Reason Roundup

Congress Votes To Kick Confederate Statues Out of the Capitol

Plus: Fast approval of Alzheimer's drug draws scrutiny, the value of disagreement, and more...

|

The debate over ditching statues of racists rages on. U.S. lawmakers are currently considering whether to cancel congressional artwork featuring Confederate leaders and other historical figures who defended slavery. On Tuesday, the House of Representatives voted that they should go.

"Symbols of slavery, segregation, and sedition are not welcome in the halls of Congress,"  bill sponsor and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D–Md.) said. "Individuals who worked to enshrine or perpetuate the bondage of African Americans, or prevent them from achieving full and equal rights, are not worthy of being honored in our country."

In a 285-120 vote, a bipartisan roster of legislators approved getting rid of various monuments and artwork now residing in the Capitol building.

All of the votes against the bill came from Republicans. However, 67 members of the GOP joined with Democrats in approving the measure.

At issue are several works in the National Statuary Hall Collection within the Capitol building. Specifically, the legislation calls for replacing a bust of former Chief Justice Roger Taney—who authored the 1857 Dred Scott ruling declaring that black Americans were not citizens and Congress didn't have the right to stop slavery in U.S. territories—with a bust of former Associate Justice Thurgood Marshal.

Statues of former Arkansas Gov. Charles Brantley Aycock, former Vice President John Caldwell Calhoun, and former senator and North Carolina Gov. James Paul Clarke would also be removed.

In addition, the bill would order the removal of "all statues of individuals who voluntarily served the Confederate States of America from display in the United States Capitol." Within 45 days of passage, "all Confederate statues and Confederate busts" must be removed "from any area of the United States Capitol which is accessible to the public," it says.

As it stands, works can only be removed from this collection if the state who gifted it approves the removal. The new measure would amend that rule, by inserting the bold text below into the current statute:

And the President is authorized to invite all the States to provide and furnish statues, in marble or bronze, not exceeding two in number for each State, of deceased persons who have been citizens thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or for distinguished civic or military services (other than persons who served voluntarily in the military forces or government of the Confederate States of America or in the military forces or government of a State while the State was in rebellion against the United States), such as each State may deem to be worthy of this national commemoration; and when so furnished, the same shall be placed in the old hall of the House of Representatives, in the Capitol of the United States, which is set apart, or so much thereof as may be necessary, as a national statuary hall for the purpose herein indicated.

So far, Arkansas and North Carolina have been good sports about removal, already agreeing to the replacement of their contested contributions. Arkansas approved the removal of a statue of Aycock, and North Carolina agreed to the removal of a statue of Clarke. "But the current statues remain in the Capitol until the new ones are finished," notes The Hill.

Florida is also game, having agreed to replace a statue of Confederate Gen. Edmund Kirby Smith with a statue of civil rights activist Mary McLeod Bethune. Last year, Virginia agreed to replace a Robert E. Lee statue with one of civil rights activist Barbara Johns.

But other states have no current plans for replacement, leaving in place statues of Taney, Calhoun (gifted by South Carolina), Confederacy President Jefferson Davis (a statue from Mississippi), Confederacy Vice President Alexander Hamilton Stephens (from Georgia), and Confederate military officer and politician Wade Hampton (also from South Carolina).

Perhaps not quite comfortable arguing for the continued presence of folks like Davis and Taney in the halls of Congress, some Republicans relied on culture war and slippery slope arguments to speak against the bill. "Unfortunately, Democrats, animated by the Critical Race Theory concepts of structural racism, microaggressions, and a United States based solely on white supremacy, have chosen to remove statues that underscore the failures of our pre-1861 Constitution," said Rep. Matt Rosendale (R–Mont.). "Make no mistake, those who won the West and George Washington are next."

Whether the bill will go anywhere from here is unclear. Similar legislation passed by the House last year stalled in the senate.


FREE MINDS 

In a democracy, not everyone has to agree. At The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum tackles the strange new idea that mere exposure to opposing ideas and theories is a bad thing. A sample:

A few months ago I interviewed Charles Mills, a philosopher whose most famous book, The Racial Contract, published in 1997, offers an alternative reading (you could call it a critical race theorists' reading) of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant—the Enlightenment thinkers who, anticipating liberal democracy, all argued (to put it crudely) that a legitimate government must have the consent of the governed. Mills pointed out that all of them left Black and other nonwhite people outside of the social contract, and he sketched out the consequences. I asked him whether this meant we should no longer read Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. He told me that, on the contrary, the last class he taught was about those philosophers and their modern critics, including himself: "To me, it's a much more fruitful way of carrying on the tradition than saying, 'These guys are racist and sexist. Therefore, stop teaching them.'"

Mills told me that not all of his colleagues understand him. "They say, 'Why are you trying to keep this tradition alive? We should jettison this whole way of doing political philosophy and basically start anew.'" But he disagrees. "There is a dynamism inside liberalism that they miss," he told me. The huge advantage of liberal democracy over other political systems is that its leadership constantly adjusts and changes, shifting to absorb new people and ideas. Liberal democracies don't try, as Soviet Marxism once did, to make everybody agree about everything, all the time.


FREE MARKETS

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration moved quickly for a change. Cue the Congressional investigators. Two House committees are investigating the FDA's approval of aducanumab, a new drug said to treat Alzheimer's disease. The medication—made by pharmaceutical company Biogen and sold as Aduhelm—got the green light earlier this month under the FDA's accelerated approval program.

One sticking point for legislators' is the drug's price tag: $56,000 for a yearly course of treatment. But a steep price tag hardly seems like a reason to keep a useful drug from everyone.

"We have serious concerns about the steep price of Biogen's new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm," said Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Frank Pallone Jr. in a statement last Friday.

"We strongly support innovative treatments to help the millions of Americans who suffer from Alzheimer's disease, but Aduhelm's approval and its $56,000 annual price tag will have broader implications for seniors, providers, and taxpayers that warrant close examination," they continued.

More relevant is evidence that the drug may not actually be that useful, and could be linked to serious side effects. From CNN:

The FDA's Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee concluded last year that there was not enough evidence to support the effectiveness of the drug—and thus clinical data did not support approving the treatment.

Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, a Harvard Medical School professor and Brigham and Women's Hospital physician who resigned from the advisory committee after the approval of aducanumab, said last week that "the drug showed no good evidence that it worked."

Kesselheim, who was one of three committee members to resign, called the approval "the worst drug approval in US history" in his resignation letter.

"It had important side effects," Kesselheim said on CBS's This Morning; the drug is linked to brain swelling and bleeding that can be seen in MRI scans, as well as headache, falls, diarrhea, confusion, delirium and disorientation.

Most FDA reviewers recommended approval of the drug.


QUICK HITS

• The Government Accountability Office reports on the use of facial recognition technology by federal agencies. Of the 42 agencies surveyed, "20 reported owning such systems or using systems owned by others" and six said they used facial recognition tools "to help identify people suspected of violating the law during the civil unrest, riots, or protests following the death of George Floyd in May 2020."

• "The number of immigrants detained by ICE has grown significantly under the Biden administration," from 14,000 earlier this year to almost 27,000 people, Buzzfeed reports. "While the Biden administration has significantly reduced the number of people who are arrested by ICE officers in the US and later detained, the flow of immigrants being transferred from Border Patrol custody has grown."

• The 2021 Supreme Court has delivered more unanimous decisions than it did in the last seven years.

• People can privately fund national guard deployment?

• The U.S. Department of Justice is suing Georgia over its voting law.

• "The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the PennEast pipeline can seize land from the state of New Jersey for its construction, a win for the natural gas vessel," notes The Hill. "The 5-4 decision wasn't split along ideological lines in the case that pitted fossil fuel interests against states' rights."

• Fox News has settled with the New York City Commission on Human Rights for $1 million in an investigation into the alleged "culture of pervasive sexual harassment and retaliation at the network."

• New legislation in Congress seeks to get the U.S. Food and Drug Administration out of the premium cigar industry's way.

• "A Bay Area lawmaker's bill that would decriminalize the personal possession of several psychedelic drugs begins winding its way through the California State Assembly this week," CBS San Francisco Bay Area reports.

• Minnesota moves to limit the use of asset forfeiture and require more oversight for no-knock raids.

• "Mexico's Supreme Court struck down laws which criminalized the recreational use of cannabis on Monday evening," CNN reports. "The decisive 8-3 ruling comes after advocates pushed for decriminalization as a means to reduce drug-fueled cartel violence in the country."

