“This Warm Winter, Austinites Can Look Out Their Windows And See Climate Change,” a headline from Austin’s NPR station read last February.

“Experts say, people should get used to such sights,” the article suggested. It might be a little harder to see those sights from the record-setting snowstorm that just buried Austin.
Even this January, the experts were still touting a warmer winter in Austin. The pivot from warning that global warming was causing a warmer winter to blaming it for the snowstorm came with the snow.

“A Warmer Austin: The Future is Here,” a high-profile story from the Austin-American Statesman declared last February. A Sierra Club organizer pushing green energy warned that "warmer winters" would have a "disproportionate effect" on "low-income people of color."

Now, “low-income people of color” are dying of carbon monoxide poisoning because of a green energy grid with windmills that don’t turn, solar panels that don’t work under snow, and battery power which holds its charge in freezing temperatures about as well as your phone does.

Defying expectations and experts, Austin recorded its lowest temperature in 33 years and its deepest snowfall in 55 years. Warmer winters weren’t the future. The future was plowing through 6 inches of snow in a city that was expecting warmer, not colder weather.

The experts are back to crediting the snowstorm to ‘climate change’. Replacing God with Gaia means that every bit of weather is evidence of man’s sinful industrial nature. But up until last year, the Church of Climate Change had been predicting warmer winters and Democrat policymakers in Austin and in Texas cities controlled by the Democrats had counted on it.

The Texas Observer had cited the National Climate Assessment, which it described as "the result of three years of work by more than 300 government officials, academics and researchers", telling readers to brace for "prolonged droughts" and "warmer winters".

Reports like the Geos Institute's "Hot Enough Yet? The Future of Extreme Weather in Austin, Texas" spread alarmism about the climate of tomorrow. Fear of global warming and expectations of a climate that was hotter and drier helped drive the adoption of green energy.

Solar panels and wind turbines seemed like a good idea for a state that was expected to look more like Arizona. And little effort was made to prepare wind turbines for coping with weather conditions that global warming experts had been telling Texans were a thing of the past.

“By the end of the century, there might be as few as four freezing nights a year in Austin,” was typical of the sort of media pablum that policymakers and many residents had come to absorb.

Why bother planning for snowstorms when the future is going to be warm and snowless?

The snowstorm that hit Austin wouldn’t get a second glance in much of the country. But the difference is that Austin leaders and residents had absorbed the idea that they didn’t need to prepare for snow. They had been told, over and over again that the oracle of science had predicted that winters would be warm and that snow was becoming an artifact of the past.

Why get ready for a snowstorm that ‘science’ has told you will no longer be an issue?

Green Energy isn’t really green. The fundamental shift ushered in by so-called renewables is a move away from ‘brown energy’ and power supplies based on resources that can be mined, to ‘green energy’ which depends on the weather: on sunshine, on wind, and on tides. Weather is a much less reliable basis for an energy grid than coal, gas, nuclear, or any resource fuel.

What happened in Texas isn’t extraordinary. It’s inevitable.

When weather is your energy source, then your power grid depends on the weather. Environmentalists insist that global warming will make the weather more erratic and then propose that the solution is to switch over to power sources that depend on the weather.

That an argument so counterintuitive and self-contradictory could have become the basis for a trillion-dollar industry subsidized by taxpayers is a testament to the madness of the elites.

The Texas storm laid bare the paradoxes of green energy in swaths of white over every road.

The artificial boom of green energy has become another of those bubbles that is too big to fail. The imaginary crisis of global warming requires more subsidies for solar panels and wind turbines. The net effect of injecting more of that ‘green energy’ into a power grid is to make it less reliable and more prone to failure. The experts try to compensate for that with more solar panels and more wind turbines, and more batteries, while extending the grid even wider, so that there are more failure points, less reliable energy, and higher prices for whatever power you get.

This isn’t an accident. It’s a calculated strategy for lowering power usage by raising prices. And meanwhile the experts, the consultants, and the donor class cash in on the green subsidies.

None of this can actually be said out loud.

David Ismay, a California lawyer who had been working as the undersecretary for climate change, was forced to resign after he was caught ranting, "60% of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you, the person on your street, the senior on fixed-income. Right now, there is no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts, to point the finger at and turn the screws on and now break their will, so they stop emitting. That’s you. We have to break your will.”

Green energy’s higher energy prices break the public’s will to heat and cool their homes, much as higher gas prices break their will to drive to the grocery store, higher car prices make it less likely that the public will buy an SUV instead of a compact car. Don’t think of solar panels, wind turbines, and electric cars as an actual solution, but as a way to break the will of the public.

And enrich the breakers.

After the disaster in Texas, green energy advocates are insisting that the problem wasn’t enough ‘green energy’. What Texas really needed was more solar panels covered by snow and more wind turbines that wouldn’t spin. Not to mention more interdependence with other states.

“The infrastructure failures in Texas are quite literally what happens when you *don’t* pursue a Green New Deal,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez tweeted. This counterintuitive argument is typical of the counterintuitive arguments for most environmentalist and leftist policies.

The defenders of everything from the Soviet Union to police defunding insist that their preferred policy was never implemented in its purest form. The Soviet Union failed to truly eliminate all private property. Crime is only skyrocketing because the police haven’t been fully defunded.

If Texas had switched entirely to solar panels, no amount of snow would have shut it down.

But, as AOC's chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti had said of the Green New Deal, “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

And the economy has been changed by becoming dependent on a green energy bubble.

Millions lost power in Texas, as they had previously lost power in California, because the radicals want to change the economy. It’s about the political climate, not the actual climate.

That’s why environmentalist discourse easily shifts from forecasting a new age of warm winters to endless blizzards. The political prophecies of global warming have little to do with science. And they change as rapidly as the weather does, but they rarely keep up with the weather.

“Is Texas’s Disaster a Harbinger of America’s Future?” an article about Austin declaims.

Yes, but not for any of the reasons inside the article. Environmentalists have trashed America’s industries while promising to replace dirty energy with clean energy. But their energy isn’t clean and their finances are even dirtier. The new emerging green energy grid, funded and championed by Democrats at every level of government, is erratic, expensive, and unreliable.

Worse still, traditional weather forecasting models are being abandoned for political global warming models that forecast huge environmental changes. And that leaves cities, states, and the entire country unprepared when the weather doesn’t follow John Kerry’s memo.

The weather is apolitical. Rain and snow, sunshine and droughts don’t have a manifesto.

The Left politicized weather. Now our weather forecasting models have been rebuilt to follow their political predictions. And they’re becoming as worthless as Soviet agricultural forecasts.

