Joe Biden

Studies Suggest COVID-19 Vaccine Suppresses the Immune System

Published by Papa Giorgio

So Biden has Covid. Yesterday he told us he has cancer. Tomorrow, it could be monkeypox. If you or someone you know has recently had unsafe sex with Joe Biden, please seek precautionary medical attention. God knows what you might have picked up.

MORE:

“Joe Biden and a whole lot other people have gotten pretty sick with COVID after getting multiple shots. What is that about exactly? How did that happen? It’s easy to just mock that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. That’s clearly untrue, but is there a connection between getting most multiple COVID vaccine shots and getting sicker?

Is it possible that the vaccine actually can hurt you, especially if you keep getting boosted? Can it weaken your immune system? Well, that looks possible. Multiple studies have looked into this. Just last month, the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published the findings of several MRNA researchers and we’re quoting, ‘In this paper (PUBMED), we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type one interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health.’

Well, that seems like a headline. Did you read that in The New York Times? No, you probably didn’t. Kind of weird since hundreds of millions of people got the shot. The researchers continue that in their studies of the COVID vaccine, ‘We identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease… myocarditis, Bell’s Palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response, etc.

So, it’s possible. In fact, it’s looking likely that the vaccine might suppress the immune system. This fact, the authors concluded, will “have a wide range of consequences, not the least of which include the reactivation of latent viral infections and the reduced ability to effectively combat future infections.” Now again, we sincerely hope that’s not true, but it’s not just the conclusion of one scientific journal.

The Lancet may be the most famous scientific journal in the world, released similar findings in February. The Lancet’s piece was entitled “Risk of infection, hospitalization and death up to nine months after a second dose of COVID 19 vaccine.” A physician called Kenji Yamamoto made this observation about the data from The Lancet. He wrote this in a letter to the Journal of Virology and we’re quoting “The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals eight months after the administration of two doses of COVID 19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals.”

(SEE: FOX NEWS Tucker Carlson Opinion)

Biden vs. Biden (“Fine People” Edition)

Published by Papa Giorgio

First of all, this is a remaking of my original video titled: “Fine People On Both Sides (Biden Edition)”  I remove Trump and add “Confederate Biden” into the mix (original file at Trump War Room).

The GRUNGE makes a simple notation to start out their wonderful article on “The United Daughters of the Confederacy,” or, UDC:

Honestly, with a name like “The United Daughters of the Confederacy,” it’s really not all that hard to imagine why in the world this group would be at the center of some pretty controversial stuff.

My post that gives one of the best synopsis, “media-wise”, is here: “The ‘Big Lie’ Biden Continues To Spread“

My main point I bring up in conversation regarding the statues and now the KKK is this,

  • I am enjoying it… you have a radical socialist group on one-side (the KKK) clashing with a radical socialist group on the other (BLM and social justice warriors) — all fighting over DEMOCRATIC history.

Which is why I personally do not like the Confederate flag as many display it. It represents racist slave holding/fighting Democrats who were defeated by Republicans. And who later founded the KKK as the terrorist are of the south to keep blacks and other Republicans from voting.

  • “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” — Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;
  • “…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” — Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

For Republicans to fly the Confederate flag on the back of their truck is a political tragedy.

See More

The Truth is “Bad Optics” | J6 Committee’s Failures

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here are three points the J6 Committee wish to make their endeavor both controlled and illegal.

FIRST

The First point is that this “committee” is illegitimate. I made this point with an upload to my YOUTUBE and subsequent post titled: “Trump’s Lawyer, John Eastman, Explains Why He Claimed the 5th.” Which is, this committee is actually illegal via the House Rules as well as the agreed upon rules of said committee. Which means, no one — zilch, zero, nada — needs to respond to any document calling them to speak at the committee. Over a thousand witnesses have been interviewed apparently… not a single one by the opposing view. This is tragically tyrannical, ripped straight from the paged of Stalin.