NEXT: The Publication of the Pentagon Papers Still Sets an Example 50 Years Later

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Congress Votes To Kick Confederate Statues Out of the Capitol

    I think we’re about to find a home for the next George Floyd bust.

    1. Studs have magic powers.

      1. Statues.

          1. That post was a bust.

            1. Making money online more than 15OOO$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and DDS its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. Will they kick the former Confederate States out of the Union next?

      1. If only; I’d move back to Louisiana for that.

      2. How about every State that had slavery at some point in history.

        1. Every state with white people.

    3. Only half of the Unknown Soldier will be removed.

    4. In Egypt, when one pharaoh took over, they would sometimes scrub the names of a previous pharaoh off of all monuments & tablet to render them a non-person. In the old Soviet Union, there were whole departments dedicated to the task of scrubbing people that had fallen into disfavor from all official photographs. Sometimes these people would then fall back into favor & then would be considered ‘rehabilitated’ by later regimes and put back in. So now we’re in the good company of tyrants & communist dictators. Have we gone metric or is it still a pound of flesh?

      1. If we just no longer choose to honor them, then I have to disagree. We are not scrubbing them from history, but choosing not to feature them in artwork that is supposed to be a celebration of our history. We aren’t removing Calhoun’s name from the history books. We are just removing his statue from the capitol.

        Now, I am a bit concerned about how broad this legislation is. While applying it to generals and leaders is reasonable, I’m certain that there were many men who served as Confederate privates at age 18 who survived the war and did much good later in life, just like the former pope was part of the Hitler Youth because he had no choice.

        1. We aren’t removing Calhoun’s name from the history books. We are just removing his statue from the capitol

          It’s still damnatio memoriae that’s happening no matter how you slice it, and it’s creepy as fuck.

          Also, how come all the statues have to pay a price for their role in slavery and the civil war but not the Democratic Party?

          1. Because the parties flipped!1!1!1!1!!! – Tony

        2. They are not trying to “un-honor” them, they are trying to “un-person” them. That is the whole point. Judging historical figures through a contemporary lens is a fool’s errand.

          During the Iraq War, some soldiers in armored vehicles were reported to have pictures of Rommel posted inside. These soldiers need to be found & court-martialed for failure to un-person Rommel. How dare they!

        3. Umm…. there is a huge battle concerning what is taught in history these days going on.

  2. Individuals who worked to enshrine or perpetuate the bondage of African Americans, or prevent them from achieving full and equal rights, are not worthy of being honored in our country.

    Ooo boy, they’re going to have to go back before civil war.

    1. What about the guys who approved the installation of the statues?

      1. Best to put all statues on wheels.

    2. Those Egyptians and Greeks have a lot of historical structures and monuments to remove.

    3. Before? That childish idiot Woketarian ENB said they wete removing “racists”. Look for an empty congress

    4. Note the focus on African Americans only.

      This should be known a the “FDR carve out”: screwing Asian Americans over is A-OK.

      1. Asian Americans are too prosperous (and occasionally Republican) to be a minority.

      2. FDR is one of the heroes of the left. They have no problem giving him a pass on imprisoning people due to race.

    5. Not worthy of being honored, yet they elected Biden & Harris…

    6. I guess that means we’ll be renaming the Russell Senate Office Building. And Congress better be working quickly to rename the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars at the Smithsonian, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (over the Potomac), and the Fulbright Scholarship program.

      I wonder what they will do about the portrait of John C. Calhoun that then-Senator John F. Kennedy had painted on the wall of the Senate Reception Room in the late 1950s. Will they plaster it over, the way the Nelson Rockefeller did to Diego Rivera’s “Man at the Crossroads” mural at Rockefeller Center?

  3. The number of immigrants detained by ICE has grown significantly under the Biden administration,” from 14,000 earlier this year to almost 27,000 people,
    However, all “kids in cages” talk has been stopped.

    1. They are migrant happy fun centers.

      1. Do they have a guy in a cartoon mascot outfit?

    2. They’re now in plastic “jewel boxes” just like CDs.

    3. “”However, all “kids in cages” talk has been stopped.””

      Remember when they were being called concentration camps?
      Now that’s some gaslighting.

  4. But other states have no current plans for replacement…

    That Time Person of the Year cover what was a mirror.

  5. Of course there needs to be a new Alzheimer’s drug, no matter the cost. We are watching Biden every day.

  6. In a democracy, not everyone has to agree.

    They just have to obey without question the laws of the majority.

    1. With limitations, of course. Not even a majority can vote down the BOR, right?

      1. Only if we’re a Constitutional Republic, which the U.S. is.

  7. “The U.S. Department of Justice is suing Georgia over its voting law.”

    Good. Just as Republicans literally turned this country into The Handmaid’s Tale last time they controlled the federal government, now they’re literally implementing Jim Crow 2.0 at the state level. But the Biden Administration won’t let them get away with it.

    #LibertariansForBiden

    1. Jim Eagle

      1. Jim eagle was the less racist version from the past. This is outright Jim shitbird!

    2. Dude, just stop. You can’t mock these guys because I’ve actually heard people say exactly that. These people are satire-proof. It’s like trying to write a Modest Proposal about a guy named “Baby-Eater McGee”

  8. The huge advantage of liberal democracy over other political systems is that its leadership constantly adjusts and changes, shifting to absorb new people and ideas.

    That’s why the bastardization of the Commerce Clause and the concept of qualified immunity are today consigned to be relics of the past.

    1. No need for any of the Constitution.

  9. Next is to remove KKK officer and Democratic Party senator Robert Byrd’s name from public spaces.

    1. It’s already started:

      https://apnews.com/article/8c9544c81130d8f44ab50dd50eea6ce2

      “Robert C. Byrd’s name removed from a college health center”

      1. It should be pointed out that Hillary referred to him as a mentor. Her “super predators” comment par for that course.

        1. I am just fine with any statues of Hillary Clinton being removed from the Capitol.

          1. Did you vote for her?

            1. Just once, the first time he was On the Go For B.H.O.

            2. No. I voted for Gary Johnson.

              1. Nobody believes you since you shill for the left constantly. Or you are in a deep blue state, then you do it since it didn’t matter.

        2. Yeah, the dems have no problem with excusing Hillary’s racist as a mentor just like the have no problem with Cuomo’s sexual harassments or Joe Biden’s sexual assaults.

          Standards are for other people.

  10. When will Fauci answer for his crimes?

  11. #BidenBoom update.

    The 10 richest Americans have gained a combined $174 billion this year.

    Since libertarianism — especially the Koch / Reason variety — is fundamentally about making billionaires even richer, Joe Biden might already be the most libertarian President ever.

    #InDefenseOfBillionaires

  12. But a steep price tag hardly seems like a reason to keep a useful drug from everyone.

    You have a strange definition of equity.

    1. The steep price tag is keeping that Lamborghini from me.

  13. The Government Accountability Office reports on the use of facial recognition technology by federal agencies. Of the 42 agencies surveyed, “20 reported owning such systems or using systems owned by others…”

    The other 22 alphabets were lying.

  14. “In a 285-120 vote, a bipartisan roster of legislators approved getting rid of various monuments and artwork now residing in the Capitol building.”

    I keep seeing the word “bipartisan” used in interesting ways.

    It can depend on context, but, in my book, “bipartisan” generally means doesn’t just mean the mere presence of both parties. If a majority of Republicans voted against something and it passed over their objections, that thing is not “bipartisan”.

    A majority of Republicans voted against that bill. About two-thirds of the Republicans voted against that bill. How is that “bipartisan”?

    Maybe think of it this way: If only ten our of 187 Republican had voted for it and it passed, would that also have made its passage “bipartisan”?

    There may have been a minority of Republicans that voted for that bill, but it was not bipartisan.

    I recently saw the word “bipartisan” used to describe an infrastructure bill that only had the support of five Republicans in the Senate. Democrats and their fans seem to be using the word “bipartisan” to describe things they like–which isn’t the definition of bipartisan at all.

    1. P.S. If the Republicans had control of the House, that bill wouldn’t even have made it to the floor for a vote.

      P.P.S. I miscounted when I said about two-thirds of Republicans voted against the bill. I left out the 24 Republicans who refused to vote rather than vote against the bill–but they sure as hell didn’t vote for it. A little more than 30% of Republicans voted for the bill, and if that’s what you mean by “bipartisan”, the word doesn’t convey much meaning.

