From Salvatore Babones writing in The Quadrant in Australia:
Simply put: no one likes Kamala Harris. No one even feels bad for not liking her. Her boss doesn’t like her; her aides don’t like her; even her Irish terrier doesn’t like her. Harris featured it (no one knows the sex) in a single 2018 Facebook post for National Puppy Day, calling the one-year-old her “office dog”, which implies that she never actually took it home. Now presumably five years old (and hopefully still alive), the dog was never seen or heard from again.
This unpopular but well-connected puppy-hater from San Francisco is the candidate whom the Democratic Party has anointed to “make history” as the first female President of the United States. Yes, President. Not only will Harris make history as the first female President; she will make double-history as the first female President of Colour.
Read the whole thing; it’s delicious. And bookmark The Quadrant; it’s a great publication.
Public protests in China related to the government’s Covid-19 restrictions have hit the news worldwide over the weekend, following a fatal apartment fire in Urumqi, Xinjiang last week which killed ten people.
Many internet users claimed some residents could not escape because the apartment building was partially locked down, though authorities denied this.
There have been reports some demonstrators have called for President Xi Jinping, the newly re-elected General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, to stand down. Others have criticized the rule of the party itself.
China’s Covid measures are among the strictest in the world, as it continues to pursue lockdowns to suppress the virus – what it calls a “dynamic zero Covid” policy.
While these protests are certainly serious challenges to authority, they should be kept in perspective. In particular, there’s no real parallel to those in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
These are street protests where the demonstrators disperse after marching and protesting, and the main focus of the protests are the Covid restrictions rather than wider political principles.
The main issue here is frustration not just with Covid restrictions but the inconsistent ways these measures are being implemented. At least in the short term, the state’s reactions are likely to be muted. There’s undoubtedly pressure for change, though how this will be achieved is hard to predict.
A more national response
Protests in China have actually become quite common in the last couple of decades, though they almost always center around a specific issue and are highly localized.
Workers in a factory may protest over lack of payment or deteriorating conditions. Villagers forced to resettle so that their land can be redeveloped attempt resistance, sometimes even to the extent of refusing to be moved away. Residents in new housing estates become mobilized to complain about the lack of promised roads, retail outlets and services.
These kinds of protests are usually resolved reasonably and quickly not least by state officials intervening to ensure solutions in the name of maintaining stability.
Less capable of such instant solutions are protests about more general principles, such as freedom of expression, legal representation, or governmental responsibilities. In such cases, government responses have tended to suppress the concerns.
But such protests have almost always been localized and not led to any sense of a regional or national movement. This has even been true of industrial disputes where workers have protested in one or more factories under a single brand or owner.
Reading China’s social media it’s clear, for example, that demonstrators in Beijing and Shanghai report on each others’ protests, as well as commenting on the initial protest causes in Urumqi.
To date, police reactions have varied between locations. Some police were said to have been allowing demonstrations to continue. But in other places, minor scuffles have been reported, including some arrests.
Off the streets and away from the demonstrators, asymptomatic residents of apartment blocks in lockdown have occasionally continued to protest.
Student demands
Some 40 students at China’s leading Peking University issued a declaration on Sunday that criticized “the implementation of the dynamic zero policy.”
They also said: “The most urgent task now is to find a temporary way of coexistence that minimizes the danger of the epidemic while ensuring basic social order and basic economic and livelihood needs.”
To this end, they propose five key measures:
“To avoid the abuse of public power, all regional quarantine blockades should be stopped to ensure that all people in communities, villages, units and schools can enter and leave freely”
“Abolish technical means to monitor the whereabouts of citizens, such as passcodes and [health code] cell phone tracking app. Stop considering the spread of the epidemic as the responsibility of certain individuals or institutions. Devote resources to long-term work such as vaccine, drug development and hospital construction”
“Implement voluntary [PCR] testing and voluntary quarantine for undiagnosed and asymptomatic individuals”
“Liberalize restrictions on the expression of public opinion and allow suggestions and criticism of specific implementation problems in different regions”
“Make truthful disclosures of infection data, including the number of infected people, the death rate, long [Covid] rate, to eliminate epidemic panic during the transition”.
The key issues are how to move from the current “dynamic zero Covid” policy towards something else, and indeed what that should be, given the inadequate health coverage in much of the country.