The same points are made but worth repetition, as, Pedagogy is the Mother of All Learning. Here the indomitable

So, that above point is key. Why would Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want a one-sided [jaundiced] view of the evidence? Well… because they wish to hide something of course. To ensure something is not heard from the Halls of Congress, so-to-speak.

(RIGHT SCOOP) Democrats call everything a threat to democracy. Guns are a threat to democracy. Trump is a threat to democracy. Truckers are a threat to democracy. Supreme Court Justices ruling on cases is. Counting every vote is. Preventing voter fraud, living in Florida, using the wrong pronoun. Even refusing to send your kids to drag strip shows is a threat to democracy according to the left and the media.

But the realest threat to the American system, which is a constitutional system, is what is happening right now in the so-called January 6 “investigation.” Mark Levin broke that down tonight on Life, Liberty and Levin and it’s awesome – in the sense of hearing someone put into words correctly and well a thing that is terrible and not at all awesome.

SECOND

What is that “something”?

That something is discussed in a previous post, just updated a couple of days back but posted originally in February 2021, “Trump Offered 10,000+ Troops Prior To J6.” You see, they cannot claim that Trump wanted this to happen, or directed it, or any other charge if they allow the fact… the fact that Trump — upon hearing chatter of violence — wanted to ensure that this type of scenario didn’t happen. The FEDERALIST reports on a new Congressional investigative report of this failure (RIGHT SCOOP hat-tip):

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi shoulders much of the blame for the security breakdown at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a preliminary report from Republican investigators Reps. Jim Banks and Rodney Davis determined.

The Capitol Police (USCP) were HALF-STAFFED ON JAN. 6, Pelosi’s House Sergeant at Arms DENIED MULTIPLE REQUESTS FOR NATIONAL GUARD ASSISTANCE FROM THE PENTAGON AND THE USCP CHIEF in the days leading up to Jan. 6, OFFICERS WERE POORLY EQUIPPED and had insufficient riot shields and helmets, and they were NEVER TRAINED TO HANDLE A RIOT EVEN AFTER THE RIOTS OF 2020, the investigation shows, according to Banks.

[….]

“This inaction left the Capitol unnecessarily vulnerable,” Banks and Davis noted.

Banks and Davis pointed to an After-Action Report from Capitol Police showing that the law enforcement department reorganized its intelligence without authorization which left it without essential “open-source intelligence capabilities” and caused staffing changes that “may have contributed to the tragedy” on Jan. 6.

In light of this information, Banks and Davis added that “the USCP intelligence unit had knowledge of the potential for violence yet failed to adequately communicate the threat or take the necessary steps to protect the Capitol.”….

John Solomon explains the new revelations that show Pelosi’s sergeant-at-arms refused the support of the National Guard ahead of Jan 6th due to “bad optics.”

(Watch the fuller show where the above clip came from, HERE)

What is not known by the typical cable news watcher, probably, is that both the Capital Police and the mayor of D.C. turned down offers to help secure the government areas before and as the mob of crazed Lefties and Righties descended on the Capital:

    • …Three days before the riot, the Pentagon offered National Guard manpower. And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. Capitol Police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter. Despite plenty of warnings of a possible insurrection and ample resources and time to prepare, police planned only for a free speech demonstration. (WASHINGTON TIMES)
    • Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser told federal law enforcement to stand down just one day before a mob of Trump supporters breached the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, smashing windows, entering the chambers, and forcing lawmakers and congressional staff inside into lockdown. “To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway,” Bowser wrote in a letter to acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy. According to Bowser, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department in coordination with the U.S. Park Police, Capitol Police, and Secret Service were well-equipped to handle whatever problems could come up during the Trump rallies planned for Wednesday. (THE FEDERALIST)

Remember, Democrats challenged more states electors in 2016 with the election of President Trump in 2020:

Even though Republicans were able to get two objections formally considered in 2021, they objected to votes from only six states. 

[….]

In 2017, House Democrats objected to votes from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Objections also were made after the announcement of votes from Mississippi, Michigan and Wyoming, adding up to nine states.