The lesson of Texas is that when you politicize the weather, you won’t see the snow coming.

"We have 11 million undocumented people living, working and raising families in our communities without legal status," Senator Robert Menendez argued, introducing the Biden illegal alien amnesty bill that he had sponsored. "These are good and decent people."

Menendez, who was tried for, among other things, allegedly taking bribes to help his millionaire Dominican donor obtain visas for his model ‘girlfriends’, knows a lot about immigration.

He also knows quite a bit about the goodness and decency of illegal aliens.

Menendez’s office was caught employing an illegal alien intern who was also a registered sex offender. The intern, Luis Abrahan Sanchez Zavaleta, had come from Peru on a tourist visa which had expired. Luis proved his goodness and decency by molesting an 8-year-old boy.

The South American child molester however was an unpaid intern because there are some jobs, like interning for Senator Menendez, that even American child molesters won’t do.

Luis had repeatedly sexually assaulted an 8-year-old boy. He was charged with "aggravated sexual assault" which under the state criminal code involves "an act of sexual penetration." Since this was New Jersey, a state run by Democrats and the mob, the Menendez intern only received two years probation and was not turned over to ICE until after he tried to apply for Obama’s DACA illegal alien amnesty.

When ICE finally got wind of it and was ready to send the illegal alien child molester back to Peru, its New Jersey agents were told to stand down by the Obama officials running immigration in Washington D.C. because Menedez was up for reelection in two weeks and the Democrats wanted to avoid an arrest that risked “garnering significant congressional and media interest”

Obama officials denied everything and Senator Menendez borrowed Obama’s favorite line, claiming that he had only heard that his office had an illegal alien child molester from the news.

But Menendez whined that employing an illegal alien child molester made amnesty more urgent.

"It does speak volumes about why we need comprehensive immigration reform," Senator Menendez had argued. "I can't know who is here to pursue the American dream versus who is here to do it damage if I cannot get people to come forth out of the shadows."

The shadows being those of his own office which failed to check the sex offender registry. We can deport illegal alien child molesters without offering amnesty to millions of illegals.

Now, Senator Menendez has introduced the illegal alien amnesty bill championed by the Biden administration which would provide amnesty for at least 11 million or as many as 22 million illegal aliens and ensure a rapid pathway to legal status for DACA applicants like Luis.

Menendez has always been passionate about immigration. He was so passionate about it that he ended up being indicted on 8 counts of bribery, for, among other things, helping a millionaire Dominican immigrant donor in his sixties get visas for his twenty-something model “girlfriends”.

According to the indictment, Senator Menedez got “access to an exclusive Dominican resort” and the “use of a Carribean villa”, not to mention $750,000 in cash to Democrats. Then there was a trip to Paris for Menendez with a “woman with whom he had a personal relationship”.

Senator Menendez also "used his position as a United States Senator” to “influence the visa proceedings” for his donor’s “foreign girlfriends", according to the indictment. These girlfriends allegedly included Juliana Lopes Leite, an actress and model from Brazil, on whose behalf Menendez's senior policy advisor told the State Department that he wanted to "advocate unconditionally" and "encourage careful consideration" of her visa application.

While she came to America on a student visa, Menendez met her as his donor's girlfriend.

Then there was Rosiell Polanco Suero, a Dominican model, who, along with her sister, wanted to come to America. Menendez's office sent an email to the Consul General in the Dominican Republic urging him to approve their visas. When their applications were turned down, Menendez applied the screws and the sisters got a call telling them to come in for a second hearing.

“Subj: Two people from the D.R. who wanted visas to visit Dr. Melgen got them. In my view this is only due to the fact that R.M. intervened,” read an email sent to Daniel O’Brien, Menendez’s chief of staff. O’Brien had formerly worked as the chief of staff for Senator Joe Biden.

Finally, there was Svitlana Buchyk, a Urkranian model and actress living in Spain on whose behalf Menendez wrote another letter.

You’ve gotta give Senator Menedez credit for caring about model immigrants.

“Certain elements of the FBI and of our state cannot stand, or even worse, accept that the Latino kid from Union City and Hudson County could grow up to be a United States senator and be honest,” the New Jersey senator declared, blaming his legal misfortunes on racism.

After spending over $5 million on his legal defense, Menendez’s trial ended in a hung jury and he’s now the public face of Biden’s amnesty push while lecturing us about the goodness and decency of illegal aliens. If we won’t agree, then like the FBI and the investigators who put him on trial, we’re also racists who hate a “Latino kid” who has spent 47 years “working” in politics.

Just like Joe Biden.

It’s no wonder that Biden picked another member of the “47 Years in Politics” club to be the public face of his campaign to kill American jobs and eliminate any hope for the future.

Unlike the Latin American and Ukranian “models” eager to come to America and party with Senator Menendez’s donor three times their age, his illegal alien advocacy wouldn’t just harm the domestic prostitution industry, but would steal the jobs and dreams of millions of Americans.

It would also boost domestic crime and potentially enable child molesters like his former intern.

What does it say about the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, Biden’s illegal alien amnesty bill, that it was introduced by Senator Menendez, who had stood trial on bribery charges, and in the House by Rep. Linda Sanchez, whose husband had been indicted over the alleged theft of taxpayer funds?

"I am the daughter of immigrant parents from Mexico. They came to this country and they work hard and they sacrificed every day to provide for me and my brothers and sisters," Rep. Linda Sanchez claimed. "Their story is like the story of so many others."

Like so many others, Rep. Linda Sanchez, and her sister, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, who had run for office by telling her bigoted voters that, “the Vietnamese and the Republicans are… trying to take this seat”, built careers in politics. Linda, who represents a district in California, married the chair of the Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Corporation who was lobbying her colleague.

Linda’s husband allegedly took $800,000 from CMEEC and spent it on trips to the Kentucky Derby and a flight for Linda to Key West, Florida. Sanchez claimed that her Kentucky Derby trip had been okayed by the House Ethics Committee. It’s a story like so many others.

It’s hard to think of two worse rotten hacks to be the public face for Biden’s illegal alien amnesty.

Biden’s illegal alien amnesty will sail through the House, but faces challenges in the Senate. Its champion there will be a politician who was tried for bribery involving abuse of the immigration system and whose child molesting illegal alien intern had been protected from ICE.

Senator Menendez is the perfect man for the job because he’s the epitome of abusing the immigration system. And somewhere in New Jersey are the parents of a boy abused by his intern, an illegal alien who should have been deported long before he could commit his crime.

How many more little boys will be abused by the beneficiaries of Biden’s illegal alien amnesty?

