywhere anytime soon. For its part, China has tightened its grip on Hong Kong, shedding any pretense that the region will remain “semi-autonomous.” China is also famous for pushing its people around, sometimes literally, forcibly relocating people by the millions to suit its various domestic aims. Its gulags are full of people who have been rounded up for all sort of “unpatriotic” religious and political activity.
The two countries are also lying about their global intentions. During their call earlier this month, Xi spoke of moving “China-Russia relations to a higher level, advanc[ing] development in both countries, and deliver[ing] more benefits to the two peoples.” This means exercising power beyond their borders to enhance their geopolitical standing. Russia’s 2008 war with Georgia and 2014 annexation of Crimea and China’s bold moves to gain dominance of the South China Sea are just the beginning. Since taking power, Putin has pushed Russia into extra-judicial adventures in Syria, Iran, Libya, and Venezuela, while China has leveraged its technological prowess to spy in the U.S., Great Britain, and Europe.
During the call, Xi and Putin spoke of working for “closer coordination and cooperation at the United Nations and other multilateral frameworks, to uphold multilateralism, oppose hegemonism and unilateral actions, and jointly defend international equity and justice.” This is a laughable notion, as it is these two nations that are the biggest threat to international equity and justice. Unfortunately, Russia and China have managed to worm their way into the UN and other international institutions to use them as bulwarks against freedom and democracy around the world. Russia’s pushback against the growth of NATO has led to frayed relations among NATO allies like the United States, France, and Germany. Russia and China together have used their permanent seats on the UN Security Council to stymy America’s effort to extend an arms embargo on Iran, and they have managed to help turn the UN Human Rights Council into a den of thieves representing the worst human rights abusers in the world.
China and Russia are clearly acting in tandem as a counterweight to the United States and its allies. Together they are doing the work that neither nation would be able to do alone, that is to destabilize the established international order and plunge the world into a dark age where the totalitarian regimes would reign over international relations. It is a partnership that is dangerous to Liberty, and it is dangerous to America.
There’s some debate about how many unarmed black men were shot by cops last year. Some sources list eight, some nine, others 13, and still others 14.
These are distinctions without a difference, however — especially when one considers the tens of millions of encounters that our law enforcement officials have with good people and bad during the course of a year. But let’s go with 14 to prevent the busybodies at USA Today from having another hissy fit.
Fourteen deaths, of course, is 14 too many. But this number is just two-tenths of 1% of the nation’s 7,300 black homicide victims in 2019, whereas more than 90% of those victims were killed by other blacks. Clearly, if all black lives truly mattered to the Marxist shakedown artists at Black Lives Matter, they’d be paying a lot more attention to the plank in their own eye.
But back to those unfortunate 14. Matt Walsh at The Daily Wire did the additional work of looking up the circumstances of each of these deaths, and he found the cops’ track record to be even more clear-cut, more compelling in terms of its judiciousness.
“According to the DOJ,” writes Walsh, “police make about 10 million arrests each year. As a rough average, 7 million of the arrested suspects are white and 3 million are black. Out of that number, last year, 25 unarmed white people were killed by police, compared to 14 unarmed black people, according to the Washington Post database of police shootings. That means about .0004 percent of all blacks arrested were killed while unarmed. The percentage for whites is comparable. In total, 1,000 people were shot and killed by police in 2019, the vast majority of whom were armed.” In any case, those 1,000 shootings amount to just 0.01% or one-ten-thousandth of all arrests made.
“We know that number [14 unarmed shootings] is already quite low,” Walsh continues. “But a closer inspection of the actual cases shows that it’s even lower than we think. Indeed, it appears that the whole category of ‘unarmed’ shootings is severely misleading. I looked up all 14 cases included in the Post’s 2019 database. A few are straightforwardly unjustified.”
Walsh goes on to list those unjustified cases: one horrible hair-trigger decision, another accidental discharge during search and confiscation, another during a scuffle, one when a suspect reached for his waistband, one when a cop fired shots into a fleeing car, and another during an attempted arrest.