But this isn’t the main issue… what is is the dilemma this would bring if noted publicly. You would get these commentaries in prime time:

Yep. Hypocrites. See more related to the issue on my site:

THIRD

And another lie perpetrated by the media and the J6 Committee is that 5 police officers died because of the riot on Capitol Hill. While I disagree with Tucker on his opening point regarding Ashley Babbitt, he is wholly right on what he follows it with in the segment.

Joe Biden and the MSM loves these lies as well:

 

LIE: Mass Shootings “Tripled” After Assault Weapons Ban Ended

Published by Papa Giorgio

Jesse Watters: “Can you guess who’s running these places? Democrats. Democrats want to disarm you during the crime wave they created”

The FEDERALIST notes:

The following photographs illustrate the point. Here is a pre-“ban” AR-15. On the end of its barrel is a two-inch-long attachment that reduces smoke and flash, and underneath its A-frame front sight is another attachment called a bayonet lug.

Now here is what the 730,000 AR-15s made during the ban looked like.

BREITBART notes the WaPo article Watters mentions above:

….Setting aside the question of what an “assault weapon” is, Biden’s claim has been fact-checked by the Washington Post — hardly a conservative outlet — and found to be lacking.

The Post fact-checked the statement, “When we passed the assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled.” The Post reported:

Biden claimed that mass shooting deaths tripled after the law expired. He appears to be relying on a study of mass shooting data from 1981 to 2017, published in 2019 in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery by a team led by Charles DiMaggio, a professor of surgery at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. That group found that an assault weapons ban would have prevented 314 out of 448, or 70 percent, of the mass shooting deaths during the years when the ban was not in effect. But the data used in that study has come under attack by some analysts.

[….]

The new mass-shooting database shows that there were 31 mass shootings in the decade before the 1994 law, 31 in the 10 years the law was in force (Sept. 13, 1994 to Sept. 12, 2004) and 47 in the 10 years after it expired. As noted, some of that increase stems from population growth.

Earlier, the Post gave “Three Pinocchios” to the claim that the end of the assault weapons ban led to a rise in mass shootings. It has since revised that conclusion, given new data. “The body of research now increasingly suggests the 1994 law was effective in reducing mass-shooting deaths,” the Post concluded. Still, it left the claim “unrated,” because the evidence is inconclusive.

The claim mass shootings “tripled” after the end of the ban is based on one study, and is speculative at best…..

Here is FACT CHECK .ORG for one example:

….President Joe Biden claims the 10-year assault weapons ban that he helped shepherd through the Senate as part of the 1994 crime bill “brought down these mass killings.” But the raw numbers, when adjusted for population and other factors, aren’t so clear on that.

There is, however, growing evidence that bans on large-capacity magazines, in particular, might reduce the number of those killed and injured in mass public shootings.

A day after the Boulder, Colorado, mass shooting, in which 10 people were killed by a gunman in a grocery store on March 22, Biden spoke in support of two House-approved bills that would expand background checks to include private sales. Biden also returned to another campaign promise on gun control: to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

“We can ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in this country, once again,” Biden said. “I got that done when I was a senator. It passed. It was a law for the longest time and it brought down these mass killings. We should do it again.”

Biden is referring to his work as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when he sponsored and largely shepherded the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act into law in 1994. That law, among other things, included an “assault weapons” ban, which prohibited the sale of certain semiautomatic firearms and large-capacity magazines that could accommodate 10 rounds or more. (Existing weapons on the banned list were “grandfathered,” meaning people could keep them.) A sunset provision, however, meant that the ban expired in 10 years, in 2004.

We wrote about this issue eight years ago, when the gun debate was again raging in Congress. At the time, we found that a three-part study funded by the Department of Justice concluded that the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.”

We wrote:

FactCheck.org, Feb. 1, 2013: The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.

Recent Research 

Some things haven’t changed much since then. A RAND review of gun studies, updated in 2020, concluded there is “inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.”