Now that the US House of Representatives will be under Republican control, assuming Santa Claus doesn’t deliver Democrat ballots to a few key swing districts as an early Christmas present for the Democrat party, the new House GOP leadership will determine the fate of the January 6 committee.
Will GOP leaders shut down the committee? Far-left Mother Jones believes it, “Will be coming to an end.” They also think that the GOP will want to, “Exact revenge on the panel by attacking its work—and its members.” Revenge against the two RINO Republican committee members is done as neither will be returning to the next Congress.
The January 6 committee is a hyper-partisan gaggle of Trump-hating members of Congress, consisting of a Democrat chairman, 6 Democrat committee members including Reps Adam Schiff and Jamie Raskin, and two token Republicans, who loathe Donald Trump even more than their Democrat colleagues, Reps Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
In a delicious twist of fate, neither Republican will be a member of the next Congress, Cheney shellacked in her GOP primary and Kinzinger wisely not seeking reelection, preferring to take his crocodile tears on left-wing cable news shows.
Despite their stated goal of investigating the so-called “attack” on the US Capitol on January 6, the true goal is to tar and feather Donald Trump through endless media leaks, eventually turning their “evidence” over to the politicized Department of Justice, which will dutifully indict and prosecute their political opponent just like in a third world banana republic dictatorship.
But Democrats always have a plan B, whereas Republicans rarely even have a plan A. Since Democrats lost control of Congress and the January 6 committee, and since Donald Trump recently announced his candidacy for President in 2024, plan B calls for the committee’s work seamlessly handed off to a Special Counsel. This is attorney Jack Smith, whose wife, was a producer on “Becoming”, a film perhaps jumpstarting Michelle Obama’s presidential aspirations, and who donated $2000 to Biden’s presidential campaign. Let’s see if this receives the Ginni Thomas treatment. I suspect not as hypocrisy is a Democrat specialty.
Now that the “bring down Trump at any cost” committee has served its purpose and handed off its two-year long waste of time and resources to a political hatchet man special counsel, what should Republicans do with such a committee? The knee jerk reaction would be to shut it down. But perhaps that’s the easy way out for establishment Republicans who prefer to lick their wounds rather than fight back.
A better idea would be to renew the committee and stack it with Freedom Caucus Republicans and a few “Never-Biden” Democrats, if any exist. Names like Reps Jim Jordan, Andy Biggs, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Chip Roy come to mind.
Then let the real investigations begin. There are so many questions that have been ignored and need answers.
Start with explaining how then President Trump’s speech on January 6 incited an insurrection, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Those words are hardly a call to arms, despite Democrat efforts to edit the words “peacefully and patriotically” out of his speech to the point that even left-wing Snopes called them on the omission.
Then ask why despite President Trump offering and authorizing National Guard troops deployed to the Capitol ahead of January 6, the media and January 6 committee claim otherwise. The committee should subpoena Speaker Nancy Pelosi and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser to explain why they refused Trump’s offer of assistance.
The Chief of the Capitol Police can explain why officers opened doors for and ushered protesters into the Capitol. The Committee can demand and release tens of thousands of hours of video showing what really happened on January 6, rather than relying on what Liz Cheney says happened.
They can then ask Mrs. Pelosi how it was that her filmmaker daughter was present to film the events of January 6. If Trump’s speech an hour earlier incited the “insurrection”, it’s remarkable that Alexandra Pelosi could get her film crew to the Capitol immediately to set up and begin filming, unless this was all prearranged.
FBI Director Christopher Wray can be asked under oath to explain the FBI planting informants into Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to monitor and likely incite the January 6 protests. Just as the FBI had a dozen personnel infiltrated into the Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, more feds than entrapped kidnappers.
When the House Homeland Security Committee questioned Director Wray recently, he tap-danced Fred Astaire style and didn’t answer questions about how many feds were part of the January 6 protests and what role they played.
Did the FBI instigate and orchestrate the protests? Or did they have advanced knowledge and chose to ignore it in pursuit of a political agenda? If the FBI had confidential human sources already embedded, they had to know days or weeks ahead of January 6 that something would occur, throwing water on Trump causing a spontaneous uprising. What did the FBI know and when did they know it?