As Walsh notes, “These six shootings range from outrageous to questionable. But these are still only six out of the approximately 3 million black suspects arrested in 2019. Half of the officers have been charged with crimes, so it’s not as though cops are given legal license to kill on a whim. Only one of these cases is murder. Two might be manslaughter.”
As for the other eight, one was killed when he tried to run over the responding officers with his car. Another was shot when he choked a cop and used his taser on him. Two others were shot by cops defending themselves from vehicles being used as weapons, three others were shot after violently assaulting an officer, and the last of these eight was killed when he emerged from his home after having threatened to “blast” the cops and “kill every last one of them.”
Thanks to these additional details from Walsh — and no thanks to the legions of willfully incurious journalists and editors out there — we now know without a doubt that our nation’s cops are remarkably and overwhelmingly judicious in their use of deadly force. And this despite the fact that, as Heather Mac Donald notes, “A police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.”
Next time you pass by a cop, consider thanking him for what he does.
A quick perusal of Joe Biden’s campaign platform may cause a double take as you wonder if you aren’t looking at Bernie Sanders’s socialist agenda. In fact, in many ways, Biden’s platform is essentially that — all the way down to Sanders himself. Since the former opponents have now joined forces as the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force, Biden’s position as the “moderate” candidate exists only as the Leftmedia’s popular propaganda. The truth is Biden is the most radical far-left presidential candidate the Democrat Party has ever nominated. And his teaming up with Sanders has everything to do with that.
Just how much of Biden’s platform is actually Sanders’s? As Emily Larson of the Washington Examiner reports, “Most of the Democratic 80-page draft platform is lifted word-for-word from the 110-page Unity Task Force recommendations, including large portions of six out of nine of the main policy sections in the platform. Some paragraphs and sentences from the task force were rearranged and expanded on. And like the platform, the task force stopped short of including a call for the contentious ‘Medicare for all’ and Green New Deal policy proposals.”
Larson further notes, “Huge sections of the platform lifted by the task force recommendations include the ‘Combating the climate crisis and pursuing environmental justice’ section that came out of a committee led by former Secretary of State John Kerry and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; ‘Protecting communities by reforming our criminal justice system, which calls for the end of cash bail; and sections on immigration and education.”
Given Biden’s slipping mental acuity, we have long held that the Democrat Party’s real agenda is to simply use Biden and his supposed “moderate” status to appeal to a broad swath of American voters as a means to win the White House. Should Biden defeat Donald Trump in November, it won’t be long (maybe within his first year) that Biden steps down due to age and declining health or simply for the sake of “social justice” to give the reins to his black female vice president. Following such a handoff, observe just how quickly the “moderate” moniker is dispensed with as the Democrats press their socialist agenda into high gear.
Biden was never a principled or consistent moderate, of course. He has always been a political opportunist and his teaming up with Sanders perfectly reflects this characteristic. That opportunism may have been best summed up by Sanders’s campaign co-chair, Nina Turner, who griped, “It’s like saying to somebody, 'You have a bowl of s—t in front of you, and all you’ve got to do is eat half of it instead of the whole thing.’ It’s still s—t.”
If you want evidence of the double standard that’s been applied to the Wuhan coronavirus lockdowns, just look at the way the protests over the death of George Floyd have been handled and the rise of the “menu police” in New York bars and restaurants. This double standard speaks volumes to many Americans.
In the case of the bars, it was obvious. New York Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo had issued a directive designed to keep people from congregating while waiting to order drinks, thereby helping to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The directive said that alcohol could only be sold to patrons who first ordered food, but the governor’s regulators quickly stepped in when many New York bars began offering chips, fruit, or a few pretzels with drinks — and thereby minimally complying with the order. And who can blame these business owners? They’d suffered under the state’s shutdowns for months in what was arguably the most massive regulatory taking in American history.
New York’s liquor-regulating authorities, however, quickly declared that even chicken wings with beer were not acceptable — that a legitimate food order had to include at least a sandwich. In California, a similar directive was instituted.