      1. It has the same meaning as ‘debunked’ these days. (which, up until 2020, did NOT mean ‘dismissed out of hand with no evidence whatsoever’)

        It’s merely a useful modifier to signal that the speaker / writer’s idea is correct, and you’re a ninnyhammer for objecting to it.

    2. You can have your own definition of bipartisan, but several commonly-used dictionaries disagree with you.

      1. A foundation of Critical Theory: words can mean whatever is necessary to construct a narrative, which is just as true as any other narrative.

        1. And everything is apparently bipartisan unless 100% of Republicans vote against it.

          If impeaching Trump over Russiagate was bipartisan because Justin Amash voted for it, then bipartisan means nothing,.

          If impeaching Trump over January 6 was bipartisan because Liz Cheney and nine other Republicans in the House voted for it, then bipartisan means nothing.

          And if only 30% of Republicans in the House vote for something, well that makes it bipartisan, too?!

          For anyone who is using bipartisan to mean that, what they really intend to do is try to make people feel marginalized for not supporting it.

          A majority of both Democrats and Republicans passed TARP in the Senate. That bill was definitely bipartisan in the Senate, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong–regardless of how they want you to feel about it.

          If something is definitely bipartisan when a majority of both parties vote for it, then it is less than definitely bipartisan when a majority of one of the parties votes against it.

          1. I’m sorry that you have trouble dealing with human language being fuzzy!.

            1. Just like your thinking process.

              1. You should bookmark this for the next round of CRT sophistry.

                1. I guess so. It seems like you are directing that comment at me because you think I support CRT, which I don’t.

                  1. All you people look alike.

                    Also, it’s a good line.

                  2. White Mike, midwit racist

                    1. A very apt description.

            2. Definition of bipartisan
              : of, relating to, or involving members of two parties
              a bipartisan commission
              specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties

              The parties don’t agree White Mike, some members of the parties do. But the GOP as a party voted against it.

              Maybe you are having trouble with the language?

              1. Whether the bill had bipartisan support by one metric or another, it had enough GOP votes to make a filibuster attempt futile and contorting it to be eligible for “reconciliation” unnecessary.

          2. Can you guys hear that?

            I’d swear I heard something like a squawking bird!

            1. The caw of the wild.

              1. A CACCL in the wind.

          3. “”And if only 30% of Republicans in the House vote for something, well that makes it bipartisan, too?!””

            I have a suspicion that democrats would not be quick to call something bipartisan if only 30% of them voted in favor of a republican sponsored bill.

        2. I know. Ken is engaging in the same game of changing the meaning of words as his much hated progressives.

          1. No, he isn’t, but nobody expects you to be able to keep up anyway.

          2. I posted the definition White Mike. You are the one who doesn’t understand the word.

          3. By the dictionary, you don’t even need one vote to “accurately” call something bipartisan. Definitionaly, unless one party refuses to vote, the process is of two parties. In fact, pedanticaly, unless there was no second party at all you could call anything bipartisan.

            Mike Laursen = Jim shitbird.

          4. Do you actually think we can’t read what Ken wrote? What a ridiculous assertion.

      2. You just couldn’t find one, huh?

        1. I guess you are asking for a cite:

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan

          “Definition of bipartisan: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties
          specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties”

          Note there is nothing in that definition about how many people from each party have to be involved to make it bipartisan. I know it’s hard, but human language is often fuzzy on such details.

          1. between two major political parties”

            So it is agreement between he parties, not between a subset of individuals in the parties.

            So you are wrong.

            Nice try at squirming out of being wrong btw.

            The nouns your definition refers to are THE PARTIES. So here, only one party agreed, the other did not based on votes.

          2. No matter how you try and slice it, one or two supporters out of a pool of hundreds isn’t “bipartisan”.
            Do you really think you’re tricking people by equivocating like this?

        2. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bipartisan

          “supported by or consisting of two political parties”

          1. So not a subset of individuals in said party.

            So you were wrong.

        3. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bipartisan

          “representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions”

          1. Hey you found one, just the wokest dictionary out there that changes definitions often to fit democrats misusing words.

            So you were 1 of 3.

      3. So when two Democratic Party House members joined Republicans and voted against President Biden’s 2021 porkulus bill that should be considered bipartisan opposition. Got it. Thanks for the clarification Dee.

        1. I quoted three dictionary definitions of “bipartisan” above. Not one includes any requirements about how many members of each party need to be involved. Human language is often fuzzy about such details, and I know that can be hard to deal with.

          1. This is why I promoting the term transpartisan.

          2. Actually 2 of the 3 describe the actors being the Parties, and since the parties act as a majoritarian vote, it would be a majority vote of each party.

            But you were wrong and can’t admit it.

            Another fire extinguisher moment.

          3. “I misquoted three dictionary definitions of “bipartisan” above.”

            I fixed that for you.
            All of your quotes regarded whole parties in agreement. Not one or two individuals out of hundreds.

            You’re being dishonest.

        2. Any bill is bipartisan, so long as both parties participate in the voting!

          1. SUPPORT of, or OPPOSITION to, a bill may or may not be bipartisan, depending on the composition of the supporters and the opponents.

          2. Precisely

        3. Yes it should. Because the opposition consisted of members of both parties. That is what “bipartisan” means, literally.

          1. It’s not the first time Ken has insisted that only HIS definition of a word can be used. Ken also insists that when you talk about an ally of our country, it can only refer to the government of the other country, not its civilians or culture or civil society:

            https://reason.com/2021/02/28/a-radical-history-of-tennis/#comment-8785677

            1. Literally 2 of your 3 definitions say you are wrong.

            2. You’re attacking Ken over such petty things in which you actually happen to be wrong, and are deliberately misrepresenting what those dictionaries say.

              He must really have touched a nerve.

      4. “You can have your own definition of bipartisan, but several commonly-used dictionaries disagree with you.”

        You can bullshit all day long and no body outside your mom cares.

        1. And why aren’t they proud of the great job they’re doing?

          Why do the Democrats want to share credit for spending $4 trillion or more on this, when they could just as easily take all the credit for themselves?

          We spent trillions out of your future paychecks on the Green New Deal–and the Republicans didn’t help at all–so vote for us!

        2. Go on about folks inside his mom…

    3. I prefer the term transpartisan.

      1. It really hit me on the “bipartisan” infrastructure bill the media was reporting last week.

        Five Republicans agreed to bring it to a floor vote, one of which said he’d vote against it when they did, and that’s what they mean by “bipartisan”.

        In that case, they have a specific objective, too. They don’t need any Republican votes to pass the legislation through budget reconciliation, so the only reason they want a Republican or two to vote for it is so that when they face the voters in 2022, they can claim all this spending was “bipartisan”.

        They’re ultimately trying to avoid accountability for $4 trillion in spending, much of it on Green New Deal infrastructure, by hiding behind their ridiculous use of the term “bipartisan” to mean one or two out of 50 Republican Senators voting for it.

        If destroying their irrational and bogus use of the term “bipartisan” is key to holding them responsible for their outrageous overspending, then it’s our libertarian duty to call this out for what it is. No, passing something over the objections of the overwhelming majority of Republicans who voted against it does not make it “bipartisan”.

        1. Soon, the phrase will be “Everyone agrees!”

          1. Well, at least Everyone that is legitimate.

        2. If destroying their irrational and bogus use of the term “bipartisan” is key to holding them responsible for their outrageous overspending, then it’s our libertarian duty to call this out for what it is.

          This is right up there with Ken’s claim that *even if* there was no widespread fraud in the election, that we ought to *still* question the legitimacy of the results, because it undermines Team Blue in the process. He’s totally on board with the “ends justify the means” process for getting rid of Team Blue. He’s willing to lie to people about the legitimacy of the election, lie to people about who supports the bill, in order to carry water for Team Red so they will push Team Blue out of power. He’s pretty close now to the Ra’s Al Gore and others around here who have abandoned all pretense of principle and now view everything in terms of tribal team sports. I miss the old Ken who would actually use logic to make valid points from time to time. Now he twists logic in service of a tribe.

          1. Don’t forget his stance that even though he cannot prove that COVID-19 leaked from the Wuhan lab, Fauci should be punished as if it were proven and is personally Fauci’s fault.

            1. Because it would embarrass Team Blue and rile up the voters against them.

              He is singularly focused on removing Team Blue from power that he will make any argument and twist any logic as much as needed in order to justify that position no matter what.

              And again it’s not about whether Team Blue ought to be in power or not. It is about the utilitarianism and tribalism of the matter.