The new Republican January 6 committee should also get to the bottom of who Ray Epps is and what his role was in all of this. Epps was on the FBI most wanted list, encouraged everyone to go into the Capitol, and now is off the list and has gone to ground. Who is he and what was he doing that day? These are all questions that should be answered under oath. Then there is the mysterious suspected pipe bomber that the sleuth FBI just cannot seem to identify.
The new January 6 committee should subpoena phone records of everyone in Pelosi and Schumer’s offices in the days leading up to January 6. Who was calling or messaging whom? Let’s see if this was a spontaneous protest or an orchestrated event to kneecap President Trump. Pelosi and Schumer should be questioned under oath about their role in and knowledge of the January 6 events.
If anyone lies to the committee and is referred to the Department of Justice for indictment and prosecution, will any of that happen? Doubtful.
If the newly appointed Special Counsel does his job, a very big if, there must be an investigation of the FBI’s role, what they knew, when they knew it, and what they did to stop or instigate the protests. Perhaps that could backfire on the Democrats, although improbable.
But the role of Democrats and the corrupt FBI in January 6 needs to be explored and exposed, even if the equally corrupt DOJ refuses to do anything about it. If not exposed, the story will be buried, allowing the Special Counsel to conduct witch hunt number two against Donald Trump.
Many urge the new GOP House to focus on inflation and the economy as well as the open southern border and feckless energy policy. But there must be a reckoning and accounting for a politicized justice department beginning even before Trump was elected.
If you are a Republican, the FBI can fabricate a Russian collusion story, lie to the FISA court, spy on its political opponents, raid your home and harass your friends and associates, and sic two special counsels against you.
If you are a Democrat, you can collect millions from foreign adversaries and have the FBI coverup any incriminating evidence on your son’s laptop computer.
If there is no reckoning, then America has become a police state where those in power can persecute and destroy their political opposition, in tyrannical fashion. Rigged elections and a dictatorial government turn America into the USSR or Cuba.
Republicans must supercharge the January 6 Committee and attempt to restore faith in American legal and intelligence institutions or else the great American experiment is over.
The woke diversicrats at the University of Massachusetts Boston have issued drafts of a new “mission statement” and “vision statement” for the campus (because why just limit yourself to a mission statement when you can have a vision statement too). They are as follows:
Mission statement draft:
As an academic community of global and local citizens, we are committed to becoming an anti-racist and health-promoting institution that honors and uplifts the cultural wealth of our students. We intend to engage reciprocally in equitable practices and partnerships with the communities we serve. We support various and diverse forms of knowledge production that enrich the lives of all communities, especially those historically undervalued and underserved. We are a public urban university dedicated to teaching, learning, and research rooted in equity, environmental sustainability, social and racial justice, innovation, and expansive notions of excellence.
Vision statement draft:
We aspire to become an anti-racist and health-promoting public research institution where:
Diversity, equity, shared governance, and expansive notions of excellence are core institutional values.
Wellness and an ethic of care are embedded throughout our campus culture and all policies and practices.
We invest in a resource-rich learning environment to support the development and success of students of plural identities and from diverse socio-economic, racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds.
Climate, environmental, and racial justice align with sustainable economic and planning decisions with local and global effects.
Community engaged scholarship, service, and reciprocity are embedded in University practices that promote the economic, social, and cultural well-being of the communities we serve
We hold ourselves and each other accountable to ensure these values drive all decision-making in research, pedagogical innovations, resource allocation, and the development of policies and practices.
Pretty standard college campus fare these days. Except for once a portion of the faculty, based chiefly in the sciences, is fighting back. An “Open Letter” against these draft statements is circulating. Worth reading the whole thing, but here are the relevant highlights:
We are faculty of the College of Science and Mathematics, and we are writing to you to express our extensive concerns about the first public draft of the Mission Statement and Vision Statement that was recently presented to the faculty. . .
We believe this document is deeply flawed in content, direction, and representation. Moreover, we believe that the absence of significant changes to this draft would bring serious damage to the College of Science and Mathematics, to the reputation of UMass Boston as a beacon of knowledge and education, and to the demographically and ideologically diverse group of students we serve – particularly those who see education as a means to rise socio-economically. . .
Under no circumstances can political or ideological activism be the primary purpose of a public university. . . It is important to emphasize that the fundamental role of the public university can neither be political nor ideological activism. In part, this is due to the illegality of compelled speech in public institutions and our legally binding commitment to academic freedom as outlined in the so-called “red book” on academic personnel policy. Additionally, ideological activism cannot be a central goal of the university because at times it will conflict with education and research. The search for truth can never be subjugated to social or ideological beliefs. [Emphasis in original.]