Verizon is a $200 billion corporation and Cornel West is the author of “The Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought”. Verizon is one of the biggest companies in America, while West claims to hate corporations so much that he taunted Obama as a “Rockefeller Republican in blackface”.

But Verizon’s Yahoo subsidiary is working together with the infamous socialist who had praised Venezulean butcher Hugo Chavez as part of its #YahooAllyshipPledge which vows to connect “diverse creators” with “thought leaders, nonprofits and activists, including Dr. Cornel West.”

West got a doctorate in philosophy for his aforementioned dissertation on the ethical dimensions of an ideology that killed millions of people in which he mentioned “the profound tragedy of the epochal change in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe” and argued that, “Marxist thought becomes even more relevant after the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union.”

The Nation of Islam may be the largest racist religion in America. It is certainly the most influential with Louis Farrakhan’s original Million Man March drawing some 400,000 racists and allies of the hate group, including a young Barack Obama, who would later be photographed as a senator with the black supremacist leader at a Congressional Black Caucus event.

House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn, the third highest ranking Democrat, and the kingmaker who got Biden the Democrat nomination and the White House, had thanked Farrakhan for, "offering up a number of precepts that we ought to adhere to.”

Clyburn is one of a number of congressional Democrats who have Nation of Islam links.

Despite a history of violent terrorism by the Nation of Islam and its spinoff groups, its racist theology which believes that white people are subhuman devils who will be killed off, and its antisemitism and conspiracy theories, the hate group is also incredibly culturally influential.

Black Nationalist theology, politics and culture are built on the ideas of the Nation of Islam.

Raphael Warnock, the Senate Democrat from Georgia, said, “its voice has been important for the development of black theology.” He neglected to mention that he meant black nationalist theology of the kind trafficked in by Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s mentor, a Farrakhan supporter, and another ally of Warnock’s whose bigotry the Democrat politician had defended.

Culturally, a long list of musicians and other entertainers are fans of the Nation of Islam. The violent racism of Amiri Baraka (“dagger poems in the slimy bellies of the owner-Jews”), (“I got the extermination blues, jew-boys. I got the Hitler syndrome figured”), and (“Rape the white girls. Rape / their fathers. Cut the mothers’ throats”), distilled Nation of Islam theology into poetry.

“Jews double crossers stole our secrets crossed the white desert to spill them,” the former Poet Laureate of New Jersey wrote in The Black Man is Making New Gods. "The fag’s death they gave us on a cross… they give us to worship a dead jew and not ourselves.”

This is a brief summary of the narcissistic black supremacist theology of the Nation of Islam which believes that an evil Jewish mad scientist named Yakub (Jacob) used eugenics to create Europeans, Indians, and Asians from the original black master race after leaving Mecca.

That Baraka is remembered as a respected poet, that his hatefilled rants that would have made Goebbels blanch are taught in academic settings, is a tribute to how black nationalism mainstreamed hatred and the racist theology of the Nation of Islam into academia.

One of the most fundamental beliefs of the Nation of Islam is that white people aren’t human.

Some may remember Malcolm X ranting about white devils, at least until he dropped the NOI, in part over its alliance with the KKK, converted to normative Sunni Islam and was murdered by the Nation of Islam, but treated it as a commentary on segregation and racism in America.

That’s a dangerous mistake.

The Nation of Islam literarily believes that white people are an illegitimate race of devils created by a mad scientist who are “made by nature a liar and a murderer”. That belief is no longer confined to the racist hate group. It spilled into what Warnock misleadingly calls, “black theology” and into the foundational texts of what is even more misleadingly called “antiracism”.

As antiracism has taken off on college campuses and at major corporations, the old NOI belief that white people are not human has become the heart of a new breed of diversity training.

A Middlebury College lecture titled, Facilitate the Demilitarization of White Bodies, argues that, "Whiteness must be demilitarized so that bodies designated as ‘White’ might become human."

Antiracist rhetoric that defines white people as non-human is commonplace in academic settings. For example, a University of St. Thomas course titled, “Becoming Human”, insists that “The only way to “become human” is to confront the legacy of white supremacy”. Its implicitly oppressive message is that people of all races and creeds who don’t define their sense of self through the warped funhouse Marxist mirror of critical race theory are not truly human.

Online antiracist seminars offer white people the ability to “Re-Become Human” by “healing from internalized whiteness”. While antiracism buries its dehumanization of white people and minorities opposed to the toxic racism of critical race theory under a slew of academic jargon and intersectional buzzwords, its underlying worldview is cultish and derived from a racist cult.

The Nation of Islam adopted and inverted racist white supremacist ideas. Its theology is a grabag of random elements looted from Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, along with a Science Fiction racialism assembled in an era when pseudoscientic mythologies had begun to pervade popular culture and breeding a master race through eugenics appeared to be on the horizon.

Antiracism not only doesn’t teach you how not to be racist, but is a bad copy of a bad copy of the KKK, which the Nation of Islam had allied with, and Hitler, whom black nationalists from Marcus Garvey to Louis Farrakhan had admired, run through an academic jargon filter.

Critical race theory is built around black nationalism. That’s why it explicitly rejects Martin Luther King Jr’s call for brotherhood and instead champions racial separatism and original sin. And black nationalism is just a copy of white nationalism complete with a master race and inferior races. The difference between racism and antiracism is that racists don’t deny they’re racist.

The much more fundamental difference between liberal tolerance and leftist antiracism is that the former believed that the core issue was hatred while the latter formulated it as power. That Marxist reading of race was destined to defeat the religious inflection of the old liberalism.

At stake are irreconcilable questions about hate, equality, and the nature of the society we want.

The old civil rights movement argued that we could achieve equality by letting go of hate. Black nationalist movements and their leftist allies found hate uplifting and didn’t want equality. The fusion of tribal racial hatred on one side of the partnership and Marxist reductionism on the other birthed a racist movement dedicated to perpetuating racism while calling itself antiracist.

Antiracism offers both black nationalists and white leftists what they want. Black nationalists receive uncritical affirmations of racial superiority and a license to hate, while white leftists are encouraged to dismantle their civilizations from buildings and statues to language and mores, in the name of combating a concept of whiteness that encompasses thousands of years of history.

The pivot for both sides is an idea copied from white supremacists by black supremacists.

The racist origins of antiracism are why its ideas inescapably manifest as racism. A movement whose guiding lights are racial supremacy and racial inferiority is not going to stop being racist, even if you pack it with academic jargon and then make sure to put “anti” in front of the “racism”.

The only way to pass off antiracism as anything other than racist is by redefining racism.

