Politico Notes Biden’s Dementia/Age

Well, others have said the same thing, but I noted it as well, here:

  • BETS? Over/Under bets? I think Biden will last until no later than Nov. 11th of 2021, probably 6-months, and then step down. Then his socialist VP takes over the Presidency. (RPT November 8th, 2020)

But 6-months is a safe bet — 3-and-a-half- years seems like the number — in political and Christian time at least. This is what Dems really want. They worship the “Liberal Trinity,” race-class-gender — and Harris is their current idol. Why did they change the 25th Amendment? Making it easier to remove a sitting President? I think Trump will win on this as well (emphasis added):

(October 9, 2020) President Trump on Friday agreed with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that her plan for a 25th Amendment commission to evaluate presidential fitness isn’t really aimed at him — saying it was instead a plot to install Kamala Harris in the White House.

Trump tweeted that Congressional Democrats secretly hope to replace Democratic nominee Joe Biden with his much-younger running mate if they successfully deny him and Vice President Mike Pence a second term in the Nov. 3 election.

“Crazy Nancy Pelosi is looking at the 25th Amendment in order to replace Joe Biden with Kamala Harris,” he told his 87 million Twitter followers.

“The Dems want that to happen fast because Sleepy Joe is out of it!!!”

Trump later doubled down on the theory during a virtual campaign rally on conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh’s talk show……

(NEW YORK POST)

All that to set up POLITICO noting Joe Biden’s dementia (RPT, March 6, 2020) via RIGHT SCOOP: (January 20, 2020)

WRITING A SPEECH FOR BIDEN CAN BE HELL. AND THAT WAS BEFORE THE INAUGURAL.

Joe Biden paces as he dictates long portions of his speeches to aides, spinning out thoughts that quickly pile into six, seven or eight paragraphs of copy, only to later be scrapped.

[….]

“I would never say this,” Biden once snapped at an aide, aghast over the prepared remarks he was reviewing, according to a person in the room during a speech prep session last year. “Where did you get this from?’”

The aide explained that Biden had just said it in a public speech a couple of weeks earlier.

Wow. It’s one thing not to remember something you said two weeks ago. It’s another thing to not remember and then think it’s something you “would never say”. His brain is definitely riding the struggle bus.

The question is why are they just now revealing this? They clearly knew about this during the campaign trail, but they held this back until the day he’s sworn in? The media in this country is utter garbage. Nothing but a big propaganda arm of the DNC.

But as I suggested in the title, this could be the beginning of the end of Joe Biden. Nancy Pelosi and her 25th amendment commission might be coming for him soon

Yep. And yep… not only have the Democrats done everything they claim Republicans have (colluding with China, using quid-pro-quo against Ukraine, having criminal children, etc), this is yet another “told-ya-so” moment coming down the turn-pike.

Being Apolitical Can Get You Fired (Librarian Fired in Arizona)

Dennis Prager reads about a Flagstaff (Arizona) librarian fired for wanting to keep politics out of official business at the library. Here is an article where a similar excerpt to what Prager was reading can be found:

“Our job as librarians is to provide access to information from all points of view, and let people make up their own minds,” he said. Critical librarianship is “rejecting neutrality in the library. This goes against what the premise of a free society and what a library should be.”

In recent years the American Library Association also attacked “the gender binary” as an outdated, oppressive concept. According to the Free Beacon’s report, the organization promotes “drag queen story hours” across the nation and calls for maintaining “queer and trans of color archives” and “naming and calling out microaggressions.”

Kelley told the Free Beacon he was puzzled as to why a drag-queen story hour can take place in a public library but that defending viewpoint neutrality leaves him without a job….

(AMERICAN GREATNESS  | PJ-MEDIA)

Take note I add some older audio to this newer story. Adding in some article headlines as well for affect. How endemic is this cultural brainwash? See this other upload of mine to get a taste:The Cultural Marxist Brainwash Exemplified

Systematic Ignorance Underlies Systematic Racism (+The Capitol Incident)

This is the last portion of a larger audio, to follow. Larry Elder discusses new studies – but included one from the 1970s… this is the first time I have heard this particular study:

This is from yesterdays show (1/7/2021), and is a large sample of why The Sage is great at what he does. I add some video which radio only allows audio to play, as well as adding some of the video from @The Larry Elder Show — Enjoy, it is a stitching of large sections from all three hours.