The UMass science faculty is not content to let the matter rest with these general statements of principle. They go on to pose several interrogatories:
We raise these points about the purpose of the public university because we believe the current drafts of the mission and vision statements radically depart from these fundamental tenets, and instead promote a chilling environment for the pursuit of truth. This is most evident in the Vision Statement which discusses diversity, equity, expansive notions of excellence, wellness, an ethic of care, plural identities, climate justice, environmental justice, and racial justice, and then states that “We hold ourselves and each other accountable to ensure these values drive all decision-making in research, pedagogical innovations, resource allocation, and the development of policies and practices.” That is, these values – which have very distinct ideological interpretations – must drive the direction of every researcher and department on campus, and as a community of scholars we will hold people accountable when their research does not actively promote these values.
If your research on quantum computing is not perceived as promoting climate, environmental, or racial justice – will you be held accountable and your resources re-allocated?
If your department makes the data-informed decision to support the use of standardized tests as a measurement of student learning or preparation, but the campus views this as being opposed to wellness, an ethic of care, equity, or an expansive notion of excellence, will your department be held accountable and its resources re-allocated?
Another point, no less important, is that although UMass Boston is a research university, the word research is only mentioned briefly towards the end of the draft of the Mission Statement. Such diminutive support for knowledge creation seems to strongly indicate its reduced value on this campus.
Chaser—a brand new book offering from Duke University Press:
The tight labor market is prompting more employers to eliminate one of the biggest requirements for many higher-paying jobs: the need for a college degree.
Companies such as Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Delta Air Lines Inc. and International Business Machines Corp. have reduced educational requirements for certain positions and shifted hiring to focus more on skills and experience. Maryland this year cut college-degree requirements for many state jobs—leading to a surge in hiring—and incoming Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro campaigned on a similar initiative.
The head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has publicly reminded the new President Biden that policies he’s pledged to “in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, gender ‘would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity.’”
Of course this was too much for Chicago’s Cardinal Blase Cupich, who angrily complained that the USCCB dared to issue this “ill-considered statement on the day of President Biden’s inauguration.” The cardinal has been a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, and no doubt thinks that attention on Biden’s lapsed moral positions should be off limits no matter what day it is. On the excuse that the statement hadn’t first been vetted in committee (where it would certainly have been quashed), the Cupich holds the conference guilty of “internal institutional failures.” But his real objection to releasing the statement was “that there is seemingly no precedent for doing so, the statement, critical of President Biden, came as a surprise to many bishops, who received it just hours before it was released. ‘
If the USCCB’s statement is both unprecedented and critical, it might be because Biden is only the second Catholic elected president, and his Catholic predecessor, even giving full demerits for JFK’s midnight skinny-dipping with Fiddle and Faddle, was not making frequent, public, and cranky assurances to voters that, once elected, he intended to pursue the most hostile anti-Catholic agenda in American history. Just as Biden dared black voters not to support him at the risk of their racial identity, Biden dared Catholic voters not to elect him despite his obvious qualifications of personal religiosity and chumminess with the Pope. At the same time his campaign was protecting Biden from chancing specifics about his policy positions, there was a steady stream of video shots of Biden wryly crossing himself, and irreligious news outlets publishing smarmy profiles taking reverent note of the ever-present rosary in Biden’s pocket and his weekly attendance at Mass. At the first White House briefing on the evening of the inauguration, press secretary Jen Psaki batted away a legitimate question about Biden’s promise to restore federal funding for abortion with, “’I will take the opportunity to remind all of you that he is a devout Catholic.’”
But that’s the point: has anyone taken the opportunity to remind Joe Biden about being a devout Catholic? Archbishop Gomez’s statement may have been his attempt to do that.
The archbishop’s full statement, in fact, is still the mildest of reminders, watered down as it is with lots of inoffensive blarney. For instance, it begins with a suitably polite assurance of prayers for “wisdom and courage” for the new president, and an avowal that the Church remains nonpartisan. Then follows an unfounded reference to “Mr. Biden’s piety,” irksome to observant Catholics because it’s the impiety of Biden’s dedication to things, like enshrining child murder in law, that made an unprecedented statement necessary. Archbishop Gomez’s declaration concerning Biden’s promised agenda on abortion and gender is commendably unequivocal in itself, but should have been backed up with a demand, respectful but resolute, that obedience to the faith requireshim to abandon those policies.