Antiracism, like every form of racism, distinguishes between justified and unjustified hatreds based on the moral superiority of one group and the moral inferiority of other groups.

Declaring white people to be less than human because they’re racist isn’t antiracism.

It’s still racism.

Nor is it some sophisticated idea processed through academia. It’s an argument put forward a century ago by the Nation of Islam, along with its fantasies about mad scientists creating the moon and white people, while its Shabazz leaders used Africa to breed a superior master race.

Racism is not, as white supremacists and their black supremacist imitators argue, our destiny. Hating other people is a choice that we make. Stopping it doesn’t require training, consultants, or a curriculum. Like any bad behavior, we can choose to stop it any time we want to.

Antiracism doesn’t stop racism. It enables the bad behavior while pretending to be fighting it. It’s the equivalent of giving an alcoholic a bottle of whiskey while labeling it “anti-whiskey”.

Confusing the issue with jargon, or by treating whiteness and blackness as not just races, but social concepts that permeate everything, doesn’t change the racist outcome. And the best evidence of whether an idea is racist is whether spreading it leads to more or less hatred.

Antiracism has made America a lot more racist and racially divided than it was in a long time.

“We are not in favor of giving a vote to the negro, because we believe that he is not fit to enjoy that right,” Senator Allen G. Thurman once said.

These days, even while Democrats topple the statues of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, two men that Thurman hated, the old dead racist has become the basis for the unconstitutional Democrat campaign to impeach President Trump after leaving office.

Thurman, who was picked by the Democrats as their nominee for Vice President, had played a major role in the sole case of the Senate deciding to impeach a public official after leaving office. The Democrat case for impeaching President Trump rests on that one case.

And on Thurman.

Legal partisans have spent weeks debating whether President Trump can be impeached after leaving office. Every single one of these analyses is heavy on rhetoric and light on precedent.

There’s a very good reason for that.

Impeachment exists to remove officials who are in office. The brilliant legal scholars who argue otherwise might want to put down their law books and check a dictionary. Impeachment shares its origin with the more commonplace word, ‘impede’. The whole point of impeachment is to impede public officials from holding office by using legislators as investigators and courts.

The post-office impeachment arguments remind me of the movie, Gus, where a mule is allowed to play professional football because the referee can’t find anything in the rulebook that says the players can’t be mules. Every argument for impeaching President Trump comes down to the same position that mules can play football because the Constitution never says they can’t.

“It makes no sense whatsoever that the president or any official could commit heinous crimes against our country and then defeat our impeachment powers and avoid the vote on disqualification by simply resigning," Senator Schumer argued.

Like saying, “You can’t fire me, I quit”, that gets the same result.

The purpose of impeachment is removing an official from office. If he quits, then he’s removed. And if he committed “heinous crimes” then a court of law could try him for those offenses.

Democrats are obsessed with removing President Trump from an office he no longer holds, but their only precedent for that is the impeachment of Belknap, Grant’s Secretary of War, who was tried and acquitted by the Senate after leaving office.

“The Senate convened a trial, and voted, as a chamber, that Mr. Belknap could be tried ‘for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office.’ The language is crystal clear, without any ambiguity,” Schumer blotivated. “The history and precedent is clear: the Senate has the power to try former officials.”

Schumer is quoting a resolution by Senator Allen Thurman, who opposed President Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation and campaigned against allowing black people to vote. But that’s just the old Democrat habit of refighting the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. Even while accusing President Trump of sedition, the Democrat cause is wedded to sedition.

The Democrat precedent for impeaching President Trump is a resolution put forward by a Senate Democrat who had opposed the Grant administration because he was a violent racist. Senator Thurman had previously delivered a speech to the Democratic State Convention in West Virginia declaring that Republicans wanted "to put the heel of the negro upon the neck of the white man" with the 14th Amendment.

That’s the Constitutional scholar on whose resolution the Democrat impeachment crusade rests.

If Schumer and the Democrats are going to use Thurman’s resolution as a constitutional precedent, making him the arbiter of what the Framers thought, then they must share his opinion of the 14th Amendment and allowing black people to vote. That would be consistent.

Eight years before the impeachment of Belknap, Thurman was warning that there would be another civil war, leading to "a war of races in the South and the extermination of the negro".

Thurman went on to argue that black people were inferior, couldn’t be allowed to vote, and that they were little more than brutes who would be killed if they kept demanding equal rights.

This is the author of the Democrat precedent for trying President Trump after leaving office.

Senator Thurman’s opposition to President Grant and attempts to smear his administration had everything to do with his racism and support for the Confederacy, rather than the rule of law.

The sole Democrat precedent for post-office impeachment comes from a racist who was threatening the country with a second civil war, and the extermination of black people, and was waging a political war against President Grant because he had defeated the Confederacy.

It’s not just Schumer. The Belknap trial and the Thurman resolution have been widely quoted.

Every time the media trots out a legal expert to explain why President Trump can be impeached, he turns to the Belknap trial and the Thurman resolution as if they were the Constitution.

The legal experts, like Schumer, don’t discuss how the Belknap trial concluded.

There were only enough votes to impeach Secretary of War Belknap in the first place because legislators argued that Belknap had resigned to avoid impeachment. But the Senate acquitted Belknap because its members believed that a former official couldn’t actually be impeached.

Impeachment failed because 23 senators voted, “not guilty for want of jurisdiction.”

Not only did the Belknap trial fail because Schumer was wrong, but the entire premise doesn’t even apply. Had Belknap’s term naturally expired, there would have been no impeachment.

It was only because Belknap had so blatantly resigned to avoid impeachment that his behavior was so provocative that he was illegally impeached to avoid creating a bad example.

When your only real precedent for trying a former president in American history is one case from 1876 of a cabinet official that was highly controversial at the time and ultimately failed, you’re gonna need a whole lot more precedents to actually impeach a former president.

Especially when your only real basis for it is a resolution by a Democrat racist seditionist.

Impeaching elected officials can be political theater or serve a legitimate purpose. Impeaching former officials is never anything except political theater. That’s true of the campaign to paint the Grant administration as corrupt which helped pave the way for a Democrat revival by smearing a generation of Republican officials associated with the Grant administration as crooked thieves.

The ultimate goal of that plot was the restoration of Democrat power and of segregation.

Democrats failed to make their case in actual courts, but holding hearings and an absurd impeachment tainted President Grant and Republicans in the eyes of the American public. Grant would labor, even while dying of cancer, to finish his memoirs, provide for his family and redeem his reputation from the Democrat smear campaigns of Grant Derangement Syndrome.

