Education, History, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Words Of Division

9 Comments

Heather McDonald, on Biden’s inaugural address.

Do they seriously believe this post-modern campus-speak and white bashing is going to unify us (not that I agree with the goal)?

[Update late morning]

Against unity.

You know who likes unity? Tyrants.

[Friday-morning update]

Biden’s militarized inauguration showcased Democrats’ insecurity.

[Update a while later]

Link fixed, sorry.

9 thoughts on “Words Of Division”

  1. But, but, but, Chris Wallace said it was the best Inaugural Address he’d ever heard!

  2. “Unity”, eh?
    “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” — Benito Mussolini

  3. The problem with Williamson here is that he claims Lyin’ Biden won the election. If he is too afraid to say “stole the election”, does he not have the fortitude to put “won” in quotes? 70 million Americans don’t believe this was a legitimate election.

    2. I probably have all the same doubts you have about all the shenanigans, legal and illegal, that took place in this election. But I’m afraid it’s time to admit that the states certified the electors, the electors cast their votes, and the Congress counted those votes, all in the manner prescribed in the Constitution. We are a federal republic, and if officials in Ohio or Pennsylvania did not follow their own rules, it’s up to the people of Ohio or Pennsylvania to make them answer for it. We cannot stop the Federal Government in its tracks while they do that (or do not do that).

      Williamson rightly observes that there is plenty to oppose Biden on regardless of what we think about how he got there. We will have better luck convincing our fellow citizens on these points if we don’t sound like conspiracy nuts. (I’m not saying you are one, just that you’ll sound like one even to some people who are very close to your wavelength.)

      1. Saying Biden and the Democrats cheated isn’t the same as saying Biden isn’t President.

        You not wanting to look like a conspiracy nut doesn’t matter because the people who apply that label do so regardless of what your beliefs are. Russian Collusion? Not a conspiracy theory or disinformation and permitted on all newscasts and social media. Literally anything you say about Biden will be labeled as disinformation and conspiracy theories.

        The attack is meant to silence, it has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of what you say. The same is true for calling people racist.

        I’m not sure the best way to persuade people but whatever way you choose to go, you have to know that nothing you do will prevent the media and Democrats from calling you racist, a conspiracy nut, or any of the other attacks they make because the making the attack is their form of persuasion and nothing you do will stop them from using this strategy.

        It isn’t a good idea to dwell on the past, but we shouldn’t be silent and we certainly should work for imcreasing election integrity or that past will be our future.

        1. We got an example of that in this exchange between George Stephanopolus and Rand Paul. George seems hung up on the fact that no courts ruled in favor of fraud, hence no fraud occurred. Where fraud by his definition means anything that could have changed the results of the election. Rand points out that at least some of the courts did not rule based on the evidence presented but dismissed the cases on procedural matters. Rand hammers away at the fact that in Blue States the Secretaries of State changed the election laws w/o prior approval of their state legislatures, a clear violation of the rules as established in the Constitution and hence illegal. That this issue hasn’t been brought to trial and adjudicated in the courts does not change the fact of what happened. This is the point Rand is trying to make, not whether or not it would have changed the results of this election, but that it is far more important to restore confidence in our election system to the 75 million Americans that have lost confidence because of stories of these shenanigans. And these things are provable facts, not propaganda. Geo. S I guess thinks this is all a matter of “de-programming”. Rand is also right to point out that the objective “journalist” would present two people to argue the case and not inject themselves into the story by taking sides and claiming a monopoly on the facts. You may not have thought much of David Brinkley, but I believe this exchange had him rolling in his grave….

          https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/01/24/stephanopoulos_vs_paul_on_2020_you_immediately_assume_were_all_liars_there_are_two_sides_to_every_story.html#!

Comments are closed.