And why not make the demand? It’s not unusual that interested institutions make demands on officeholders, especially when they entail fundamental principles. Black Lives Matter, whose standing is premised on nothing but thoroughly disproven lies, was making demands on Biden as soon as the election was over. On the other hand, Catholics (like Joe Biden) profess to believe that what the Church teaches was revealed by God Himself. Why wouldn’t the Church demand Biden’s public adherence to the faith he’s spent a lifetime publicly exploiting?
In the end there’s no use hoping for “dialogue” with the likes of Catholics like Biden and the arch-hypocrite, Nancy Pelosi. They’re past dialogue. For years Pelosi’s contempt for Catholic teaching on abortion has earned her personal warnings by the shepherds of the Church, including her own archbishop and the Pope himself. Her response was insolence: She knows “’more about having babies than the pope,’” and pro-life Catholics are “dumb” and “selling out democracy.” Biden’s arrogation of the celestial station of healer of the nation’s soul is borderline sacrilege. Only a person whose own soul is in shambles could, without a particle of self-awareness, gush over the nuns who taught him his religion as a child, “those lovely women,” and at the same time vow to wage unconditional war on the Little Sisters of the Poor.
The mildness of Archbishop Gomez’s statement may be explained by the reluctance of today’s bishops to sound dogmatic. The archbishop may not have noticed how the Left has just recently learned how to proclaim their own most cherished and most destructive positions — on climate change, on transgenderism, on white supremacy — as unquestionable, absolute truths, after eons denying that absolute truths even exist. The dogmatic approach empowers them to enforce acceptance of the received truths by punishing heretics who refuse to profess them and declaring anathema any belief that contradicts them.
Except the Left is dogmatic and wrong, while the Church is dogmatic and right. And nothing less than the truth — stated unequivocally, dogmatically — will be strong enough to purify an atmosphere so toxic with lies as the one Biden and Pelosi have been inhaling and exhaling most of their lives. It’s too late for dialogue. More important, for Biden and Pelosi, who are both visibly declining on the outside and the inside, it could soon be too late for repentance. For the sake of their souls, they deserve better from the Church than wishes for dialogue. We all do.
T.R. Clancy looks at the world from Dearborn, Michigan. You can email him at trclancy@yahoo.com.
I first started writing a blog in 2009, after Barack Obama’s election. My first post, America’s Original Sin, addressed the then-nascent movement to disparage and denigrate America because the Founding Fathers didn’t have the foresight in 1787 to write a constitution that would dovetail with the mores of 21st-century snowflakes.
The title of my blog, Imperfect America, is followed by a quote attributed to the French philosopher, Voltaire: “Perfect is the enemy of the good.” Our nation is a billboard-sized testament to that adage. Rarely have we seen perfect, but we frequently see good. And that’s the problem with leftists… They want to sacrifice good for the fiction of perfection.
While today it’s all the rage to dwell on America’s failures, it’s far less celebrated to talk about her triumphs. Although the left has been demonizing America since the sixties, it was after Bush won in 2000 that this tactic started to stick. The cancer of hate really took off once Obama became president. On college campuses, in elementary schools, on nightly newscasts, and in papers across the country, we were incessantly told that America was racist, sexist, homophobic, and destroying the environment.
It was into this miasma that Donald Trump marched when he announced he was running for president. He saw the leftist cancer destroying the very foundations of freedom, opportunity, and prosperity while undermining America’s core civilization and setting the country up for a devastating collapse. And he willingly stepped into the breach to stop it.
The problem, however, was that rather than running as a Democrat, where all solutions come from an omnipotent central government, he was running as a Republican who sought to reduce government control and return power to Americans.
That was a bridge too far. From the second he announced, Trump found himself enduring a withering barrage of vitriol and venom unseen in American politics. The abuse came from Democrats, the media, social media, and academia as well as the GOP establishment. What Trump endured was relentless. Yet somehow, he won.
In the wee hours of November 9, 2016, it became clear that Trump would become the next president of the United States. It also became clear the Democrats were not going to take it lying down.