That’s the playbook that Democrats are following in their campaign against President Trump.

If the Democrats believe that President Trump is actually guilty of committing the crimes for which the Constitution says that can be impeached, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors", then why not bring them into a court of law?

Democrats and their legal hounds have generated numerous investigations. New York has been drowning in blood while Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance have spent their time inventing new Trump investigations. And those haven’t fared very well.

The US Attorney’s office in Manhattan is done with the “Individual-1” investigation that Democrats had been claiming would “lock up” President Trump. But surely if the Democrats claim to have evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, their allies in the FBI and among federal prosecutors would be happy to see them. Why settle for a mere impeachment and disqualification when the Democrats could finally fulfill their dream of seeing him behind bars?

Especially when they’re almost certain to lose their latest impeachment again in the Senate.

Instead, the Democrats claim that they have evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, but clearly don’t expect these “high crimes and misdemeanors” to be actionable in an actual court.

Courts try people for actual crimes. Impeachments are political proceedings.

Every single presidential impeachment in our history was a political proceeding. The proliferation of impeachments and attempted impeachments in recent American history is a symptom of partisan abuse of legislative powers, not of higher ethical standards.

The Framers of the Constitution wanted impeachment to be taken seriously.

Impeachment was meant to keep the government clean, instead the government is hopelessly dirty, and impeachment has become a tool for making it even dirtier and keeping it dirty.

The Democrats are turning America into Venezuela, endlessly borrowing and spending money that doesn’t exist, while keeping the streets full of soldiers, and using security powers against political opponents, while their Big Tech oligarchy suppresses opposition political speech.

Washington D.C. is full of razor wire and military checkpoints through impeachment. Impeachment may be doomed, but it provides another justification for extending a manufactured state of emergency. And if any violence does take place, that will extend the D.C. occupation.

Even Chief Justice Roberts, no friend of the Trump administration, has refused to preside over what he clearly doesn’t think is a legal presidential impeachment process. The same Democrats who universally voted for an unconstitutional 25th Amendment coup couldn’t care less. When you’ve got troops in the streets and control over the government, the law is what you make of it.

Those are high crimes and misdemeanors. Maybe the impeachers should impeach themselves.

When a video of an assault on a 91-year-old Asian man went viral, the media and civil rights groups were quick to blame President Trump for using the term, “Chinese Virus”.

"We stand with our Asian American & Pacific Islander community against the rising tide of racism and hate crimes that have been stoked to a fever pitch, much of amplified by the actions of our last president," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez tweeted another false accusation.

But when the perpetrator was arrested, he turned out to be Muslim.

Yahya Muslim had allegedly attacked a 60-year-old man and a 55-year-old woman the same day. His arrest told a larger story about why Asian people are really being attacked in Oakland.

Muslim had been convicted of "assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury" in October 14, 2020 and was let off with an "unsentenced term". He had also been convicted of the same charge in 2015 and got off with probation. Had he been locked up, the 91-year-old man he attacked would have been safe. California’s Democrat establishment and its media allies falsely blamed Trump for their own support for criminals like Muslim at the expense of their victims.

Oakland’s Chinatown had suffered over 20 attacks against the elderly and women in two weeks.

The wave of attacks against Asian people in Oakland, like the previous attacks in New York that I documented, are being carried out by minorities with a criminal record, not by conservatives.

The cause of the crisis is a crime wave fueled by Democrat support for career criminals.

California Democrats legalized shoplifting. Some of the videos capture criminals boldly stealing money and property from stores while knowing that nothing is going to happen to them.

And nothing does.

Some of the criminals escalated their attacks from robbing stores to mugging the elderly. And the same Democrat politicians who supported legalizing robbing stores expressed concern.

But when Democrat DAs free criminals as soon as they’re arrested, when they even bother arresting them at all, when someone like Yahya Muslim could be convicted twice of "assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury" without ever serving time, that’s inevitable.

In January, there were 15 murders in Oakland, up from only one murder in January of last year.

The Oakland City Council had voted to create a task force to defund the police department by half. The actual defunding proposal was narrowly voted down with Councilwoman Sheng Thao voting for defunding. A month later, after a murder at a Starbucks, Thao was calling for the police to walk the beat again.

“Let’s commit to shifting at least $25 million from OPD to community programs and services that truly keep us safe,” Councilwoman Nikki Fortunato Bas had argued.

“We need to invest in those other types of safety,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez had argued in favor of police defunding.

How safe does anyone in Chinatown feel?

Biden’s spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, told reporters at a briefing that her boss was very concerned and had signed an executive order protecting Asians. That won’t do much good because Kristen Clarke, Biden’s black nationalist pick to head civil rights at the DOJ, opposed fighting civil rights violations by black perpetrators. That would include Muslim and most of the Oakland attackers.

Before Muslim's arrest, John C. Yang, the head of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), a leftist group, had been one of the loudest voices blaming President Trump.

The AAJC, like its Jewish counterparts, has worked to sell out the people it claims to represent for leftist causes, supporting Yale's policy of affirmative action discrimination against Asian students, and now opposes police protection for the Asian-American victims of crime.

In response to the wave of attacks, Yang claimed that, "increased police presence isn’t necessarily going to solve the problem" and claimed to be worried "about over-criminalization of communities," calling instead for "community-based solutions, assistance for the victims, assistance for the businesses that are damaged.” Anything except dealing with the criminals.

Meanwhile local business owners are hiring armed guards, forming volunteer patrols, and calling for a larger police presence. The disconnect between what Asian store owners in Oakland actually want and the media’s insistence on quoting Yang amplifies the disconnect.

Chinatown community members have been accused of “anti-blackness” for talking about the violence they’re facing in a city and state that no longer believe in fighting crime.

The problem is not, as Yang claims, “the virus of racism”, but the virus of crime.

In San Francisco, Vicha Ratanapakdee, an 84-year-old Thai man, was murdered in San Francisco by Antoine Watson who shoved him, causing the elderly man to hit his head, and then kept going. The victim's family described it as a racially motivated assault.

Soros DA Chesa Boudin promised them justice. Considering that Boudin's idea of justice is freeing all the criminals, that's not very likely. A local news station reported that 85% of San Francisco residents said that they feel unsafe. Boudin and the pro-crime policies of criminal justice reform, which put criminals ahead of their victims, are a big part of the problem.

Even while CNN, CBS, NBC, and other major media outlets falsely tried to connect President Trump to the attacks, it’s their own political movement that is at fault for the violence.