Men Can Menstruate? (#Science)

Dennis Prager’s FIRESIDE CHAT (found on YOUTUBE as well) discusses the reality of nature (or Nature’s God) on a video series he does. (I say “nature” because whether you believe in a theistic Creator or that millions of years of evolutionary forces and chance has honed the species to survive by being “male and female” by reproduction… then both are objective looks at reality and the Left is #antiscience.) I include – for context – a portion of Steven Crowder’s dealing with the topic Prager mentions in passing (the fuller video of my excerpt can be found here).

Dennis wrote an article on the issue as well, it can be found here: “The Left-Right Divide Is About Reality Itself,” a must read in my opinion.

FAITHWIRE and LIFESITE NEWS have some decent articles up as well. But this should be a good video to show just how nutty the Left really is… and it is to compliments another audio I am working on.

The Left vs Language (Latino/Latina)

Dennis Prager discusses some destruction of Western Civilization, namely, language. THE DAILY WIRE has a good story on this in their post entitled, “‘Latinx’ Is Not A Real Word.” Prager also discusses near the end a professor who enlightens us as to what going to university “is.” HINT: It is at odds with the following:

Alexander W. Astin dissected a longitudinal study conducted by UCLA started in 1966 for the Review of Higher Education [journal] in which 290,000 students were surveyed from about 500 colleges. The main question was asked of students why study or learn? “Seeking to develop ‘a meaningful philosophy of life’” [to develop a meaningful worldview] was ranked “essential” by the majority of entering freshmen. In 1996 however, 80% of the college students barely recognized the need for “a meaningful philosophy of life” and ranked “being very well off financially” [e.g., to not necessarily develop a meaningful worldview] as paramount. [1, 2]

[1] Alexander W. Astin, “The changing American college student: thirty year trends, 1966-1996,” Review of Higher Education, 21 (2) 1998, 115-135.
[2] Some of what is here is adapted and with thanks to Dr. Stephen Whatley, past Professor of Apologetics & Worldviews at Faith International University… as, they are in his notes from one of his classes.

Excerpt from THE DAILY WIRE:

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary managed a woke trifecta this month, simultaneously denying sexual difference, degrading the English language, and infecting a foreign culture with Anglophonic leftism. Webster has replaced the Spanish-derived words “Latino” and “Latina,” which describe people of Latin American descent, with the “more inclusive” alternative “Latinx.” This solution in search of a problem confronts a facet of romance languages missing in our own — namely, gendered nouns. The difference between male and female inheres in the Spanish language, which lacks a neuter noun form. But the modern Left denies the reality of gender altogether, and so it has invented a new word that “purposefully breaks with Spanish’s gendered grammatical tradition.”

“Latinx,” clunky as it is, at least improves on the Left’s previous effort to castrate Spanish with the term “Latin@,” wherein the final letter was replaced by a symbol used almost exclusively in email addresses. Linguistic colonizers abandoned that early effort, not because it was unpronounceable, but because it excluded “those outside the gender binary,” whomever those mythical creatures may be. (As for hermaphrodites, “Latin@” seems to offer the ideal linguistic bastardization by combining both genders in one seamless symbol.)

Unbeknownst to Merriam-Webster, the English language already offers a gender-neutral form of “Latino/a/x/@/£/etc.” The word is “Latin,” as in, “Pedro is Latin American.” English speakers dine at Italian, not “Italiano,” restaurants. We drink French, not “Français,” wine. Americans on the Left and Right alike anglicize foreign words because we speak English. 

[….]

Unfortunately for woke white liberals, their ugly jargon hasn’t attracted much use. Webster admits, “Though Latinx is becoming common in social media and in academic writing, it is unclear whether it will catch on in mainstream use.” Neither credibly prescriptive nor descriptive, “Latinx” is not a real word. The Left has long relied on silly jargon to defend ideological fantasy, masking inhuman ideas in “politically correct” language. Americans seem to have caught on to the lies, and two years ago they elected a “politically incorrect” president, who uses harsh language to describe illegal aliens but at least has never called them “Latinx.”