              1. You guys sure do spend a lot of time worrying about what makes team blue look bad…

                And you say you aren’t lefties why?

            2. Have you proven the natural hypothesis? No? You leftists have had a year and could find zero evidence.

              Here the point is the term bipartisan is meaningless since the support needs to be trivial, but the term is selectively deployed to support Democrat priorities if Republicans are anything less than unanimously against the bill.

              Put another way, every bill also had bipartisan opposition if not everyone from one party voted for it, but again this is selectively used.

      2. For a brief moment, while Amash was sitting as a Libertarian, we had some tripartisan bill sponsorship going.

    4. See, Ken is pushing this narrative, which he has been doing for a while now, that the only reason people are calling the compromise infrastructure bill “bipartisan” is to give cover to Democrats if the bill does pass. That the “bipartisan” label is just a ruse to fool the ignorant into thinking that both Democrats and Republicans actually do support the bill, and the media are carrying water for Team Blue by propagating this distortion. Of course, in order for this narrative to work, he has to attempt to redefine the word ‘bipartisan’, as he is doing here. It’s just his latest attempt to carry water for Team Red, to try to excuse their culpability in their support for the compromise infrastructure bill.

      The reality is, there are actual Republicans who actually support this bill, it’s not a ruse or a myth, it’s not some media strategy to deceive the gullible, it is the truth. That Ken has to try to change meanings of well-established words in order to try to demonstrate otherwise is shameful.

      I suspect this is just Ken’s latest attempt to try to drum up support for Team Red in the midterms, because he desperately wants Team Blue kicked out of power. I totally understand wanting Team Blue kicked out of power. But his method of doing so is to lie and deceive people into thinking that Team Red isn’t as awful as they really hare. He is trying to put lipstick on the Team Red pig and we all can see through that ruse.

      Ultimately it’s because, deep down, Ken knows Team Red is awful on their own merits, and the only way to drum up for Team Red among those who aren’t already in their camp is to have to resort to lies and narratives. It’s sad, really.

      1. You’re really full of cope right now, aren’t you.

        He’s right that a handful out of hundreds isn’t bipartisan by any metric. And it’s making you mad because you know you sound stupid and demagogic.
        That’s why you’re now trying to lawyer the definition.

        Let me share a secret with you though. That only works if the reader is already a Democratic party shill, like White Mike for instance.

    5. “Bipartisan” was modifying “roster of legislators”. By the plain meaning of the word, it’s accurate.
      What I find odd about the use of the term is that it often seems to be assumed to be a good thing. It certainly can be sometimes, but for the most part it seems like it’s when both parties want to fuck us.

      1. If that is the way “bipartisan’ was being used here, then the word was used to describe something of no significance–unless it was meant to other the people who oppose the bill.

        1. By your calculations above 30% of Republicans support the statue removal bill. That’s significant/noteworthy.

  15. The number of immigrants detained by ICE has grown significantly under the Biden administration…

    Is that a sad trombone or more of a record scratch situation?

    1. Who could have predicted this?

    2. Just local news.

  16. https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1410232369903198218?s=19

    Corporate media is joining hands to praise the 100th anniversary of the world’s largest Communist Party

    Are you paying attention yet?

    1. No, we’re not.

      1. You’ll be forced to eventually.

    2. Aren’t these just sponsored news articles, paid for by the CCP? Would the traditional news media even still be in business right now without China’s money?

  17. “DEOMOCRATS in Congress Votes To Kick Confederate DEMOCRAT Statues Out of the Capitol”
    … because they don’t want to remind people of who they really are or were.

    FIFY

    1. Still the party of rich white people who know what’s best for black people.

      1. Good stuff there fellas!

    2. They weren’t all Democrats. Alexander Stephens, for example, was a Whig and a Constitutional Unionist, and never identified himself as a Democrat until after the War.

      1. What was the makeup though? 100 Democrats for every Whig?

        1. No, it’s 100% Democrats. Note the last part–

          and never identified himself as a Democrat until after the War.

          Meaning the one Whig they could find decided to cast his lot in with the losers of the Civil War just in time to join the newly forming KKK

  18. https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1409964655334723587?s=19

    Ohio Democrats furiously pound their desks and yell as Rep. Jena Powell proposes an amendment to add a bill banning biological males from female sports teams to the “Name, Image, Likeness Bill.” [Video]

  19. “Liberal democracies don’t try, as Soviet Marxism once did, to make everybody agree about everything, all the time.”

    What about illiberal democracies?

    1. The academic quoted in The Atlantic piece only wants people to read about the Enlightenment so he can shit all over it. It’s the thesis of his best know work.

      When they erase the Enlightenment, they’ll erase his relevance as well and that’s an act of violence against a person of color.

  20. “Symbols of slavery, segregation, and sedition are not welcome in the halls of Congress,” bill sponsor and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D–Md.) said.

    “That is why I am also sponsoring legislation to remove images of so-called ‘heroes’ who were forced into military servitude, and to abolish the income tax.”

    1. Hoyer is a well-known dunce. I am a proponent of single terms for lawmakers, after which they are ground into fertilizer and tilled into fields. For the children. Hoyer is a good example of why this is a fine program.

  21. https://twitter.com/NewGranada1979/status/1409185402280316929?s=19

    REPORT: No longer about health. Canada will prevent groups from gathering in order to stop the spread of ‘unauthorized information’. [Video]

    1. We should nation build in Canada.

      1. Just a bit more Global Warming (TM) and the US will be ready to move north.

    2. *dark alley in canada* Psst! Hey, buddy, you want some unauthorized information?

    3. The great northern wall is going to be much more expensive.

    4. That’s Nova Scotia (Canada’s Delaware), not nationwide. Restrictions in Canada vary by province, but I can see the Trudeau government latching on to this idea.

  22. The 2021 Supreme Court has delivered more unanimous decisions than it did in the last seven years.

    All of those universal agreements were about not bothering to hear important cases.

    1. “Hey! We can’t help it if there’s no *standing*!”

    2. EVERYONE AGREES!

  23. Has Scott Shackford written about this vile example of transphobia yet? I’ve always found he does his best work when he’s explaining to transphobic women that they’re terrible people.

    Amid a right-wing boycott push, Wi Spa defends its decision to accommodate trans patrons, citing California law.

    Ugh. Apparently there are still some cisgender female bigots who express unimaginably hateful views like “I shouldn’t have to see penises and testicles when I’m in a female-only space.” I literally cannot believe anyone still thinks this way. It’s 2021!

    #TransWomenAreWomen

    1. Congress will ban male genitalia next as it is the primary symbol of “slavery, segregation, and sedition”.

      1. Nobody needs assault genitalia.

        1. Limit high capacity testes.

      2. Including the thing that goes up?

      3. But what about feminine penises and testicles?

    2. Sack lives matter!

    3. When a penis belongs to a lady, it is a beautiful flower.

  24. Tucker Carlson releases allegations that the NSA is spying on him, Politico reports the White House and DNC are working with activist groups to report “disinformation” on social media, but the story that REALLY matters to libertarians is that some Confederate memorabilia is being taken down. Fuck you Reason.

    1. I prefer positive reinforcement: the morning linx are no longer a copy/paste of what’s trending in ENB’s Twitter feed. That’s real progress.

      1. I wanna know if she uses pumpernickel when making a rueben.

        1. Black loaves matter!

        2. I love pumpernickel and I love reubens, but somehow I’m horrified by the very idea.

          1. How did you a-rye-ve at that conclusion?

          2. A Sammy Davis, Jr’ favorite!

    2. But the NSA pinky swore he wasn’t the subject of an investigation. Yes, they didn’t deny he was spied on, just that the focus may have been elsewhere.

      1. They qualified it by stating that he wasn’t the subject of an “intelligence investigation,” but even that doesn’t pass the smell test. We already know, after Snowden exposed them, that these people lie their asses off about everything. The NSA has literally no credibility when it comes to anything they put out.

    3. That’s ENB for you. She’s too much into anti-racism and excusing rioting. Twitter culture, literally, as she once went to doxx some 17-year-old who made racist/sexist jokes and tries to ruin his college admission or something over Twitter.

      1. She linked to an article in The Atlantic where the entire argument boils down to an academic who critiques the Enlightenment as racist wants people to continue studying Enlightenment thinkers so he can tell his students how racist and sexist everything is.

        No one needs a “Critical Theory” of something when no one knows what it is.

        1. Some balloonhead law professor at Georgetown who’s written about how horribly racist everything in the US is just released an article stating that people complaining about CRT shows that systemic racism exists.