“The perpetrator in some cases has been African American,” San Francisco Mayor London Breed said. “And as an African American woman, as the mayor of your city, I am here to hold everyone accountable.”

Accountability has become a nebulous social justice term. It’s wormed its way into cancel culture and has been used to describe restorative justice alternatives to the justice system.

The criminals don’t need to be held accountable. They need to be arrested and locked up. It’s the politicians who embraced police defunding and who keep releasing criminals who need to be held accountable for making cities unsafe, and for costing lives by empowering criminals.

What is happening to Asians in Oakland is the same thing that’s been happening to Jews in Brooklyn. The long series of viral videos showing random assaults and muggings against both groups is the result of living under Democrat leaders who have decided that crime and racism by minorities don’t exist and that policing them is racist.

There would be no rash of assaults if the DAs and the police were allowed to do their job.

Democrats love talking about hate crimes, but there’s no ‘hate crime’ without a ‘crime’. Fighting hate without fighting crime leads to lots of press conferences and not a whole lot less.

The social justice activists, reporters, and politicians who jumped on the Oakland assaults tried to blame President Trump, but when the perpetrators turned out to be exactly the same people on whose behalf they had been fighting for years, they quickly backed away from the issue.

Until next time.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez tried to blame President Trump for the attacks on elderly Asians in a city whose politicians did their best to champion police defunding. If she wants someone to blame for the wave of crime against a vulnerable community, she can look in the mirror.

The American Left has never been this in love with science and the class of experts who claim to dispense it. Any of its obsessions gains a glow of legitimacy when it attaches, “according to science” somewhere in the sentence, usually preceded by “do this” or “if you aren’t.”

And yet there’s a great deal of interest in science in China, but it’s on the way out in America.

STEM is on the social justice chopping block, under siege on and off campus with demands for equity and diversity, that also translate into less science and more social justice. Science is denounced by social justice squads as the work of dead white men and the new leftist ideology rejects the idea that the sum of 2 and 2 consistently add up to anything except systemic racism.

Seattle public schools contend that western math is “used to disenfranchise​ people and communities of color.” A University of Illinois education professor insisted that, "mathematics itself operates as Whiteness."

"Our research papers turn into media releases, books and legislation that reinforce anti-Black narratives. In STEM, we create technologies that affect every part of our society and are routinely weaponized against Black people," Shut Down STEM insisted. “The evidence of systemic racism in science permeates this nation,” Science, the journal, claimed.

The inherent problem with science is that it requires objectivity. And objectivity is the thing that leftists hate for the same reason that any cult does. Objectivity asserts that we can find the truth by stepping back from our beliefs and emotions in any field from journalism to particle physics.

The Left insists that we don’t transcend our biases through objectivity, but subjectivity.

The politically correct way to discover the truth is by understanding your white privilege and deconstructing the history of human civilization, not by searching for evidence or proof.

Truth comes not from objective facts, but from the subjective “lived experiences” of oppressed minorities whose suffering acts as the revelation of truth. This isn’t truth in the scientific sense, but in the religious sense, with minorities as martyrs revealing our sins to us with their suffering.

To be objective, lefties insist is just to deny your prejudices and evade the important work of checking your white privilege in response to the revelation of minority suffering in America.

But if objectivity is impossible, and scientific objectivity is just whiteness and colonialism, then the only legitimate science is one that asserts that leftist beliefs and values are absolutely true. The Soviet Union attempted to police science, upholding Lysenkoism because it offered a vision of science as the Communist hierarchy wanted it to be, rather than as it was, while suppressing Cybernetics because it offered a vision of reality that the Party elite found threatening.

Communist bosses liked the idea of an easily malleable agricultural system, but disliked the notion of robots replacing workers. The actual science was secondary to the ideological biases of ignorant ideologues who were convinced that they already had access to a higher truth.

Sound familiar?

The Cold War pitted Western scientific objectivity against Eastern ideological subjectivity. And objectivity won. It won to such a degree that scientists in Moscow or Shanghai don’t bother consulting ideological texts like Stalin’s articles or Mao’s sayings before doing research.

But, objectivity is dying off in the West.

Accusations of “whiteness” are to American academia what denunciations of reactionary, cosmopolitan, or idealism were to Soviet scientists. These signals serve the same function, warning scientists that they’re treading on ideologically dangerous territory by pursuing the truth.

So why does the Left claim to love science when it hates it and is threatened by it?

Marxism started out as a bastardized impersonation of a pseudo-science. Time and countless revisions hasn’t improved it any. The Left loves the idea of science, as long as it reflects its agendas, and remains subservient to its crackpot ideas. Just leave the objectivity out of it.

The same war rages in journalism.

“American view-from-nowhere, ‘objectivity’-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment. We need to fundamentally reset the norms of our field. The old way must go. We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a place of moral clarity,” Wesley Lowery of the New York Times ranted.

Moral clarity is what the Communist apparatchiks also wanted. Their morality and their clarity.

Contrasting moral clarity and objectivity asserts that we can either be moral or search for the truth, but we cannot do both. Moral clarity demands unquestioning allegiance to a belief system. And that belief system must permeate whatever work we do, otherwise our work is immoral.

This quintessentially Communist idea was once relegated in America to certain cultural and academic bywaters, but is now becoming the central requirement for operating in public life.

It’s why corporations have rushed out absurd statements endorsing Black Lives Matter.

Morality, in leftist ideology, comes from politicising everything because the central struggle of humanity, which used to be class, and is currently race, and might, tomorrow, be sexuality, pervades everything in a pseudo-religious struggle for the redemption of mankind.

To be apolitical or objective is to deny the revelation that we must all join the struggle.

What is at stake is more than abstract ideas. The legacy of the Enlightenment divided individual morality from objective truth. Morality became personal and communal, instead of collective, and those beliefs became all the more precious when confronting a universe that did not always reflect them. The reaction to that universe destroyed the faith of some and upheld the faith of others. And some of those who lost their faith used false reason to manufacture another one.

That is where the Left came from. Its ideas sought to fuse together a collective morality and reality by insisting that it had discovered the principles that would make the world into utopia.

The seduction of the pseudo-scientific and pseudo-religious cult of the Left is that it offers theocracy without god. Its followers believe that they are battling for a moral order that is absolutely true, and that submitting to that moral order will resolve the conflicts of theodicy, restoring a moral universe that accords with our moral views. This is the tragic lie of the Left.

The utopian kingdom of heaven never arrives. The worse things get, the more society has to be purged of its evil ways to atone for its social sins. Pre-revolutionary era ideology reduced social failures to a single root cause, but even once the revolution arrives and the root cause of class warfare or racism is done away with, the system begins hunting for someone else to blame.