~ FLASHBACK ~


Dennis Prager talks about the ruining of whatever is touched by the Left. Art, music, economies, freedom, you name it. This example deals with how the left — almost systematically — ruined language. (Uploaded June 2, 2011)

Dangerous People Are Teaching Your Kids |Updated|

Dangerous people are filling the heads of young people with dangerous nonsense. Who are these people? They are what Jordan Peterson calls “the post-modernists:” neo-Marxist professors who dominate our colleges and universities. And here’s the worst part: we are financing these nihilists with tax dollars, alumni gifts and tuition payments. Time to wise up.

This comes from THE LID:

TODAY’S PROFESSORS DON’T TEACH, THEY INDOCTRINATE PROGRESSIVISM

[….]

To understand and oppose the post-modernists, the ideas by which they orient themselves must be clearly identified.

First is their new unholy trinity of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Diversity is defined not by opinion, but by race, ethnicity or sexual identity; the goal is no longer equality of opportunity, but an insistence on equality of outcome; and inclusion is the use of identity-based quotas to attain this misconceived state of equity.

All the traditional rights of the West are to be considered secondary to these new values. Take, for example, freedom of speech—the very pillar of democracy. The post-modernists refuse to believe that people of good will can exchange ideas and reach consensus.

Their world is instead a Hobbesian nightmare of identity groups warring for power. They don’t see ideas that run contrary to their ideology as merely incorrect. They see them as integral to the oppressive system they wish to supplant and consider it a moral obligation to stifle and constrain their expression.

Second is a rejection of the free market—of the very idea that free, voluntary trading benefits everyone. These rejectionists won’t acknowledge that capitalism has lifted up hundreds of millions of people so they can for the first time in history afford food, shelter, clothing, transportation—even entertainment and travel. Those classified as low-income in the US (and, increasingly, everywhere else) are able to meet their basic needs. Meanwhile, in once-prosperous Venezuela—until recently the poster-child of the campus radicals—the middle-class lines up for toilet paper.

Third, and finally, are the politics of identity. Post-modernists don’t believe in individuals. You’re an exemplar of your race, sex, or sexual preference. You’re also either a victim or an oppressor. No wrong can be done by anyone in the former group, and no good by the latter. Such ideas of victimization do nothing but justify the use of power and engender intergroup conflict.

All these concepts originated with Karl Marx, the 19th-century German philosopher. Marx viewed the world as a gigantic class struggle—the bourgeoisie against the proletariat; the grasping rich against the desperately poor. But wherever his ideas were put into practice—in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, and Cambodia, to name just a few—whole economies failed, and tens of millions were killed. We fought a decades-long cold war to stop the spread of those murderous notions. But they’re back, in the new guise of identity politics.

The corrupt ideas of the post-modern neo-Marxists should be consigned to the dustbin of history. Instead, we underwrite their continuance in the very institutions where the central ideas of the West should be transmitted across the generations. Unless we stop, post-modernism will do to America and the entire Western world what it’s already done to its universities.

Two short clips from INDOCTRINATE U I like:

Totalitarian Seminaries – Dissent Is Not Allowed

David Horowitz has an EXCELLENT point that higher education is really an ideological seminary. Heresy and contrasting thought is NOT allowed. In fact, Dennis Prager makes the point that at a Christian seminary debate and exposure to contrasting thinking is probably more than at a secular university.

Hillary Wants to Pervert Justice

  • “You must not act unjustly when deciding a case. Do not be partial to the poor or give preference to the rich; judge your neighbor fairly.” (Leviticus 19:15)
  • “Do not show favoritism to a poor person in his lawsuit.” (Exodus 23:3)

Back row (left to right): Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, and Elena Kagan;
Front row (left to right): John Maynard Keynes, Karl Marx, Chief Justice John G. Roberts,
Associate Justice Lycurgus of Sparta, and Associate Justice Margaret Sanger.