          I don’t think this Boomer shithead realized that the same logic applies to him and his team, too–by furiously deflecting and claiming that CRT isn’t rooted in anti-white racism, despite criticism of “whiteness” being a cornerstone of the people promoting it, they actually prove that CRT proponents hate white people and want to indoctrinate kids in the same self-loathing and racial animus.

          1. You just have to keep pushing them enough, and eventually they will flat out say it. I have heard it come out of the mouths of numerous people already.

            They’ll try and argue the merits of CRT, and use the same talking points the media is pushing. Then when you demolish their argument theyll do the Motte/Bailey move of “we are just trying to address racism, and talk about slavery! Why cant we just do that?!”. When that argument is shot down and you tell them the bills dont ban it, they just say “you cant be racist to people” they eventually land on “well it doesnt matter, you cant be racist to white people / racism isnt something white people have to deal with / there is no such thing as anti-white racism” some form of that.

            That is what is at the heart of it. Sorry whitey, your time is up. We are fine with racism as long as its pointed in the right direction.

            1. This is one of my favorite bullshit ‘arguments,’ the power + privilege/punch up, can’t be racist to the oppressor myth that the left-leaning sorts have invented. Which is so bizarrely, wrong-headedly post-industrial society focused, stuck on the US and the EU as if there were no other places on the planet. And no other ethnicity but black or ‘white.’ Or that black folks aren’t capable of racism toward any other ethnic group, ditto Asian minorities, Hispanic folks, et cetera. The left and progressives tend to create a stupid mythology, and endlessly repeat it among themselves, viciously attacking unbelievers via, as you’ve said, shitty arguments if one is lucky.

    4. Tucker Carlson releases allegations that the NSA is spying on him

      Not sure why we should believe Tucker Carlson about anything. He seems about as credible as Rachel Maddow.

      1. Yeah, if it’s one thing the NSA would never do, it’s spy on American citizens.

        1. Jeff to the defense of the Government!

    5. If the only thing our leaders did was vote to decide what art they wanted to look at everyday, I would be thrilled.

  25. “the drug is linked to brain swelling and bleeding that can be seen in MRI scans, as well as headache, falls, diarrhea, confusion, delirium and disorientation.”

    Sounds like spring break. Or attending a SFC city council meeting.

  26. People can privately fund national guard deployment?

    As opposed to paying through taxes.

    1. In all seriousness, state militias, even county and city militias, independent of federal control need to become a thing again.

  27. they used facial recognition tools “to help identify people suspected of violating the law”

    Cool! Next come up with law-violation recognition tools for even greater help!

  28. “The 2021 Supreme Court has delivered more unanimous decisions than it did in the last seven years”

    Unity!

    1. Ah, but were those decisions *equitable*?

  29. Say you haven’t read the constitution without saying you haven’t read the constitution

    Elizabeth Warren
    @ewarren
    Last time I read the Constitution, it’s majority rule in both chambers of Congress. And it’s only the president of the United States who gets a veto—not the minority leader of the United States Senate. #EndTheFilibuster

  30. The U.S. Department of Justice is suing Georgia over its voting law.

    Thank God we have an AG you can virtue signal correctly.

    1. Imagine this asshole being a Supreme Court Justice.

      1. Don’t senators need to be identified during a SCOTUS roll call confirmation vote?

  31. The 5-4 decision wasn’t split along ideological lines in the case that pitted fossil fuel interests against states’ rights.

    Any private property rights in the mix there?

    1. Get woke! Private and property are both racist and oppressive.

      1. Everyone should rent, and then not pay rent.

        1. This message brought to you by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and Private Housing.

          1. Small typo got through – –
            should be “Center for Disease Control and Prevention OF Private Housing”

  32. I’m glad to see we’ve reached the erase history part of authoritarianism.

    1619 project, everything Zinn related. CRT, statue destruction

    If I remember right, government has even photo shopped pictures like the war room for the bin laden take down.

    1. We’ve come a long way from this.

  33. WSJ NEWS EXCLUSIVE U.S.
    Trump Organization and CFO Allen Weisselberg Expected to Be Charged Thursday
    The Manhattan district attorney’s first charges in three-year probe will focus on alleged tax-related crimes at former president’s company

    BREAKING NEWS

    The Manhattan district attorney’s office is expected to charge the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer with tax-related crimes on Thursday, people familiar with the matter said, which would mark the first criminal charges against the former president’s company since prosecutors began investigating it three years ago.

    DMAN LIBRUL MEDIA AT THE WALL ST JOURNAL!

    FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS!

    1. BENGHAZI!!! DERP!! HUNTER BIDEN!!!!!!! BENGHAZI!!!!!

      1. Is that what you yell at the kids before assaulting them?

        1. Shriek probably calls out Hunter’s name at the moment of orgasm.

      2. Time to adjust your meds again.

      3. “BENGHAZI!!! DERP!! HUNTER BIDEN!!!!!!! BENGHAZI!!!!!”

        Turd repeats those as if they helped his cause.
        Fuck off and die turd.

    2. “tax-related crimes”?

      I want Drumpf in prison as much as you do, Mr. Buttplug. But honestly this is a rather underwhelming footnote considering American hero Robert Mueller already proved Drumpf is a 3 decade Russian intelligence asset who colluded with Putin to “win” a hacked election. THAT is why he should be going to prison.

      #ItsMuellerTime
      #TrumpRussia

    3. Lol. If you weren’t an ignorant moron you would have seen this covered last week where many here pointed out how ridiculous the charge of not reporting fringe benefits is. Most tax experts agree that reporting has never been mandated as such and would generally result in a tax bill and not a criminal indictment.

      But please keep applauding political convictions pedo.

      1. So they’re finally gonna nail him for not keeping his tires properly inflated?
        See? turd KNEW he was guilty of something!

        1. “Show me the man…”

    1. 135,000 “test” votes had been added into the count.

      “We’re not quite there yet. ‘Test’ some more.”

    2. Lol. Not shocked ENB is for this.

      So far, Arkansas and North Carolina have been good sports about removal, already agreeing to the replacement of their contested contributions.

      1. Woops meant for other post. Oh well.

    3. It’s their top priority, right after jailing everyone associated with the Trump organization for crimes which normally result in a small fine and penalty interest, a result which will be in no way politically motivated.

      1. They don’t even normally result in a fine, just a tax adjustment. And per tax experts almost never are subject to tax. Can’t wait for Gov Cuomo to be forced to pay taxes on his free rent at the governors mansion.

  34. Fox News has settled with the New York City Commission on Human Rights for $1 million in an investigation into the alleged “culture of pervasive sexual harassment and retaliation at the network.”

    The network was able to find that tiny sum in the sofa cushions on the Fox & Friends set.

    1. I thought they found it in some tuxedo pants.

    2. They also created a new sexual harassment awareness training: “The DilDos and Don’ts of Workplace Interactions” – Bill Oreilly

      1. With free complimentary loofa for all the ladies.

        “My dick goes in, my dick goes out. Can’t explain that.”

    3. A love tap on the ass seemed a fitting punishment.

  35. https://twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1409728587062779904?s=19

    #Minneapolis city council member blocked in and held hostage by #BLM “protestors” until she signed a statement agreeing to their demands.
    [Video]

    1. Definitely not an insurrection.

    2. Uh, isn’t that kidnapping and extortion?

      1. Only for Whites.

  36. “”Symbols of slavery, segregation, and sedition are not welcome in the halls of Congress,” bill sponsor and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D–Md.)”

    What about those who supported involuntary servitude like the draft which stated during the Civil War ?

    1. How about the guy who literally locked people up because of what they looked like?

  37. New legislation in Congress seeks to get the U.S. Food and Drug Administration out of the premium cigar industry’s way.

    The bill was hammered out in a vape-filled backroom deal.

    1. I hear this legislation is jocularly referred to as “The Bill Act”.

  38. https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1410089229447798784?s=19

    My new Substack on the truth about obesity and #Covid, based on an April paper in @thelancetendo that received zero notice:

    “[For] adults up to age 60, being obese was associated with nearly ALL the risk that Covid would lead to intensive care or death.”
    [Link]

    1. Soon to be banned since it defies Critical Theory Body Positive activists.

    2. No wonder Jeff mandated masks for everyone.

    3. So covid was the ultimate weight loss plan for the fatties.

      1. So why did the price of food go up? I thought there would be more to go around.

        1. You expected normal market behavior under lockdown?

  39. A Bay Area lawmaker’s bill that would decriminalize the personal possession of several psychedelic drugs begins winding its way through the California State Assembly this week…

    Right after the bill that decriminalizes retail theft.