The Russia Collusion hoax started a drumbeat that would bedevil the president for the next four years, even after it was shown to be a Clinton-crafted fiction the mainstream media parroted. Indeed, the New York Times and the Washington Post would win Pulitzer Prizes for their “reporting” on the fake story, and no, not because they exposed the lie but, instead, because of their vociferous and eloquent participation in it.
During his presidency, Donald Trump endured extraordinary abuse and treachery, driven by the media and the Democrat party. The irony of the media’s hatred for Trump was that channels like CNN and MSNBC virtually owed their rescue from irrelevance to the Trump presidency, while newspapers slowed their decades-long declines with pages of anti-Trump rhetoric.
As bad as the media abuse was, it was nothing compared to the treachery of the apparatchiks in the government. When Trump tried to build his promised wall, he was blocked at every step. His efforts to make Bureau of Land Management employees live closer to the lands they regulated were pilloried for making the agency “less diverse.” Lt. Col Alexander Vindman, the NSC’s Ukraine expert, launched an impeachment when he lied about Trump trying to coerce Ukraine into investigating the Bidens.
And if all that wasn’t bad enough, during the Covid “pandemic,” possibly the most economically destructive self-inflicted wound in human history, the two government-employed doctors Trump looked to for guidance lied to Trump and the country. Finally, in perhaps the greatest treachery of all, we learned that members of America’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies were actively working to undermine Trump in the election.
Worse, this orgy of Trump-directed destruction wasn’t just in Washington. The 2020 riots cost billions of dollars in damage, and brought chaos and bloodshed to cities across the country, all the while being spurred and supported by Democrats single-mindedly focused on defeating Donald Trump.
These attacks were relentless, every single hour of every single day, and came from inside and outside of the government. Yet somehow Trump managed to run the government well and campaign like the Energizer Bunny. In the end, it took a literal coup d’état to oust him from office.
And now he’s back—and the mainstream media, Democrats, the GOP establishment, bloggers, and erstwhile fans all insist that we’re supposed to abandon him.
Aside from the fact that the Democrats will demonize as a Nazi, racist, homophobe anyone who carries the GOP flag, the reality is that Donald Trump is a fighter for America unlike any president we’ve ever had. No one has ever had to endure the level of vitriol or withstand the relentless phalanx of persecution from every corner as Trump has.
Here’s the thing…he didn’t need to. Trump was a billionaire already. Trump was already feted by politicians and media around the world. He already had a beautiful family, spectacular homes, and his own plane! No politicians in American history had more to lose when they decided to fight for the American people than Trump did. Usually, politicians go to Washington as middle class and leave millionaires. Trump, however, had literally billions of dollars to lose, but he took on the Swamp anyway.
Now, after enduring seven years of abuse for his defense of American freedom, prosperity, farmers, truckers, and little guys of all shapes and sizes, he’s once again stepping up to do battle.
You may not like Donald Trump, and there’s much to not like. He’s arrogant, he’s petty, he’s defensive, and he can be cruel. (Those attributes can just as much be applied to Barack Obama.)
Unlike Obama however, Trump doesn’t try and pretend he’s something he’s not. He’s a crude, brash New Yorker who speaks his mind and gets things done. He knows how to fix things and wants to fix America with strong borders, energy independence, limited government, a robust economy, and individual liberty… All of the things the Swamp fought him on and the very things Joe Biden has undermined.
Donald Trump circa 2022 is still imperfect, but he’s been forged in a crucible of white-hot fire and has emerged even more focused than before on making America great. So, yes, while there may be brilliant lights on the horizon, I think I’ll take a pass and stick with the guy who got out of his Bentley and ran through a gauntlet of machine gun fire into the burning mess of Democrat America in order to save the eagle stuck inside.
Trump may tell off-color jokes and may not always be the best judge of character, but he can take the heat, and his North Star has always been prosperity and security for the American people. Given the literal evil the Democrats are seeking to impose on America, I’ll happily follow him into the fire.
The archbishop’s full statement, in fact, is still the mildest of reminders, watered down as it is with lots of inoffensive blarney. For instance, it begins with a suitably polite assurance of prayers for “wisdom and courage” for the new president, and an avowal that the Church remains nonpartisan. Then follows an unfounded reference to “
MN Prager Discussion Group 
You must be logged in to post a comment.