Via NATIONAL REVIEW and Jonah Goldberg:

In her first answer of the night, Hillary Clinton was asked about the Supreme Court. She said justices should stand up to the rich and side with the people or some such treacle. It should support the usual favored groups, etc. It should fight big money and the powerful. And so on. Only problem: That’s not what justices are supposed to do. The Judicial Oath goes like this:

  • “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God.”

Sometimes they say:

  • “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God.”

The relevant point is the same. Standing up to the rich is not the Supreme Court’s job. Standing up for the law is. And, sometimes, the law is on the side of the rich and powerful. You could look it up.

The Cultural Marxist Brainwash Exemplified ~ Dennis Prager (Updated)

An instructive call into the Dennis Prager show from a larger interview (below) exemplifies how well the university brainwashes young people. Amazingly sad.

Here is the fuller interview:

Dennis Prager interviews Olivia Legaspi of Haverford College about her recent column, “What Working At McDonald’s Taught Me About Privilege.” Some interesting calls into the show cause great insights by Dennis Prager.

This is some excellence in air time explaining what the colleges are doing to young people.


For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit: http://www.dennisprager.com/ ~ see also: http://www.prageruniversity.com/

Political Correctness Devastates UCLA ~ Who Killed the Liberal Arts?

What in the world happened to the liberal arts? A degree in the humanities used to transmit the knowledge and wisdom imbued in the works of great Western artists, writers, musicians and thinkers like Shakespeare and Mozart. But today, that same degree stresses Western racism, sexism, imperialism, and other ills and sins that reinforce a sense of victimhood and narcissism. So, what happened? Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute explains.

UCLA now is about as worthwhile as a local community college. You no longer go to these institutions to learn about great ideas, but now must listen to the static of EVERYTHING being made equally great by the magic wand of the left. Dennis Prager read from — and commented on — Heather Mac Donald’s Wall Street Journal article about UCLA nixing classical studies as mandatory for English lit majors. Here is some of that article as read above:

The Humanities Have Forgotten Their Humanity
When Shakespeare lost out to ‘rubrics of gender, sexuality, race, and class’ at UCLA, something vital was harmed.

Until 2011, students majoring in English at UCLA had to take one course in Chaucer, two in Shakespeare, and one in Milton—the cornerstones of English literature. Following a revolt of the junior faculty, however, during which it was announced that Shakespeare was part of the “Empire,” UCLA junked these individual author requirements. It replaced them with a mandate that all English majors take a total of three courses in the following four areas: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, Disability and Sexuality Studies; Imperial, Transnational, and Postcolonial Studies; genre studies, interdisciplinary studies, and critical theory; or creative writing.

In other words, the UCLA faculty was now officially indifferent to whether an English major had ever read a word of Chaucer, Milton or Shakespeare, but the department was determined to expose students, according to the course catalog, to “alternative rubrics of gender, sexuality, race, and class.”

Such defenestrations have happened elsewhere, and long before 2011. But the UCLA coup was particularly significant because the school’s English department was one of the last champions of the historically informed study of great literature, uncorrupted by an ideological overlay. Precisely for that reason, it was the most popular English major in the country, enrolling a whopping 1,400 undergraduates.

The UCLA coup represents the characteristic academic traits of our time: narcissism, an obsession with victimhood, and a relentless determination to reduce the stunning complexity of the past to the shallow categories of identity and class politics. Sitting atop an entire civilization of aesthetic wonders, the contemporary academic wants only to study oppression, preferably his or her own, defined reductively according to gonads and melanin.

Course catalogs today babble monotonously of group identity. UCLA’s undergraduates can take courses in Women of Color in the U.S.; Women and Gender in the Caribbean; Chicana Feminism; Studies in Queer Literatures and Cultures; and Feminist and Queer Theory.

[….]

Compare the humanists’ hunger for learning with the resentment of a Columbia University undergraduate, who had been required by the school’s core curriculum to study Mozart. She happens to be black, but her views are widely shared, to borrow a phrase, “across gender, sexuality, race and class.”