We mentioned the apparent callousness shown by the likes of Cuomo some three months ago, when many were protesting the lockdowns. That was bad enough, but then we learned that these same experts were playing favorites.
The restrictions went far beyond food and drink, however. In New Jersey, for example, two men who owned a gym were taken down in a major law enforcement operation when they restructured their gym’s floor plan to allow more spacing between patrons and then defied their Democrat governor’s lockdown order. Many Americans have had to surrender not just their livelihoods, but their ability to comfort a dying family member in a hospital or to grieve for the loss of a loved one.
And all the while, we see video of massive “social justice” protests in these same states — with no regulatory concern for social distancing. The favoritism shown these events is palpable — as was the Supreme Court’s disappointing ruling (with Chief Justice John Roberts being the deciding vote) against a Nevada church seeking relief from a clearly discriminatory set of rules.
These double standards come at a great cost. The pain and uncertainty caused by the coronavirus has been bad enough, but Americans also understand that the virus doesn’t care if it’s being spread at a funeral or a gym or a protest. So when the state cracks down on one set of activities while granting a free pass for politically favored activities, it’s only natural for the people to ask questions.
When those questions are brushed off at best, and actively derided at worst, it leads us to rightly conclude that our elected officials are not providing us with equal protection under the law, but instead are playing favorites. Liberty, then, becomes a casualty — as does our confidence in those we trust with power.
Above the Fold
“Senate Republicans on Monday officially unveiled details of their proposal for the latest round of coronavirus stimulus, officially igniting last-minute negotiations overshadowed by a still-turbulent economy,” reports The Washington Free Beacon. “The GOP plan includes roughly $1 trillion in new spending meant primarily to shore up the flagging market, as unemployment persists over 10 percent. At the same time, it sets a far less expansive spending agenda than the House Democrats’ plan that was introduced in May and contains over $3 trillion in spending proposals. That sets up what is likely to be a chaotic week of inter-party and inter-branch negotiations.”
The Free Beacon adds: “The proposal’s most contentious portion is likely to be its changes to federal supplementation of unemployment insurance. In August and September, the GOP plan will guarantee payment of $200 per month to those on unemployment over and above their state payments; in October that would transition to guaranteeing wage replacement of 70 percent to those without a job, up to $500 a month. That’s a major cut to the status quo under the CARES Act, passed in March, which paid out an additional $600 per month — essentially guaranteeing a $15 per hour replacement wage. Democrats want to preserve that arrangement, while some Republicans worry that it is discouraging workers from returning to the workforce, contributing to a slowed economic recovery.”
Government & Politics
Democrat Party platform honors Native American tribes that fought against the U.S. in the War of 1812 (The Washington Free Beacon)
Conservative justices reportedly declined to take up Second Amendment case after John Roberts signaled he would side with the liberals (National Review)
“Heads are going to roll”: Nick Sandmann’s legal team threatens new action against CNN and The Washington Post for allegedly violating confidentiality agreements (The Daily Wire)
First presidential debate moved to Cleveland amid pandemic concerns: The debate, which is in just over two months, was originally scheduled to be hosted by the University of Notre Dame (Politico)
Senator Tom Cotton introduces legislation to ban federal funding of schools teaching fake history (The Federalist)
Annals of the “Social Justice” Caliphate
Campus activists demand free tuition and reparations: Tulane’s Black Student Union presses administration to compensate the descendants of slaves who worked on campus grounds (The Washington Free Beacon)
But the damage is already done: ESPN issues correction on viral WNBA national anthem tweet, says players left before the song was played (The Daily Caller)
Enraged woman maces couple picnicking who weren’t wearing masks (The Daily Wire)
South Korea to have solid fuel rockets in major deal with U.S. (AP)
More federal agents dispatched to Portland as protests rise in other cities (The Washington Post)
Seventy-seven percent of Americans are concerned about crime in our cities (Power Line)
The Latest on COVID-19
Hope increases that Sun Belt hot spots have stabilized (Washington Examiner)
Some MLB games postponed after Miami Marlins’ coronavirus outbreak (ESPN)
Loss of smell from virus is not permanent, scientists say (UK Daily Mail)
How close are we to a vaccine? Here’s what we know (The Daily Signal)
Pittsburgh Steelers’ defensive end Stephon Tuitt says he won’t kneel for the national anthem (UK Daily Mail)
Florida man (of course!) fraudulently obtained $3.9 million in PPP loans and used some of it to buy Lamborghini (The Hill)
Life during COVID: Ice cream is really popular, deodorant not so much (WBFF)
Policy: The (un)constitutionality of federal mask mandates (The Orange County Register)
Policy: Why mail-in voting is a bad idea, even during a pandemic (The Daily Signal)
Satire: Dr. Anthony Fauci mandates masks for all bullets to prevent COVID-related gunshot wounds (Genesius Times)
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.