“We don’t think there are great studies available yet to state the effectiveness of assault weapons bans,” Andrew Morral, a RAND senior behavioral scientist who led the project, told FactCheck.org in a phone interview. “That’s not to say they aren’t effective. The research we reviewed doesn’t provide compelling evidence one way or the other.”…..

TUCKER

‘Disarming You Is The Point’: Tucker Slams Biden’s Gun Control Speech

MORE LIES THE MSM FEEDS US

(See more at NEWSBUSTERS)

AMMOLAND joins the fray:

Here are the three big TRUTHS the left is lying about.

  • 78% of mass shooting do NOT use an “Assault Rifle”
  • As a Percentage of the population, whites, and Hispanics are the LEAST likely to do a mass shooting.
  • Gun Control laws have NO effect on mass shootings.

Only 15 of the 67 events involved an “AR patterned” firearm; they are used in less than 22% of mass shootings. Only 22% of all mass shooting used AR style rifles.

2018 Excoriated a Bit (RALLY FOR OUR RIGHTS):

…..For the sake of this investigation, we used the definition put forth by the Congressional Research Service.  The CRS’s website explains that it “works exclusively for the United States congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and members of both members of the house and senate, regardless of party affiliation.” The website further explains that the CRS  is a “shared staff to congressional committees and members of congress. CRS experts assist at every stage of the legislative process.” 

DEFINITION USED:

Finally we come to the Congressional Research Service’s definition: “The incident takes place in a public area involving four or more deaths—not including the gunman, the shooter selects victims indiscriminately, the violence in these incidents are not a means to an end.”  It should be noted that CRS breaks up shootings involving four or more individuals as public, familial, and felony (robbery, gang activity, etc).  This is because the motives behind each vary greatly.

To put it simply, congress uses the CRS’s research to develop policy and create laws.

THE LIE

Now that we’re “armed” with the facts we need, lets dissect the statistics being pushed by the media.

The stats used in the news sources cited above stating there have been 307 mass shootings thus far in 2018 are from the Gun Violence Archive.  Okay, let’s look a little deeper into the GVA. The mission statement on their website states it is a “non-profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun related violence in the United States.”

We dug into the website’s “mass shooting” report for 2018. We filtered the list by lowest deaths to highest. Immediately 11 out of the 13 pages were disqualified, as there were between 0 and 3 deaths per incident. That means right away, 287 incidents out of 307 do not qualify as a mass shooting by definition. In fact, 155 of these incidents resulted in zero deaths.  This is unbelievable.

That leaves only two pages to dig through. The most common theme with the remaining list of incidents is that they were primarily either family or domestic violence related. Using the definition used by the CRS, that removes all but six shootings that actually count as a public mass shooting. Yes folks, there have only been SIX mass shootings this year in the United States – not 307.

Here are the six qualifying incidents:

  • February 14, 2018, Broward County Florida (Parkland), 17 dead, 17 injured.
  • April 22, 2018, Antioch, Tennessee, 4 dead, 3 injured.
  • May 18, 2018, Santa Fe Texas, 10 dead, 13 injured.
  • June 28, 2018 Annapolis, Maryland, 5 dead, two injured.
  • October 27, 2018, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 11 dead, 7 injured.
  • November 7, 2018, Thousand Oaks, California, 13 dead, 2 injured.

Six mass shootings compared to 307 is a substantial difference. The media easily plays off the ignorance of the public, taking advantage of the fact that there is not a universal definition of “mass shooting”, and blowing up an issue that, although very tragic, is only part of a larger picture of violent crime, most of which does not involve firearms…..

? THREAD ?

And a noteworthy TWITTER THREAD discussing the idea that the United States leads the world in gun violence:

[….]

Joe Biden Doesn’t Know Shite About Guns (Ben Shapiro)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Joe Biden goes on an incoherent anti-gun rant; the media fulminate over the supposed rise of “Christian nationalism”; and Jim Acosta of CNN says the NRA has blood on their hands. Here is a great comment on the Rumble upload of this:

  • If you ban abortion, women will just have it done illegally. If you ban guns, we will all be safe. Leftist logic.