    1. The proposed legislation is called the Legalize Sychodelic Drugs bill or LSD for short.

      1. Judging from the spelling, someone partook of the subject of the Act.

  40. U.S. lawmakers are currently considering whether to cancel congressional artwork featuring Confederate leaders and other historical figures who defended slavery.

    What the hell are you talking about? “Confederate”? “Slavery”? There was never any Confederacy or any such thing as slavery, that was all just a myth. Show me any historical evidence that such a thing ever existed.

    1. PS – On the off chance you can show me any historical evidence that it ever existed, we’ll get straight on erasing that from history just like we’re erasing everything else.

    2. “All you need to know was right there in your mandatory CRT instruction. Surely you haven’t forgotten, Comrade.”

      1. My copy has Robert E Lee and George Wallace at the Constitutional convention demanding permanent legalization of slavery and threatening action at Bull Run and Selma.

        1. Mine has that, and George Washington Carver pelting them with a peanut machine gun.

  41. Minnesota moves to limit the use of asset forfeiture and require more oversight for no-knock raids.

    The shine has gone off seeing their own cities in flames?

    1. They have a burning desire to not repeat the summer of 2020.

  42. “New legislation in Congress seeks to get the U.S. Food and Drug Administration out of the premium cigar industry’s way.”

    ’cause rich White folks need their Claros, but menthol ciggies are bad for BIPOCs.

    1. My CRT pamphlet has assured me that BIPOC are unable to think analytically and make reasoned choices. They must be protected from their own choices.

      1. …and they must be punished harshly if they do not comply. UNtil it becomes clear there is a disparity and then we wash our hands of it and blame the whole sorry mess on systemic racism and white rage.

      2. No no no. I was told the other day that BIPOC are brainwashed and enslaved by the Democratic Party. That is the real reason for all the nation’s racial injustices.

        1. More Jeff lies about what he was told. Interesting.

        2. Who said that, Jeff? You?
          Are you mad because Trump’s support from BIPOC shot way up in the last election?

            1. That lost doesn’t say what you sya it does dumbfuck. The documentation of crime being more correlated to single parent households than race has been well documented. The collapse of the black nuclear family largely driven by government welfare programs is also well documented.

              Youre just ignorant.

            2. And Jeff lies about what was said yet again after his initial point was easily refuted.

  43. Mexico’s Supreme Court struck down laws which criminalized the recreational use of cannabis on Monday evening…

    If only we could get those justices to sneak across the border. We need them to do this job that Americans won’t do.

    1. These are the juans we want in DC.

  44. Dumping the confederate statues, yes. Some of their picks for replacement? No.

    Speaking of Arkansas governors (not Clinton), an ancestor of mine was the Arkie governor at the time of secession (Henry Rector). The family history has him opposing secession and slavery, but clearly he speechified for it. The family tried to whitewash him, but the stain is there.

    1. Wouldn’t that be called blackwash?

  45. Speaking of Democrats (the party of the Confederacy) and slavery…..

    https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/29/is-the-entire-democratic-party-compromised-by-china/

    House Democrats shot down a GOP motion earlier this month that sought to bar corporate cooperation with Chinese slave labor.

    The Motion to Recommit proposed by Kentucky Republican Rep. Andy Barr amending a Democrat bill on corporate disclosure would have required businesses to report to the Treasury Department if they discover a supplier or other business partner was found using forced labor.

    Two-hundred and seventeen Democrats rejected the measure and the amendment failed. A look at their corporate donors might reveal why.

    Slave Labor Profits to Campaign Coffers
    In March last year, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) published a report credibly accusing 82 major brands of profiting, either directly or indirectly, from Chinese slave labor by minority Uyghur workers from the northern Xinjiang province. According to the report, investigators estimate more than 80,000 Uyghurs were taken from their native provinces to work in factories across China between 2017 and 2019, with thousands more sent straight to concentration camps.

    Using open-source Chinese-language documents, satellite imagery, academic research, and on-the-ground reporting, ASPI linked 82 brands with forced labor operations among 27 factories across nine Chinese provinces. A Federalist analysis drawing on financial disclosure reports published in OpenSecrets found at least 44 of the 80 companies named made U.S. campaign contributions in last year’s election cycle.

    A vast majority went to Democrats, who raked in three-quarters of all federal donations from companies credibly accused of harnessing Chinese slave labor, while less than 12 percent flowed to Republicans. Of the nearly $40 million that went to congressional candidates between the two major parties, Democrats took home more than 85 percent, as opposed to Republicans, who received less than 15.

    Meanwhile, 39 out of the 42 companies that made donations gave more than half to Democrats, with nearly a dozen skyrocketing contributions in last fall’s contest compared to previous cycles. Apple and Nike, for example, which deployed high-powered Washington lobbyists to fight the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act barring importing products from Chinese slave labor, each spiked their donations to Democrats by more than 400 percent in a year Republicans embraced a tough stance on China.

    The chart from OpenSecrets below outlines Apple’s contributions to federal candidates, showing the company’s affiliates gave upwards of $7.5 million to Democrats in 2020 as opposed to less than $2 million in 2018.

    1. A vast majority went to Democrats, who raked in three-quarters of all federal donations from companies credibly accused of harnessing Chinese slave labor, while less than 12 percent flowed to Republicans. Of the nearly $40 million that went to congressional candidates between the two major parties, Democrats took home more than 85 percent, as opposed to Republicans, who received less than 15.

      The Chinese know who their real benefactors are–after all, it’s the same party that gave them our military technology in exchange for campaign contributions.

      1. Thank you, rapist Bill Clinton.

    2. It’s not a surprise, when given a choice of power and money, or the correct ethical choice against profiting from slavery, the DNC continues to profit from slavery. This isn’t the first time they’ve voted down a bill. One supposes there’s more appeal in virtue signaling than in virtue.

  46. Democrat Reconciliation Package to Federalize Local Zoning Laws, Displace Single-Family Homes in Suburbs
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/29/democrat-reconciliation-package-to-federalize-local-zoning-laws-displace-single-family-homes-in-suburbs/

    A house with a white picket fence and a big backyard for a Fourth of July barbecue may be a staple of the American dream, but experts and local politicians say multifamily zoning is key to combating climate change, racial injustice and the nation’s growing affordable housing crisis.

    1. My town is semi-rural, one traffic light, hardly any streets with sidewalks, and one tiny strip mall with a local market, a hardware store, a pharmacy, and a couple of little mom and pop joints. It’s also pretty conservative, politically, although we do have a handful of local progressive harpies who are all for this kind of shit in the interest of “racial equity.”

      I can’t wait till they realize this is going to mean shit like eminent domaining their front yards and tearing up their beloved “green spaces” to widen roads and put in sidewalks to accomodate the increased traffic and public transit we’re going to need for all the new equity housing. Not to mention the increase in property taxes to pay for more cops and expanding the local public schools. And I’m SO EXCITED for the first time one of them calls the cops on a bunch of black kids in the park after dark.

  47. “”We strongly support innovative treatments to help the millions of Americans who suffer from Alzheimer’s disease, but Aduhelm’s approval and its $56,000 annual price tag will have broader implications for seniors…”

    I would gladly have shelled out $56,000 per year if it would have helped my mother. Hell, I spent almost that much per year just to provide care for her. Side-effects? Well, we already know the side-effects of Alzheimer’s. Duh.

    1. Our geriatricians and neurologists are convinced it’s a waste of money. I offer no opinion on the efficacy, but I wish I could say, “hey, it’s your money – go for it.”

      1. I am curious: Why would you “wish” you could say that? It was my money I was spending.

        1. Wasn’t directed at you. Just a general bitch about the industry: for most patients it’ll be paid for third-party payers, especially Medicare, which makes cost/benefits a political issue.

          1. Yeah, I get that. Long-term care isn’t covered either. That sucks for folks who can’t afford it. I don’t have an answer for that.

      2. Sorry, I think I misunderstood your comment.

  48. Twitter blocks interaction of a tweet regarding video testimony of a 12 year old in a Covid Vaccine trial experiencing extreme side effects and now has to utilize a wheel chair.

    https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/29/twitter-censors-video-of-mother-describing-daughters-covid-19-vaccine-side-effects/

    1. Totally not a publisher, and totally not having antitrust laws enforced against them the way those laws would be if they pissed off the Democrats.

    2. Vaxx lives matter!

  49. Just gotta love how quickly the DNC has turned on it’s own…
    Democrats fought the civil war to maintain slavery.

    Maybe they just don’t like looking their ‘own’ in the mirror everyday.

    1. Funny seeing as how it’s the Republicans fighting all the time to keep statues of traitors and slave owners though huh?

      1. Funny how Republicans fighting all the time to keep Democrats from turning the USA into a fascist country.

        If Democrats aren’t out being ‘Slavers’ themselves their out pushing for fascism and censoring their own. Gov-Gun toting tyrannical gang is all that’s left of the DNC.

        1. Democrats = Completely high on self-empowerment by [WE] mobs threatening anyone they can with Gov-Guns.

          Because……… As I’ve said a hundred times. Their very CORE holds the belief that threatening others with Gov-Guns = their own wealth and self-entitlement.

          CRIMINALS to their very CORE.

      2. Funny seeing as how it’s the Republicans fighting all the time to keep statues of traitors and slave owners though huh?

        Democrats want those statues gone–it’s hard to claim you’re not the Party of Slavery when there are statues of your slave owning and supporting heroes all over the place.

  50. “The Manhattan district attorney’s office is expected to charge the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer with tax-related crimes on Thursday, people familiar with the matter said, which would mark the first criminal charges against the former president’s company since prosecutors began investigating it three years ago.

    The charges against the Trump Organization and Allen Weisselberg, the company’s longtime chief financial officer, are a blow to former President Donald Trump, who has fended off multiple criminal and civil probes during and after his presidency. Mr. Trump himself isn’t expected to be charged, his lawyer said. Mr. Weisselberg has rejected prosecutors’ attempts at gaining his cooperation, according to people familiar with the matter.”

    —-WSJ

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-organization-and-cfo-allen-weisselberg-expected-to-be-charged-thursday-11625060765?

    Add this to the fact that Giuliani’s apartment was raided by the feds and his computers seized, and add this to Giuliani being stripped of his license to practice law in New York (which could be an attempt to poke holes in Trump’s attorney client privilege and let Giuliani turn state’s evidence). Add it all up, and it looks like a big fishing expedition to find someone to turn state’s evidence and testify against Trump on a criminal charge.

    Criminally prosecuting ex-presidents to keep them from running for office again is what happens in corrupt third world countries and places like Putin’s Russia. I don’t suppose we should be surprised if the Democratic party has stooped to that, but honest journalists everywhere should be ready to pounce if and when it becomes apparent that’s what’s happening.

    When the FBI was using Hillary Clinton’s opposition research to justify a wiretap on the Trump campaign to a FISA court, we all said that had the appearance of the FBI becoming an instrument of the Democratic party. It’s really not hard to imagine the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, the New York state Bar, the Manhattan district attorney’s office, et. al. becoming instruments of the Democratic party either. The city is a Democrat party machine, and now that the Democratic party and the federal government are one in the same thing, we should expect them to start acting like a party machine, too.

    1. “Criminally prosecuting ex-presidents to keep them from running for office again is what happens in corrupt third world countries and places like Putin’s Russia. I don’t suppose we should be surprised if the Democratic party has stooped to that, but honest journalists everywhere should be ready to pounce if and when it becomes apparent that’s what’s happening.”

      If it goes the other way, and it becomes apparent they have a strong case that Trump’s business committed tax fraud, will you admit it is so?

      1. You stupid shit, hundreds of people who hate Trumps guts (like you) spent three years trying to find something, ANYTHING with which to charge him, and the best they came up with was a couple of late library book returns by people who ‘knew’ Trump.
        I’m sure you’ll be dancing in the streets if they FINALLY get him on a jay-walking charge from 30 years ago.
        Stuff your TDS up your butt, asshole, so your head has some company.

        1. Come on man, charges are around the corner!

      2. Don’t you even think for a minute? Didn’t ever occur to you that a multi billion dollar company would use expensive accounting firms and lawyers to keep the IRS off their backs? Did you think the Donald was doing his taxes on the kitchen table?

        1. He really does.

      3. Trump and his organizations have been audited multiple times over the many, many years he’s been in business. NY has his taxes going back how many years now? And all they can find is a few execs failing to claim fringe benefits on their taxes, which isn’t even a criminal offense.

        Trump’s been in business for decades, and in that time, I’m sure he’s pissed off A LOT of people, and at least one of them would have been willing to give up the goods on him to the feds. If there was anything to get on him at all, it would have been gotten by now.

        If they find evidence of some sort of major tax fraud, sure, I’ll admit it. But considering that they’ve been looking for something to pin on him for the past five years now and all they can come up with are process crimes and some vague tax evasion by some other people who worked for him, I’m not going to hold my breath for it.

        1. Michael Flynn effectively turned state’s evidence against himself for something that probably wasn’t a crime–rather than let the Feds go after his son. They’re fishing for somebody like that–someone who would rather finger Trump than do time themselves or have the Feds go after a family member. And as the Flynn case shows, you don’t necessarily need to be guilty of anything.

          1. They aren’t fishing for someone. They are openly targeting Trump’s accountant, Allen Weisselberg.

            1. “They are openly targeting Trump’s accountant”

              Whoopsie, White Mike accidentally told the truth.

              1. He is too stupid to realize it.

            2. “They aren’t fishing for someone. They are openly targeting Trump’s accountant, Allen Weisselberg.”

              Pathetic piece of lefty shit imagines that trying to catch one fish isn’t a fishing expedition.
              You’d think that this asshole would be embarrassed fro making a public ass of himself on such a regular basis, but embarrassment requires at least the intelligence of a 5-YO.

            3. They’re doing a terrible job then, because he’s not playing ball. Doesn’t he have any kids they can threaten to prosecute?

      4. Based on what has been released, there is no case other than twisting of the law to support an indictment. This is getting to Anderson levels where Mueller ended up being rebuked at the USSC 0-9.

        But you’ve always supported political prosecutions against the right, haven’t you White Mike.

    2. Our Republic is dying, Ken. Even the Founders alluded to the natural death of democracies and republics in the debates leading up to the Constitution.

      The only question is how violent will our decline to irrelevance be?

      1. Why do you think there is a rush for gun grabbing?

        1. And the massive numbers of first time gun owners.

  51. Good riddance. Imagine having statues of traitors to your country in your Capitol. Shameful they’ve been there this long.

    1. Who put them there?

    2. The Brits have a statute of the traitor Oliver Cromwell, not *in* their legislative building per se, but right outside it.

    3. “traitors to your country”

      Have you noticed how all the lefties sound exactly like Joe McCarthy now that they’re the establishment.

    4. Are they traitors because they thought states could legally secede from the union they jointly established, then ended up fighting a war of independence after the U.S. federal government sought to prevent them forcefully from doing so on grounds that this particular union, once entered, is indivisible?

      As Benjamin Franklin never said, but could and should have, “Treason is a charge invented by winners as an excuse for hanging the losers.”

  52. The Democrats are covering up their party’s shameful history now.

    It may be a pretty thing, but removing the condition that a state has the right to refuse the removal of its statues is the federal legislature asserting its dominance over the states. A symbolic chipping away at the federalist system.

    1. In the late 19th Century, the Democratic Party was the conservative party.

      1. In the early 21st century, the Democratic Party is the conservative party.

        1. Well, there is some truth to that. I think the corporate and banking types are more Democratic-friendly now, as they seem be more interested in “keeping the economic status quo going”, i.e., the more traditional definition of the term conservative. Now whether the economic status quo ought to keep going or not is a different question. Certainly Team Red is more culturally conservative, though.

          1. Team Red may be socially conservative, but with support for corporatism, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, critical racial theory, political censorship, gun control and bookburning, Team Blue is definitely more fascist.
            And I mean that literally.

        2. But the point of my comment is that making comparisons to the Democratic Party of today to the Democratic Party of the late 19th century is very problematic. Same for the Republican Party. After all the Republican Party started as a bunch of civil rights crusaders, and it was the Republican Party that was pushing the original anti-monopoly, “trust busting” laws.

          1. it was the Republican Party that was pushing the original anti-monopoly, “trust busting” laws.

            chemfat doesn’t see the irony in Republicans originating anti-trust legislation like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and complaining that Republicans are going after Big Tech for monopolistic actions.

      2. In the 21st Century as it was in the 19th, the Democrat’s are great believers in racial essentialism.

      3. Hey another lie from Jeff. Congratulations. Just to think a few days ago you said you never lied!

      4. In the late 19th Century, the Democratic Party was the conservative party. LMAO!!!

        PROJECTION for the Win! /s

  53. “They say, ‘Why are you trying to keep this tradition alive? We should jettison this whole way of doing political philosophy and basically start anew.'”