Black Man Killed After Scuffle Over Pro-Trump Sign — Anthony Brian Logan discusses the man who spoke his mind through his signs.
The Rally That Changed My Mind — Karlyn Borysenko says, “Did going to a Trump rally change me? Well, my values are the same, but my perspective is different.”
For more of today’s columns, visit Right Opinion.
Upright: “I’m not kneeling for the flag and screw anybody who have [sic] a problem with that. My grandmother was a[n] immigrant from the Caribbean and she worked her ass off to bring 20 people over the right way. She had no money and educated herself to be a nurse. She living good now.” —Pittsburgh Steelers defensive end Stephon Tuitt
For the record: “Y'all so blessed Janet Reno is no longer the captain. She would’ve firebombed Portland by now and salted the earth for good measure.” —Becket Adams
Observations: “The left has done to this country everything that they feared and dreaded Donald Trump would do when he was elected.” —Brandon Straka, founder of the WalkAway movement
Re: The Left: “My suggestion to the American people is start listening to the Democrats. … They talk about defunding the police. They talk about making excuses for violent mobs. Let’s take them at their word. They want to destroy the things that bring us together — our common bonds, our founding, our love of country.” —Rep. Dan Crenshaw
Self-solver: “It used to be in the old days, before this, you’d write a letter, and you’d say, ‘This letter is really bad.’ You’d put it in your desk, and you go back tomorrow, and you say, ‘Oh, I’m glad I didn’t send it.’ Right? But we don’t do that with Twitter. We put it out instantaneously. We feel great, and then you start getting phone calls, ‘Did you really say this?’” —Trump on his Twitter regrets (Memo to Mr. President: Find a pen, a piece of paper, and a desk drawer, and think about it tomorrow!)
Friendly fire I: “It’s like saying to somebody, ‘You have a bowl of s—t in front of you, and all you’ve got to do is eat half of it instead of the whole thing.’ It’s still s—t.‘” —ex-Bernie Sanders campaign co-chair Nina Turner on voting for Joe Biden
Friendly fire II: “How does breaking windows at a courthouse, setting fire to a federal building, firing guns in crowds, and committing acts of vandalism forward any cause? Actually, don’t bother because there is no good answer. It is self-destructive to any cause you promote.” —Joe Scarborough
Alpha jackass: “[Trump’s] an arsonist, not a fireman. He wants to stir violent protests to fuel his 'law and order’ campaign ads.” —David Axelrod
Non compos mentis: “The hard truth is women — and particularly women of color — have never had a fair shot to get ahead in this country. That’s why today, I’m releasing my plan to make sure women can fully participate in our economy and country.” —Joe Biden, mansplaining why women need a 77-year-old white man to help them
The BIG Lie: “‘Black-on-Black Crime’ Is a Dangerous Myth.” —Teen Vogue op-ed title
And last… “George Floyd was murdered 63 days ago. Since then, 63,000 black pre-born babies have been murdered by Planned Parenthood and abortionists in America. And Black Lives Matter supports that.” —Samuel Sey
Don’t Miss Cartoons and Memes
Check out Reparations.
If you’d like to receive Cartoons and Memes by email every Monday, update your subscription here.
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