 

The Coming Food Shortage (3rd Seal?) UPDATED

Published by Papa Giorgio

I wasn’t going to upload this audio… but after reading Robert Spencer’s piece in PJ-MEDIA, I decided the two belonged together:

Here is an excerpt from the PJ-MEDIA article:

…..Armageddon, if you haven’t read the Book of Revelation lately, is the place where the forces of evil gather for the final battle with the faithful (Revelation 16:16). The same Biblical book, which is the last book of the New Testament, presents the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (the final destruction of the world) in a terrifying vision that is often understood as referring to the end times. First there is “a white horse, and its rider had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.” The second horse is “bright red; its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that men should slay one another; and he was given a great sword.” Then follows “a black horse, and its rider had a balance in his hand,” apparently for the rationing of food in a time of famine. Finally, there is “a pale horse, and its rider’s name was Death, and Hades followed him; and they were given power over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth.” (Revelation 6:1-8)

The four horses and four afflictions, conquest, war, famine, and pestilence, neatly encapsulate the administration of Joe Biden……

UPDATE (4-29-2022)

Here is more information from a CEO/producer of food typically the poorer people buy that are basic staples, like, beans and rice:

MORE:

Goya Foods CEO Bob Unanue is a strong conservative. As the head of America’s largest Hispanic-owned food brand, Unanue supported Trump. Liberals didn’t like it — they even tried to boycott his business — but Unanue didn’t back down.

[….]

Goya Foods primarily serves lower-income people. Now, Goya Foods’ CEO is warning America that a “food crisis” is coming. When Unanue says a “food crisis,” he’s not talking about Wagyu beef. He’s talking about beans, rice, and the staples of a basic diet.

[….]

From the video:

Bob Unanue: “We are on the precipice of a global food crisis. God created humanity. Humanity has created every way to destroy itself — from nuclear to biological to chemical. But now we’ve waged a war — we’ve weaponized food. In the Ukraine — between the Ukraine and Russia — they represent 50% of the world’s production of fertilizer, 30% of wheat, 20% of corn, 2.5 million acres of sunflowers, other food and minerals…

“We’re going to have to tighten our belt and consume less. We’ve gone from oil independence to oil dependence. We’ve given up that position — to have our oil at cost… When we bring in stuff from — let’s say, Thailand — coconut water. We’re paying 10 times the freight we usually pay…

“The biggest component in food and anything is transportation. The transportation has skyrocketed because we’ve given up our independence. When you have an unbalance in the food production — in 2008, the price of grains tripled. Why? Because we were planting corn for ethanol instead of rice and grains and other things … When you have an imbalance in the world production — 50% of fertilizer — the farmers are paying double for fertilizer. They’re planting less. Their yields are gonna be less. Costs are gonna go up…

“It’s a very tight balance. And if we interrupt the food production, we will have a food crisis. Prices will go through the roof…”

UH OH! They Finally Admit It (Laptop from Hell)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Almost two years after the New York Post broke the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was suppressed by multiple social media platforms, major media outlets are admitting that the laptop story was true. Yet at the time, they repeated the baseless accusation that the laptop was Russian disinformation. And remember how Twitter suspended the New York Post for more than a week before reversing its action and admitting it was a mistake? Maybe Elon Musk recently buying the largest share in the company could help prevent such things in the future.

The Real “Pay-To-Play”

The Biden Administration Is Responsible For The Energy Crisis

Published by Papa Giorgio

‘Unfiltered’ host Dan Bongino slams President Biden for campaigning on ‘destroying’ the domestic oil industry, and his administration is following through on it.

“Jim Crow Era” Filibuster To Block Janice Rogers Brown

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is a WASHINGTON POST article but is behind a pay wall. Here it is, though… a must read Thiessen article!

Biden Blocked A Black Woman Justice
by, Marc Thiessen

President Joe Biden wants credit for nominating the first Black woman to the Supreme Court.