That is what we are living through now.

In its pseudo-religious and pseudo-scientific folly, the Left believes that suffering, that of its martyrs of class or race, or of the designated oppressors, represents truth. It attacks science by insisting that the suffering of the working class or of trans people of color represents a truth beyond the flawed reasoning of the human mind to which everyone is obligated to kneel.

Truth, it tells us, comes from empathy and guilt, not from stepping away from our emotions.

How we feel about something can represent a moral truth. But what we do about it requires objective reasoning. The Left’s rejection of that reality is why it always ends up failing.

The Left exploits other people’s misery for power and ego. It doesn’t want answers. It wants to transmute idealism into hate, fear, and guilt. That’s why it hates truth. Its bastardization of religion and science is a lie and its prophets and experts never explain their failures.

Objectivity enables a moral society to solve its problems. The Left is at war with objectivity because it doesn’t want those problems solved. Objectivity would take away its power.





Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

In his last year in office, Secretary of State John Kerry was touting the fact that he had traveled over 1.06 million miles and spent some 96 days in the air in the course of 3 years. The archived State Department site tallies Kerry's total record at 1,417,576 miles and 126 days in the air.

Kerry spent more time flying in 3 years than the average American would in 50 years.

When the Air Force Boeing 757 which ferried Kerry around the world broke down for the fourth time, the media and the foreign policy establishment treated it as some sort of accomplishment.

That might have amounted to something if the ketchup gigolo had done anything in that time except jet around the world to give speeches about the importance of not jetting around the world. Kerry kept racking up miles by flying to Morocco to address the 22nd UN Climate Change Conference, to Indonesia to deliver a speech denouncing unbelievers in global warming, and to Paris to warn that the earth was about to be destroyed if people didn’t stop living like him.

Kerry’s flights would have powered all the appliances in 50 American homes for a year.

"It's the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle," Kerry recently retorted when a reporter asked him about flying his private jet to Iceland to receive an environmental award. Environmentalists don’t fly coach or even first class. They jet set.

But sometimes you have to destroy the environment to save the environment.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry racked up 302 tons worth of CO2 emissions just from his flight time. Americans would have to burn 100 tons of coal to match the CO2 emissions from Kerry’s jaunts to save the world from people wanting to fly on vacation or heat their homes.

And as Biden’s new ‘Climate Envoy’, Kerry will soon be filling the sky with even more hot air.

Everyone from Moscow to the Middle East knew that Kerry was full of hot air, but not even they would have guessed that John Forbes Kerry was full of 302 tons of hot air. Don’t just think of Kerry as a politician, but as the Exxon Valdez with a “Save the Whales” sticker on the hull.

Biden’s ‘Climate Envoy’ recently argued that coal, oil, and gas workers needed to make better choices and make solar panels. In 2004, Kerry had won the endorsement of the United Mine Workers of America by promising to protect coal jobs. The UMWA didn’t even bother trying to endorse Biden, just as it didn’t try endorsing Obama or Hillary in 2012 and 2016.

The Democrats are militantly anti-coal now. Hillary Clinton had vowed to destroy coal and Kerry thinks coal miners ought to move to China and get jobs constructing toxic solar panels there.

But while the Democrats may be anti-coal, they’re pro-mansion and pro-private jet.

After the Obama regime ended, Kerry went back to using his own private jet to flit around the world, give speeches, and accept awards. Iceland was just one stop on the Kerry world tour.

And then it was back to one of his portfolio of mansions.

“Local sea levels are rising twice as fast as the global average,” Kerry claimed in 2015. Two years later, he and his wife bought a seven-bedroom waterfront house in Martha’s Vineyard.

Much like jetting everywhere, that’s just the sort of island property that a man who sincerely believes that global warming is causing the oceans to rise and flood the world would buy.

Kerry’s homes, like the jet set lifestyle, clash with his apocalyptic environmentalism.

"I don’t see it as all tragedy at all. I mean, yes, there will be tragedy associated with it. It’ll be hard for some people to give up homesteads and move away," Kerry, speaking as Biden's new "Climate Envoy", argued. "So yes, life will be different, but it doesn’t have to be worse."

Not when you can afford to pay for the carbon offsets the way that Kerry does.

It’s not easy being ‘green’. But you don’t have to be green, as Kerry told a reporter in Iceland, "if you offset your carbon, it's the only choice for somebody like me.”

Paying someone else to be ‘green’, which is what carbon offsets amount to, is the modern equivalent of the Civil War practice of allowing the wealthy who were drafted to pay poor people to fight in their place. Life won’t be all that different for John Kerry, aside from giving up an estate on Nantucket for one on Martha’s Vineyard, because he’ll pay the poor to be green.

Trading coal for solar raises energy prices. Attaching carbon taxes to everything will make the cost of living impossible for millions. Air travel will become a thing of the past. For most.

“What I'm doing, almost full time," Kerry whined in Iceland, "is working to win the battle on climate change, and in the end, if I offset and contribute my life to do this, I'm not going to be put on the defensive." And it’s not as if any reporter outside Iceland would dare to even try.

John Forbes Kerry is flying around the world like Superman, fueled by hot air and carbon offsets, to save the world from the rest of us who irresponsibly drive to work and run our air conditioners without caring about the environment. While John Kerry goes through enough CO2 to cover 60 Americans driving their cars for a year because he cares about the environment.

All these years after Vietnam, Lt. Kerry, who collaborated with the Viet Cong to stop a war and launch a political career, is still destroying things to save them. And if these things, whether it’s the people of Vietnam or the planet, never get saved, he still gets rich and famous.

Meanwhile he emits enough CO2 to account for 100 tons of coal while fighting coal with jets.

When John Kerry first got the State Department gig under Obama, he divested a number of resources including millions worth of the Sustainable Technologies Fund which the media described only as a “green energy-oriented private equity firm” while leaving out a key detail.

Leaving out key details when it comes to the dealings of Democrats is the new journalism.

The Sustainable Technologies Fund was co-founded by Andre Heinz: Kerry’s stepson.

“The emergence of new policies and laws aimed at aligning our economic system of production with our environment’s carrying capacity,” STF’s site tells potential investors. “Understanding and predicting the desired goals of such policies is key to an optimal market strategy.”

No doubt.

The conflict of interest here didn’t go away with Kerry and his wife shedding their financial interest in Andre’s Swedish green energy fund. Much like jetting everywhere while lecturing the proles on setting their thermostat too high isn’t vaporized by carbon offsets.