“Why did I have to listen in music humanities to this Mozart?” she groused in a discussion of the curriculum reported by David Denby in “Great Books,” his 1997 account of re-enrolling in Columbia’s core curriculum. “My problem with the core is that it upholds the premises of white supremacy and racism. It’s a racist core. Who is this Mozart, this Haydn, these superior white men? There are no women, no people of color.” These are not the idiosyncratic thoughts of one disgruntled student; they represent the dominant ideology in the humanities today.

W.E.B. Du Bois would have been stunned to learn how narrow is the contemporary multiculturalist’s self-definition and sphere of interest. Du Bois, living during America’s darkest period of hate, nevertheless heartbreakingly affirmed in 1903 his intellectual and spiritual affinity with all of Western civilization: “I sit with Shakespeare and he winces not. Across the color line I move arm in arm with Balzac and Dumas. . . . I summon Aristotle and Aurelius and what soul I will, and they come all graciously with no scorn nor condescension.”

It is no wonder, then, that we have been hearing of late that the humanities are in crisis. A recent Harvard report from a committee co-chaired by the school’s premier postcolonial studies theorist, Homi Bhabha, lamented that 57% of incoming Harvard students who initially declare interest in a humanities major eventually change concentrations. Why may that be? Imagine an intending lit major who is assigned something by Professor Bhabha: “If the problematic ‘closure’ of textuality questions the totalization of national culture. . . .” How soon before that student concludes that a psychology major is more up his alley?

No, the only true justification for the humanities is that they provide the thing that Faust sold his soul for: knowledge. It is knowledge of a particular kind, concerning what men have done and created over the ages.

…read more…

News Media vs. Video Games (#GamerGate)

ABC joins Fox News, MSNBC and the rest of the news media who have been attacking the games industry for decades. Their bias knows no bounds, their research knows no objectivity, and their reporters know not a damn thing. Welcome to Gaming.

Gay Patriot adds to the real narrative well:

It would be nice to live in a society where we could play our video games, go to our sporting events, watch our entertainment programs and not be assaulted by the dogma of Social Justice Warriors. It would be just as nice to live in a society where journalists reported facts accurately, instead of molding them to fit a narrative.

Liberalism Devours Itself ~ Gay Patriot and Steven Crowder Comment

…As I read it, I could not help but wonder whether there is race fluidity in addition to gender fluidity? If a person can be whatever gender they want to be despite the biological reality of their genetic and physical make-up, then why can’t they be whatever race they feel they are? Why should those same rules not apply to race?

It used to be thought that a man claiming to be a woman had no more grip on reality than a man claiming to be Napoleon or a bunny rabbit. But the culture has evolved, and society has decided that for a man to be woman requires nothing more than hormone treatments, surgery, and make-up. (Which, as an aside, seems rather insulting to real biological women.) If race is an identity, than why should people have any less right to determine what their race in addition to their gender?…

(Gay Patriot!)

This is what I posted in the comment section of Gay Patriot:

As I see it… the Left is devouring itself… they are taking away their tools to separate and conquer. Undermining their won arguments of race-class-gender, and wanting to throw things like the 14th Amendment away. Each layer of their thinking is built on a false perception… soon they have so many layers in this house of cards that it will topple. I hope sooner than later.

I have been pointing this out for years, with the thanks to an author who wrote well on this topic of illiberal liberalism. Here is the idea in a nut shell that is expressed in his books:

“If homosexuality is really genetic, we may soon be able to tell if a fetus is predisposed to homosexuality, in which case many parents might choose to abort it.  Will gay rights activists continue to support abortion rights if this occurs?”

Dale A. Berryhill, The Liberal Contradiction: How Contemporary Liberalism Violates Its Own Principles and Endangers Its Own Goals (1994), 172.

In other words… there are all these new “rights,” special rights — if you will — making “equal under the law” a thing of the past… thus, you have all these interest groups and new protections clashing. And they will eat each-other. But like I have said for years as well, this frustration of “Utopia Lost” makes the Left violent. Get ready, it will be a bumpy ride.

See my larger post on Rachel Dolezal: