YET STILL ANOTHER FIRING!

There’s been a lesser-known firing of a much lesser-known individual than Tucker Carlson, and I’ll get to that in a moment. And this one likewise speaks volumes.

First, in case you missed it, last night Tucker released a video, right at the time his normal broadcast would have taken place, in which he said the following:

Good evening. It’s Tucker Carlson.

One of the first things you realize when you step outside the noise for a few days is how many genuinely nice people there are in this country, kind and decent people, people who really care about what’s true. And a bunch of hilarious people also. A lot of those. It’s got to be the majority of the population even now.

So that’s heartening. The other thing you notice when you take a little time off is how unbelievably stupid most of the debates you see on television are. They’re completely irrelevant. They mean nothing. In five years, we won’t even remember that we had them. Trust me, as someone who’s participated.

And yet, at the same time and this is the amazing thing, the undeniably big topics, the ones that will define our future, get virtually no discussion at all. War, civil liberties, emerging science, demographic change, corporate power, natural resources.

When was the last time you heard a legitimate debate about any of those issues? It’s been a long time.

Debates like that are not permitted in American media. Both political parties and their donors have reached consensus on what benefits them, and they actively collude to shut down any conversation about it.

Suddenly, the United States looks very much like a one-party state. That’s a depressing realization, but it’s not permanent. Our current orthodoxies won’t last. They’re brain dead. Nobody actually believes them. Hardly anyone’s life is improved by them.

This moment is too inherently ridiculous to continue, and so it won’t. The people in charge know this. That’s why they’re hysterical and aggressive. They’re afraid. They’ve given up persuasion. They’re resorting to force.

But it won’t work. When honest people say what’s true, calmly and without embarrassment, they become powerful. At the same time, the liars who’ve been trying to silence them shrink, and they become weaker. That’s the iron law of the universe. True things prevail.

Where can you still find Americans saying true things? There aren’t many places left, but there are some. And that’s enough. As long as you can hear the words, there is hope. See you soon.

That’s pretty close to exactly what I would say to America if I had their attention for two minutes.

We don’t debate major things. Major things are decided for us already. The talking heads on television pretend to disagree with each other, but they’re usually debating trivialities on the edges of the actual issues.

Ukraine is an excellent example. Good luck finding a debate on that subject!

The CIA, the U.S. military, Hollywood airheads, the political class, the official opinion molders, the corporate CEOs, you name it — they all have the same opinions, and it wouldn’t even occur to them to foster debate, or that their opinions are debatable in the first place.

These are people who can have entire conversations about financial crises and bubbles without once mentioning the role of the central bank.

Somebody like that is not in the business of informing the American public. Somebody like that is trying to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, in the interests of the wealthy and powerful.

People who are highly suggestible, or mentally slow, or desperate to be in the in-group, will unthinkingly adopt whatever is presented to them by these elites.

But there are a lot of us who instead look at the American establishment and say: these are unimpressive and ignorant people whose opinions are worth nothing and whose track record is a joke.

There are enough of us that something has to happen. Certainly the suppression of our voices can go on for only so much longer.

And that brings me to the other firing.

After 37 years, Ted Galen Carpenter, one of the only people worth much of anything at the Cato Institute, was suddenly let go.

Carpenter reports:

“After 37 years, my role as a scholar with the Cato Institute has come to an end. We did not part on pleasant terms. I discovered the hard way that criticizing Ukraine’s government or Washington’s support of that government can prove fatal to one’s career.”

Most unfortunate.

But: there are far too many of us who agree with these silenced voices for those voices to vanish altogether. I rather suspect they will come back with a vengeance. I hope so. I pray they do. I’m counting on that.

FULL SPEECH: Tucker Carlson’s Last Address Before Leaving Fox News at #Heritage50

The CDC “behavior change” project

Fox News Personality Bad-Mouths Tucker After Ouster, Gets Massive Backlash: ‘He Is Such a Loser’

Commentary

Now-former Fox News host Tucker Carlson is pictured during the 2022 FOX Nation Patriot Awards at Hard Rock Live at Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Hollywood on Nov. 17. (Jason Koerner / Getty Images)

Geraldo Rivera, the man whose height of fame (and infamy, two things he has trouble telling apart) came when a neo-Nazi  broke his nose during an altercation on his trashy syndicated talk show over 30 years ago, would like you to think he Spoke Truth To Power™ when it came to now-former fellow Fox News employee Tucker Carlson.

Twitter users would like Rivera, the token liberal on Fox, to know what they think of him. Namely: “He is such a loser.”

So, as you’ve no doubt heard if you follow cable news in general or Fox News specifically, Carlson, long the network’s top-rated prime-time host, was let go without warning on Monday afternoon.

There was no reason given at the time, just a terse statement from the network that “FOX News Media and Tucker Carlson have agreed to part ways. We thank him for his service to the network as a host and prior to that as a contributor.”

The general assumption was that it had something to do with the network’s $787 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems over individuals who came on the network in the wake of the 2020 election and claimed the company’s vote-tabulation software and hardware were responsible for massive voter fraud.

However, Carlson was actually one of the first hosts to explicitly call these theories out on air, and other sources pointed to Carlson’s faith combined with the increasing instability of Fox News shot-caller Rupert Murdoch, now 92.

Regardless of what the reason actually was, that didn’t stop Geraldo Rivera from wading into the controversy like he knew what was inside Al Capone’s vault. and bad-mouthing Carlson in the process.

“I don’t wish ill on anybody, but there is no doubt-as I said at the time-Tucker Carlson’s perverse January 6 conspiracy theory was ‘bulls***,’” Rivera tweeted.

“Having lost the election President Trump incited an insurrection that sought to undermine our Constitutional process.”

Now, first off: If you ever feel the need to start a social media missive with “I don’t wish ill on anybody…”, stop. Stop right there, delete it all, practice deep breathing and share something more useful, like a video of a re-enactment of the Battle of Gettysburg done entirely with hamsters or something like that.

Second, the co-host on Fox News’ “The Five” didn’t follow up with which “perverse January 6 conspiracy theory was ‘bulls***’” and hasn’t tweeted about it since then. Carlson recently aired video of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol incursion that showed it to be far less of a “coup” or a “threat to democracy” than Democrats have intimated, but Geraldo seems to indicate in his tweet that his qualms go back further.

Needless to say, this reaction was met with near-universal non-acclaim, including from Rivera’s co-host on “The Five,” Greg Gutfeld, who sarcastically called him “a class act”:

Another said it was time for Geraldo to “seek help!”

Another brought up “The Mystery of Al Capone’s Vaults”, the infamous, much-hyped live televised special in which Rivera hosted and did a play-by-play as fortune-hunters blasted into what was supposed to be the gangster’s personal safe to report on what they found. Spoiler alert: Nothing of worth.

Another Twitterer advised Rivera to “take a good hard look in the mirror and look at yourself and reflect, and also use it to comb your hair once in awhile.”

However, two tweets best summed up the entire affair. One remarked that Rivera is a serial loser who somehow still managed to hang onto relevance long after he’d been disgraced many, many times.

Another simply noted that Fox’s, um, interesting personnel decisions was causing him to take his viewership elsewhere:

And that’s the problem with Rivera’s take: The only reason he clings to a job with the network is that he’s a punching-bag liberal. He doesn’t make sound arguments. He hasn’t been much of a reporter for decades now; he’s an éminence grise, sans éminence. He’s there because he can reliably do a bit of shouty-shouty with the rest of “The Five” and that’s about it.

Carlson wasn’t just a real presence at the network, you got the sense he was the one unafraid to speak truth to power. It’s probably part of the reason he’s jobless right now. Rupert Murdoch is supposed to be the ultimate conservative media scion, but at the end of the day, he prefers Geraldo Rivera to Tucker Carlson.

Viewers, on the other hand, may prefer something else, as ratings for Fox’s prime-time lineup in the wake of Carlson’s departure seem to indicate. This is why you hear calls to boycott Fox News from the right on Twitter.

And that’s the problem for Rivera. Geraldo knows full well he can’t bite the hand that feeds him, but he doesn’t have enough sense to keep from biting the hand that keeps him fed — or, by the tone of this tweet, even acknowledging he knows there’s a difference.

To put it another way: After more than a half-century in the media, Geraldo still can’t figure out which vaults he should be breaking into and when someone’s going to break his fucking nose.

I Stand Firmly Behind Alec Baldwin — Because That’s the Safest Place to Be

In a move that probably didn’t surprise very many people, the charges against Hollywood actor, Joe Biden spokesman and accused killer Alec Baldwin have been formally dropped. Utilizing a legal loophole known as “being a Democrat Party donor,” Baldwin was able to escape being put on trial for manslaughter after he allegedly killed some poor lady on a movie set.

Baldwin was on set for a movie filming in New Mexico in 2021 when the shooting happened. He was ranting about Donald Trump and waving his sidearm from the movie around on set when he (obviously) pulled the trigger. For some reason, the gun had a live round in it, which killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounded the movie’s director.

Most people don’t realize this, but all modern firearms – including ones like the prop gun used by Alec Baldwin – are stress tested in a laboratory by gun manufacturers. They put the guns through “drop tests” and all sorts of interesting tests to try to make them accidentally go off. The purpose of the tests is to make sure that before that firearm ends up in someone’s hands, there is one thing, and hopefully only one thing that will make it fire — and that’s when a human being pulls the trigger.

Which is what Alec Baldwin obviously did. His story that the gun “just went off” never made any sense to anyone with basic knowledge of firearms. The truth is that Baldwin was waving the gun around like a reckless and entitled Hollywood liberal and he pulled the trigger, killing Hutchins.

Not that it matters, since the corrupt justice system has now let him off the hook for “committing crimes while being a Democrat.” He’s now free to go smoke crack with Hunter Biden and do some money laundering while cavorting with trafficked Ukrainian hookers, and like the First Son, he’ll never face any consequences.

I stand firmly behind Alec Baldwin, and you should too. That’s the only safe place to be when he’s waving a gun around like the mad democrat human loser that he is.

The concept of the right to have rights

The current understanding of human rights was built on Kant’s idea of universal human rights

Protesters raise their fists and placards during a demonstration in observance of the International Human Rights day in Manila on Dec. 10, 2022. (Photo: AFP)

“Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” Politicians and leaders are fond of quoting this challenge posed by John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address on Jan. 20, 1961. They are in a way right to remind us of our responsibilities and duties. But we also need to realize our rights and privileges, which alone can enable us to have duties.

We discuss often on unalienable rights and obligations in every community. But, we must consider the fundamental right that enables all other rights. A key component of the discussion on human rights is the idea of the “right to have rights.” In the years following World War II, this idea was frequently linked to the German political philosopher Hannah Arendt. She contended that the right to own rights is the most fundamental of all rights. We will talk about the history of this idea, how important it is in today’s political debate, and the problems it creates for the fulfilment of human rights in this article.

Origins of the Right to Have Rights

The concept of the “right to have rights” may be found in the writings of Enlightenment theorists including French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau and German scholar Immanuel Kant. The current understanding of human rights was built on Kant’s idea of universal human rights, which was based on each person’s intrinsic value and dignity. The evolution of the human rights discourse was also inspired by Rousseau’s social contract theory, which holds that people voluntarily cede part of their rights to the state in exchange for safety and security.

The contemporary notion of the “right to have rights” originated with Arendt’s examination of the idea of statelessness, i.e., when people have no political state to protect them.  The migrants and refugees are the contemporary examples.

The notion of the “right to have rights” originated in the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, which showed the limits of the existing legal and political frameworks for defending human rights of both individuals and groups.

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), a German-Jewish philosopher who escaped Europe during the war, articulated this thesis in her important contribution “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” In this book, Arendt maintained that the human rights breaches committed by Nazi Germany were made possible by the weakening of the legal and political protections that had previously guaranteed individual liberty. According to Arendt, the Holocaust showed how even the most fundamental rights, like the right to life, might be violated when people did not have the ability to exercise their rights.

Significance of the Right to Have Rights

Since it highlights the significance of political and legal safeguards for human rights, the right to have rights is crucial in today’s political and ethical discourse. It emphasizes that in addition to being individual liberties, human rights are also communal goods that rely on the presence of governmental structures capable of defending them. In this view, the manifestation of other human rights, such as the freedom of expression, the freedom of religion, and the right to a fair trial, is a prerequisite for the achievement of the right to possess rights.

Some Challenges to the Realization of the Right to have Rights

Despite its significance, the right to have rights faces numerous challenges in the contemporary world. The emergence of authoritarian regimes, which threaten democratic institutions and weaken the political and legal safeguards for human rights, is one of the biggest challenges.

The continuation of structural disparities that restrict access to governmental and political institutions, particularly for vulnerable groups including refugees, immigrants, and racial and ethnic minorities, is another problem. The plight of the migrants, who are compelled to flee their own country and are left in the hands of “merchants of death,” seriously tests the morality of the developed world. Their cries for justice and the heinous denial of their right to any rights is a wake-up call for all of mankind.

The neoliberal or libertarian emphasis on individual rights above or against common goods, which frequently favors free market over social wellbeing, puts the right to have rights in jeopardy, for many disadvantaged people.

In conclusion, the right to have rights is a vital component of the human rights discourse that highlights the significance of legal and political safeguards for individual liberty. This idea was developed in the wake of the Holocaust and World War II, and it is still important in today’s political debate.

The growth of authoritarian regimes, the continuation of structural disparities, and the neoliberal emphasis on individual rights are only a few of the obstacles that the right to have rights must overcome. To overcome these obstacles, everyone must work together to defend and advance the political and legal frameworks that uphold even the most basic rights.

It is the absolute minimum we can do to protect our fundamental rights, especially those of immigrants and stateless people. The most fundamental right, which serves as the foundation for all other rights, is the right to one’s political identity.

The Church is very forthright in demanding its rights.  It stands for the rights of the poor, tribal and marginalized people, inspired by Pope Francis. At the same time, the Church needs to reflect on its moral obligation to provide the right to have rights, especially to its own laity and to women religious.

The Church needs to realize that reminding them of their duty can only be done, if it recognize its primarily rights and above all the right to have rights. That comes from the very fact of God having created all of us in his own image and likeness. Then we can do justice to the fundamental rights (Maulik Adhikar) that the Indian constitution so proudly speaks of!

Abortion and Overpopulation

Overpopulation is a Myth

Have you ever heard the argument, “We need abortion because the world would be overpopulated otherwise. We won’t have enough resources for everyone if all the babies were born.”
Or maybe someone challenged you with conversations about poverty, stating the claim that abortion is merciful when confronted with lack of financial resources or other material challenges. Abortion and overpopulation is a complex issue.

Let’s get one thing straight first: the world is not overpopulated. In fact, people like Elon Musk propose quite the opposite – that a global baby bust is going to be our demise. In the United States, the population has been below replacement rate since the 1970s (people are not being born at a higher rate than people are dying). So this “crisis” is very much overstated, at the very least.

The myth of overpopulation originated in 1798 with Thomas Malthus. In An Essay on the Principles of Population, Malthus predicted that overpopulation would lead to a food shortage by 1890, ultimately leading to the destruction of humanity. This “crisis” was re-predicted numerous times over the past two centuries, but conveniently rescheduled when it did not occur. Yet, here we are, over 100 years later with the highest population of people on earth and the best food production rate in history. 

The myth stems from the idea that there are so many people on the planet that our resources can’t possibly keep up. But, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations as well as the World Food Programme say, “There is enough food in the world today for everyone to have the nourishment necessary for a healthy and productive life.” And “the world currently produces enough food for everybody, but many people do not have access to it.” In other words, what we have is a distribution problem – not a supply problem. 

The World Food Programme lists 6 key causes of hunger, and overpopulation is not one of them. Reducing the number of hungry people will not make people less hungry if the infrastructure to get resources to them is inadequate, or war is destroying crops and interfering with relief efforts. The tendency to suggest abortion as a “solution” to suffering suggests that we ought to eliminate the sufferer instead of solving problems. 

Abortion and Overpopulation – Is it a Solution?

Although we’ve already established that overpopulation is a myth, even if the earth was overpopulated, does that justify the taking of innocent life?

Killing living human beings is not an acceptable solution to any problem. If we attempted to kill human beings to solve the overpopulation problem, it would make the most sense to kill the people who are not contributing to society – toddlers and infants. Is it morally acceptable to kill them? No. We would never accept the killing of toddlers to reduce the population, so if we believe in true human equality, we cannot accept killing of preborn human beings to accomplish the same goal.

In the name of overpopulation, abortion is justified by its supporters because they refuse to acknowledge the humanity of the preborn, not because we are actually lacking in resources. Conversations about abortion must always start and end with what abortion is and what preborn humans are. 

Below are some great videos to review to better understand the myth of overpopulation and limited resources.

Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth

7 Billion People: Everybody Relax!

Urbanization: Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad City

Poverty: Where We All Started

Food: There’s Lots Of It

Mainstream Media Begs Americans to Forget About That Whole Pandemic Fascism Thing They Did

ABC News ran an article this week urging everyone to just forget all about that whole COVID-19 pandemic thing, and any “trauma” they may have experienced because of it. Really? Is that what we should do? Especially since the mainstream media, who teamed up with Tony “Dr. Doom” Fauci, were the main ones who traumatized and brainwashed people through the whole ordeal.

The article informs its readers, “Research has shown the pandemic has led to increased rates of anxiety, depression, psychosis, loneliness and other mental health issues.”

But that’s not true. The “pandemic” didn’t do any of those things. The government and media response to the pandemic caused those things.

The coronavirus didn’t keep kids out of school, causing a generational loss in learning which will have catastrophic effects on America for years to come. The leftwing teacher unions did that. Coronavirus didn’t cause the suicide rate for teenage girls to increase by 50%. The social isolation and depression that resulted from the lockdowns did that.

Remember the mom who was tasered and arrested at her son’s football game for not wearing a mask as she was sitting alone, far away from any other people? Coronavirus didn’t do that. The government and the fear incited by the mainstream media did that.

People died alone in nursing homes, unable to hug their own spouses or their grandchildren at the end of their lives, because of the government and the media. People lost their businesses and their livelihoods. People got fired from their jobs for refusing to take an experimental medicine they didn’t want.

Anyway, to ABC News’ claim that we should all just forget about what was done during the pandemic so we can move on: No thanks. We won’t forget and we won’t forgive. A lot of MSM and government officials deserve to go to prison for what they did to the American people during the pandemic.

Jesus’ Resurrection Is Not a Pagan Myth

Is the story of Jesus just a rip-off of ancient pagan resurrection tales?

Skeptics will argue that Jesus’ resurrection is just one more instance of the dying-and-rising-god motif prevalent in the religions of the ancient Near East. The Scottish social anthropologist James Frazer popularized this motif in his 1890 book The Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religion. The idea continued in modern skeptic circles, as the popular film Zeitgeist has shown.

Skeptics like to parallel Jesus’ resurrection with pagan deities such as the Egyptian gods Osiris and Horus, as well as the Greek gods Attis and Adonis. But are these parallels accurate? Do these claims undermine the Christian story of Jesus’ resurrection, making our Christian faith in vain? Here are four responses.

Response 1: The objection disregards the evidence that supports the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection.

Multiple eyewitnesses and close associates of eyewitnesses report Jesus’ resurrection (e.g., Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, the women, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp). Paul’s creedal formula—“Christ died . . . was buried . . . and rose on the third day” (1 Cor. 15:3-5)—dates to within six years of Jesus’ death and resurrection, thus satisfying the early testimony criterion. Paul maintains that this saying was a part of the apostolic preaching (1 Cor. 15:11), and therefore it is probable that he received it in A.D. 36, when he visited Peter and James in Jerusalem three years after his conversion in A.D. 33 (Gal. 1:18-19). If he received it at that time, then that means the saying must have been formulated prior to that, thus dating it to within five years after Jesus’ death (A.D. 30).

The historicity of Jesus’ resurrection also stands out when one considers how the alternative naturalistic explanations (e.g., Conspiracy Theory, Hallucination Theory, Legend Theory, etc.) fail in accounting for the historical details that make up the resurrection narratives. For the pagan dying-and-rising-god motif to be a plausible explanation, a skeptic would have to undermine the historicity of the details in the resurrection narratives—a project that will not succeed in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

Response 2: Pagans generally didn’t believe in resurrection.

In her essay “Does the Story of Jesus Mimic Pagan Mystery Stories?”, Christian apologist Mary Jo Sharp writes, “In the ancient pagan world, death was a one-way street” (Come Let Us Reason). St. Athanasius (296-373) points this out in his work On the Incarnation:

For although the Greeks have told all manner of false tales, yet they were not able to feign a resurrection of their idols— for it never crossed their mind, whether it be at all possible for the body again to exist after death.

This is confirmed in Acts 17, when the Athenians mock Paul for his preaching about Christ’s resurrection (32). Greek literature even contains passages mocking the idea of bringing someone back from the dead. In the Iliad, after Achilles kills Priam’s son Hector, Achilles taunts the grief-stricken father, saying Priam won’t be able to bring his son back.

How could the early Christians have copied from Greek mythology when the Greek worldview was hostile to the Christian idea of a bodily resurrection?

A skeptic may answer, “Perhaps resurrection was foreign to the Greeks, but not to the Egyptians. Both Osiris and Horus died and rose again. Maybe the Christians copied from Egyptian mythology.” This leads us to our third response.

Response 3:  Parallels between the story of the rising Jesus and the stories of rising pagan deities are false.

Take as an example the most common alleged parallel: the Egyptian god Osiris. Scholars are quick to point out that in Egyptian mythology, Osiris never really rose from the dead; he reigned as king of the underworld. As the Egyptologist Henri Frankfort explains in his book Kingship and the Gods, “Osiris . . . was not a dying god at all but a dead god. He never returned among the living.”

This is why the Book of the Dead has a prayer the Egyptian believer prayed to Osiris requesting a permanent place in the afterlife: “Grant thou [Osiris] to me a place in the nether-world, near the lords of right and truth, my estate may it be permanent in Sekhet-hetep.”

How can there be a parallel between Jesus and Osiris’s experience of life after death if Osiris never came back to this life?

The Egyptian god Horus is said to have been stung by a scorpion and then revived by his mother Isis after she performed magical spells given to her by the god Thoth. But it is disputed as to whether the mythology says Horus actually died.

If he didn’t die and only became ill, then obviously there is no parallel with Jesus. But if he did die, then the death and raising of Horus would still be very different in every other detail from the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Since the suggested parallels are so weak, there is no reason to think the early Christians borrowed the Egyptian dying-and-rising deities to construct their story about Jesus.

The same applies to parallels proposed outside Egyptian mythology. For example, after dying, the spirit of the Phrygian vegetation god Attis entered a pine tree. That’s hardly a bodily resurrection.

Response 4: Christians had no need to borrow the concept of resurrection from paganism since they already had it in Judaism.

Unlike pagans, first-century Jews generally believed in a resurrection—the Sadducees being an exception (Acts 23:8). Martha reassures Jesus of her belief that her brother Lazarus will “rise again in the resurrection at the last day” (John 11:24). This is no surprise, given that the Jewish prophets foretold it (Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2), and her Jewish ancestors believed it (2 Macc. 7:23).

If the Jews believed in the concept of resurrection, then Christians would not have needed to go outside their Jewish culture to borrow the concept of resurrection when such a concept was already a part of it. The appeal to an outside source would be unnecessary.

The question is not “where did the early Christians get the idea of a resurrection?” Rather, given their Jewish culture, the question is “where did they get the idea of someone rising before the general resurrection at the end of time?” We should also ask why the early Christians believed in a resurrected Messiah. As N.T. Wright explains in his book The Resurrection of the Son of God, these beliefs were not part of Jewish theology in the first century. The only adequate explanation of these facts is Jesus’ resurrection.

Christianity is not a copycat religion. The “dying and rising god” objection doesn’t discredit the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ resurrection. Although, by itself, this doesn’t show that Jesus was raised, it does show that Christianity’s central claim is not taken from pagan myth.

KJP Crosses a Bright Red Line at White House – Critics Accuse Her of Incitement Charge

What’s Happening:

Not that long ago, a horrific school shooting took the life of six Americans. Three of those Americans were children. Americans have mourned the loss of life, which took place in a Christian school in Nashville.

Such terrible events require a response from our leaders. Unfortunately, the White House’s response has been non-existent. Joe Biden has done nothing to assure Christians that targeted attacks like this won’t happen again. And now, his press secretary crossed a shocking line.

From Fox News:

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre sparked outrage on Thursday after she praised “fierce” kids who are transgender for their ability to “fight back.” […]

“A trans person killed three Christian children just over a week ago and now the White House is now telling them to fight back,” State Freedom Caucus Network communications director Greg Price tweeted…

“This kind of rhetoric helped cause Nashville… At least by liberals’ own logic,” Conservative writer Pradheep J. Shanker wrote, tagging Jean-Pierre in the tweet.

Unbelievable. The White House is making it clear what side they are on. The press secretary praised transgender young people who “fight back” against Americans who oppose this vile ideology. Jean-Pierre even criticized red states which passed laws to protect children from predators who would force transgenderism onto them.

Not a word about Christians being targeted by killers. Not a condemnation of a radical group that seeks to mutilate children, brainwash vulnerable students, and encourage violence against dissenters.

This kind of aggression wasn’t unique to the Nashville shooter. Across America, transgender activists encourage their comrades to “fight back.” They claim anyone who disagrees with their radical views are threats to their existence.

And now, we have someone from the White House calling on these unhealthy young people to fight those who disagree with them.

Why wouldn’t we expect some of them to pick up guns and shoot Christians? KJP could be responsible for the next mass shooting with this reckless talk. Democrats have long accused Republicans of “inciting violence.”

Shouldn’t we hold KJP to the same standard? Why shouldn’t she be fired for saying this?

Key Takeaways:

• White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, called on transgenders to “fight back.”
• This comes just days after a transgender murdered six Americans in a Christian school.
• KJP is an LGBT activist who is seemingly encouraging violence against Americans.