But here is the shameful irony: As a senator, Biden warned President George W. Bush that if he nominated the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, he would filibuster and kill her nomination.

The story begins in 2003, when Bush nominated Judge Janice Rogers Brown to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit is considered the country’s second-most important court, and has produced more Supreme Court justices than any other federal court.

Brown was immediately hailed as a potential Supreme Court nominee. She was highly qualified, having served for seven years as an associate justice of the California Supreme Court — the first Black woman to do so.

She was the daughter and granddaughter of sharecroppers, and grew up in rural Alabama during the dark days of segregation, when her family refused to enter restaurants or theaters with separate entrances for Black customers.

She rose from poverty and put herself through college and UCLA law school as a working single mother. She was a self-made African American legal star. But she was an outspoken conservative — so Biden set out to destroy her.

Biden and his fellow Democrats filibustered her nomination, along with several other Bush circuit court nominees, all of whom had majority support in the Senate. Columnist Robert Novak called it “the first full-scale effort in American history to prevent a president from picking the federal judges he wants.”

Democrats argued that she was out of the legal mainstream, but Republicans responded that she had written more majority opinions than any other justice on the California Supreme Court — and she was reelected with 76% of the vote, the highest percentage of all the justices on the ballot.

When Democrats derailed her nomination, Bush renominated her in 2005. Brown eventually was confirmed by a vote of 56 to 43 — after Democrats released her and several other Bush nominees in exchange for Republican agreement not to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations.

Biden voted a second time against her nomination. He never explained why, if Brown was so radical, Democrats let her through but killed 10 other Bush nominees.

The following month, when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement, Brown was on Bush’s shortlist to replace her. She would have been the first Black woman ever nominated to serve as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

But Biden appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” to warn that if Bush nominated Brown, she would face a filibuster. “I can assure you that would be a very, very, very difficult fight and she probably would be filibustered,” Biden said.

Asked by moderator John Roberts “Wasn’t she just confirmed?,” Biden replied that the Supreme Court is a “totally different ballgame” because “a circuit court judge is bound by stare decisis. They don’t get to make new law.”

What Biden threatened was unprecedented. There has never been a successful filibuster of a nominee for associate justice in the history of the republic. Biden wanted to make a Black woman the first in history to have her nomination killed by filibuster.

Bush eventually nominated Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Today, Biden calls the filibuster a “relic of the Jim Crow era.” But he threatened to use that relic as a tool to keep a Black woman who actually lived under Jim Crow off the highest court in the land.

The irony is that now he wants to get rid of the filibuster, and claim credit for putting the first Black woman on the court.

There were many conservatives on Bush’s shortlist whose legal philosophy Biden opposed. But Biden only promised to filibuster the one Black woman. Why? Perhaps a clue lies in another confirmation fight that Biden helped wage.

In 2001, Democrats blocked the nomination of Miguel Estrada to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. According to internal strategy memos obtained by The Wall Street Journal, they targeted Estrada at the request of liberal interest groups who said Estrada was “especially dangerous” because “he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.”

They did not want Republicans to put the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. So, Biden and his fellow Democrats killed Estrada’s nomination — the first appeals court nominee in history to be filibustered successfully.

It paid off when President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor as the first Hispanic justice.

Democrats’ commitment to diversity is a ruse. Biden was willing to destroy the careers of an accomplished Latino lawyer and a respected Black female judge, and stop Republicans from putting either on the Supreme Court.

For Democrats, it’s all about identity politics. Indeed, Biden might not have become president had he not made the pledge to nominate a Black woman. That promise helped secure the endorsement of Rep. James E. Clyburn, D-South Carolina — which won Biden the South Carolina primary and rescued his faltering campaign.

So, when Biden tries to bask in the glory of his historic nomination, remember Janice Rogers Brown — the Black woman who does not sit on the Supreme Court today because of Biden’s disgraceful obstruction.

Follow Marc A. Thiessen on Twitter, @marcthiessen.