    Burn, baby, burn.

    1. Jettison the system that made this country the envy of the world for over 200 years.

  54. I can totally understand getting rid of the busts of individuals who openly sided with the Confederacy, even if they were US representatives before the Civil War. Because they declared their intention to be traitors, and the US Capitol really shouldn’t be memorializing triators.

    But getting rid of Roger Taney’s bust is wrong. He did not side with the Confederacy. Yes the Dred Scott decision was very wrong. But he also sided with the people against whom Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Plus, the Dred Scott decision was incredibly influential in American history.

    1. To be fair, we should be rid of all statues.
      And history.
      And books.

    2. The Civil War was incredibly influential in American history too.

      Maybe a GoFundMe campaign to commission a statue of Ashli Babbitt to replace one of these is in order.

      1. Oh yes. How could we forget St. Ashli Babbitt. Martyr for the cause of insurrection.

        1. Why do you hate the First Amendment and why do you support government agents using deadly force to suppress it?

          1. The First Amendment guarantees the right to break into the Speaker’s Lobby at the head of a violent mob?

            1. The penalty for trespassing is a bullet to the head.

            2. Of course not, nor should the penalty be death.

        2. And once again, Jeff supports the state killing an unarmed veteran for the crime of trespassing.

          1. Trespassing on public property.

            1. The trespassing wasn’t the problem. The problem was threatening harm to the Vice President, members of Congress, their staff and guests.

              1. Speech isn’t threatening. That was murder.

                1. Breaking a window and crawling through it is speech?

                  1. It is trespassing. Not a capital offense. What the fuck is wrong with you. You cried about agents on Portland arrested people with unmarked vans.

                    Youre a piece of shit.

                  2. Last summer it apparently was. Outside of that Jesse already answered. An unarmed trespasser.

              2. “…The problem was threatening harm to the Vice President, members of Congress, their staff and guests.”

                The problem is the gullibility of lefty ignoramuses like Mike.
                Fuck off and die, Mike; your family will be proud!

              3. Cite on when she did that.

    3. And here Jeff again is ignorant to the efforts of reunification between the North and South post the Civil War, because Jeff would rather focus on disagreements and bitterness.

      Jeff is the dumbest among us.

      1. So should “on a scale of Tony to 10” be replaced with “on a scale of Jeff to 10”?

  55. And we’re removing any depictions, artwork or busts of FDR because of his anti-Semitism?

  56. “”Symbols of slavery, segregation, and sedition are not welcome in the halls of Congress,” bill sponsor and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D–Md.)”

    So no Apple products? No NIKE shoes? No Disney related products? No Communist Chinese tourists?
    etc etc

    1. No Democratic Party members at all, is how I read that.

  57. “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration moved quickly for a change. Cue the Congressional investigators. ”

    Funny how they are investigating the cost, not the lack of any long term testing. It looks like the Communist Chinese Virus has cemented the concept of all long term testing taking place in the general population.

  58. I have not problem with removing confederate statues. Yes, they are part of history and always will be, but we have museums to preserve history. Is anyone getting mad at the French for not leaving up Hitler and Nazi statues? I mean, the confederates lost, too. Plus, participants in the Civil War sought not to memorialze everythi with big statues but to just get over it and move on.

  59. “Symbols of . . . sedition are not welcome in the halls of Congress,” bill sponsor and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D–Md.) said.

    Oh, well, so much for my dreams of a statute of Eugene V. Debs in the Capitol.

  60. Oh, come on South Carolina, you can do better than that (I think).
    At least Georgia doesn’t have to worry about its other statue (Crawford Long, one of the pioneers of anesthesia.)

    Oklahoma has Sequoyah and Will Rogers, which I’m happy with. I wish more states would look farther than politicians.

  61. I’m interested in what all the Trump worshipping traitors think of the removing statues of earlier traitors from the capitol?

    Also what do you Trump worshipping traitors do on the fourth? Wipe your ass with the constitution? Burn American flags? Or do you just not celebrate it?

    1. I believe they plan to take a knee when the National Anthem is played.

      1. Good one Gumby!

        1. Marie Osmond won’t respond to those love letters you keep sending her?

          1. Why would I send love letters to that stupid old cunt?

            1. She probably wonders the same thing.

              1. Good one!

                In all seriousness I hope the cunt chokes to death on Donny’s dick…

                  1. Good one!

      2. Although kneeling during an anthem at a sporting event is not treasonous like storming the capitol to stop an election from being certified or asking the GA SOS to “find votes?”

      1. You know you can mute me? Or you can flag me without replying “asshole flag” to most posts of mine?

        I know you’re senile and brain damaged, but ask your loser 12 step sponsor to show you.

          1. Senile rummy flag

  62. I keep seeing them referred to as traitors. Does anybody know who, exactly, these statues are depicting–rather than just calling them traitors?

    Advocating secession from the Union may not be treason necessarily. Who are the people they’re calling traitors?

    Being called names by progressives isn’t necessarily an indication of anything other than that they don’t like you.

    Since when have progressives cared about the accuracy of anything they say?

    1. Constututiinally, treason is defined in Article III Section 3 as “levying war against them [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies.” Interestingly, United States is used as a plural, not as a singular entity, meaning that the US army was commiting treason when they invaded the southern states which Lincoln claimed were still in the “Union.”

    1. There’s worse places they could learn about it…

      1. I’m sure you would know.

        1. That was a joke…

        2. Point on the doll where KAR touched you.

          1. Haha! Are you jelly? Cuz you’re on a roll!

      2. asshole is really stinking up the place!

        1. Thanks Sevo! I like the attention!

  63. Aduhelm’s approval and its $56,000 annual price tag will have broader implications.

    ENIAC was too expensive. The feds should outlaw all private use and ownership of computers.

  64. ENB, you got your governors backwards. Aycock was governor of North Carolina, and Clarke was governor of Arkansas. Maybe one racist looks very much like another, but you’ve got them linked to the wrong states.

  65. The fact that they are banning the memory of John C. Calhoun, twice a vice president, a US senator, and a serious Presidential candidate, speaks volumes. Why exactly is someone like Calhoun in their crosshairs? This is so blatantly political in the worst, and most revisionist sort of way. Calhoun is no more known for slavery than George Washington. What they really hate is everything else Calhoun stood for, namely holding up the flame of the Jeffersonian view of American federalism, which of course both dems and repubs despise.

    1. Other than upholding the right of one person to enslave another on the basis of skin color using federalism as a legal basis, I can’t think of any objection.

  66. Jeff and Tony can suck each other off in hell for eternity, lying shitbags

    Exhibit 4,176,543

    https://twitter.com/fairforall_org/status/1410326198677217280

    1. Sorry I have been told CRT is benign, only taught to doctorate students that signed up for it, and does NOT result in overt racism.

      This therefore cannot be real, and you are a racist for putting it forward.

    2. You morons will be purging schools of wrongthinkers as the coasts are swallowed by the ocean.

      You care about this because FOX News told you to care about it. It’s sad, and you’re stupid.

  67. After the Civil War there was reconciliation. Now 150 years later they want to rescind the reunification of the nation and open old wounds.

    1. And 100 years after, the civil rights movement mostly ended legal segregation.

  68. Local drivetime radio commentator pointed out last night, essentially all of the statues to be removed are of Democrats, from states controlled by Democrats at the time of their gifting to the Capitol, and to a Congress controlled at the time of acceptance by (drum roll, please) Democrats.

  69. It should be concerning that the House minority leader is opposing this on grounds that used to only be found on shithole comments boards like this. Those grounds, of course, being “But therrr Demoncrats!” I guess you guys love statues of Democrats?

    The fucking nuts it takes to dismiss the Republican party’s ONGOING disenfranchisement and oppression of black Americans with some mind-numbingly idiotic historical factoid… These people shouldn’t have power over a marshmallow salad, let alone 300 million people’s lives.

    The reason Northern Democrats split from Southern Democrats was because of the latter’s insistence on continuing segregation. You look stupid when you make this argument, and it’s not even an argument. It’s just a hiccup of a fart of an idea shoved into your earholes by fat FOX News fascists. You people are so fucking stupid it’s painful.

  70. metal
    https://www.matexcel.com/category/products/metal/
    Metal powders are extremely versatile when used in parts manufacturing or as coatings for different parts.

Please to post comments