“The time it takes me to get somewhere, I can't sail across the ocean. I have to fly, meet with people and get things done," Kerry argued. The rules never apply to the elites. They can’t. Not when those elites, like John Kerry, are saving us from ourselves by taking on the privileges that we are no longer allowed to exercise for ourselves in the name of the greater good of mankind.

And what sort of skeptic would begrudge the elites from jetting to save us from the jets?

Going ‘green’ is great when you’ve got private equity funds and private jets. It’s a lot less fun when you’re a British pensioner freezing to death in the winter or a French senior citizen dying of heatstroke due to the lack of air conditioning. Greenness means factory workers making $20K a year paying for the Teslas of upper class Californians. It’s oil and gas workers losing their jobs at the behest of environmental consultants pushing Chinese solar panels.

And it’s John Kerry flying a private jet to accept another award ten thousand miles away while emitting enough CO2 to heat an American home. If Biden still lets Americans heat their homes.

The Biden administration responded to protests against its stolen election by embedding a domestic extremism office into the National Security Council. The man in charge of making it happen, Joshua Geltzer, had previously denied that Black Lives Matter was a terrorist threat and had attacked the Trump administration’s response to Antifa and BLM violence in Portland.

That means that the only domestic extremists the NSC will be fighting are Republicans.

Even while the Biden administration is preparing to double down on Obama’s abuse of the national security state to target his political opponents, it’s also giving real terrorists a pass.

Joe Biden, whose biggest bundlers included the Iran Lobby, announced he was ending support for American allies fighting the Houthis, and then went even further by preparing to remove the terrorist organization whose motto is, “Death to America”, which took American hostages and tried to kill American sailors, from the list of designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The motto of Iran’s Houthi Jihadis is, "Allahu Akbar, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse the Jews, Victory to Islam." The Houthis took over parts of Yemen as a result of the chaos unleashed by Obama’s pro-Islamist Arab Spring. Since then they’ve been engaged in a protracted war while causing a local famine by confiscating food from the local population.

Last year, the Trump administration had finally secured the release of three American hostages, Sandra Loli, an American aid worker who had been held for 3 years, another American who had been held for a year, and the body of a third American, in exchange for 240 Houthis, including three dozen Islamic terrorists who had been trained in the use of missiles and drones by Iran.

Like those launched at the USS Mason.

The Houthis lived up to their “Death to America” slogan by repeatedly launching cruise missiles at the USS Mason which had been protecting shipping in the area. And they lived up to the second half of their slogan by ethnically cleansing the remaining local Jewish population, locking them up, and confiscating their homes and land. Local reports stated that the Houthis were “cutting off water & electricity to Jewish homes and preventing Jews from purchasing food."

“No Jew would be allowed to stay here,” one of the Jewish refugees said.

The Iran-backed Islamic terrorists fight using 18,000 child soldiers. The soldiers, many abducted, some as young as 10, are taught to hate America and to kill enemies of Iran.

None of this stopped Biden’s State Department from taking the Houthis off the terror list.

“Secretary Blinken has been clear about undertaking an expeditious review of the designations of Ansarallah,” the State Department claimed. “After a comprehensive review, we can confirm that the Secretary intends to revoke the Foreign Terrorist Organization and Specially Designated Global Terrorist designations of Ansarallah.”

‘Ansarallah’ or ‘Defenders of Allah’ is what the Houthis call themselves. Blinken had only been confirmed on Tuesday. By next Friday, he had already somehow completed the “comprehensive review”, amid all the other minor business like China, Russia, and a global pandemic, and decided that the Islamic terrorists whose motto is “Death to America” aren’t really terrorists.

How can the Biden administration deny that Islamic Jihadis backed by Iran who attacked Americans are terrorists? The State Department claimed that this, “has nothing to do with our view of the Houthis and their reprehensible conduct, including attacks against civilians and the kidnapping of American citizens." Not to mention the attacks on the USS Mason.

But the Biden administration isn’t even going to pretend to care about attacks on our military.

The Bidenites are claiming that they're taking the Houthis, whom they don't deny are terrorists, off the list of designated terrorist groups because of the "humanitarian consequences".

That’s a lie, no matter how often you hear it in the media, because Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States would be providing licenses to “humanitarian activities conducted by non-governmental organizations in Yemen and to certain transactions and activities related to exports to Yemen of critical commodities like food and medicine.”

That’s despite the fact that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen was caused by the Houthis.

Nevertheless the media, echoing propaganda from the Iran Lobby and Qatar, a close terrorist ally of Iran, has falsely claimed that the Houthis are the victims of the Yemen famine. A number of politicians, mostly Democrats, but some Republicans, as well as various aid groups, have pushed this same disinformation campaign about the causes of the Yemen famine.

America and its allies have spent billions providing food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid to Yemen. That aid has been seized by the Houthis who have used it for their own troops or to resell on the black market. This is a familiar problem from Syria to Somalia, and aid groups have refused to honestly address their complicity in aiding the terrorists who caused the crisis.

There’s no money in admitting that the aid an organization is providing is being seized by the terrorists, prolonging the conflict and worsening the humanitarian crisis. Some aid organizations share the same goal as the Houthis of worsening the crisis because it boosts their donations.

That’s why international aid organizations don’t want to talk about the Houthis taking their food donations, or about their use of child soldiers. “It’s a taboo,” an anonymous aid official had said.

When Secretary Pompeo announced that the United States was finally designating the Houthis a foreign terrorist organization, the United Nations took the lead in claiming that it would cause a humanitarian crisis. But the UN's World Food Program had already admitted that its food shipments weren't getting to the starving people because the Houthis were intercepting them.

The Middle East director for UNICEF also admitted that the Houthis were seizing food.

An Associated Press investigation found entire stores seling "cooking oil and flour displaying the U.N. food program’s WFP logo." The former Houthi education minister said that 15,000 food baskets that were supposed to go to hungry families instead went to the Houthi terrorists whom the Biden administration is defending. Massive amounts of aid have been pumped into Yemen, and the famine has only grown worse because the Houthis have used starvation as a weapon.

The only way to end the famine is to end Iran’s grip on Yemen through its Houthi terrorists.

That’s obviously not what Biden or the Democrats have in mind. The loudest Democrat voices against designating the Houthis as a terrorist group have a troubling history with Iran.

"Reversing the designation is an important decision that will save lives and, combined with the appointment of a Special Envoy, offers hope that President Biden is committed to bringing the war to an end,” Senator Chris Murphy tweeted.

Murphy had been among the loudest voices against the designation.

And Murphy had met with Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif last year. That same year, he had advocated lowering sanctions on Iran for “humanitarian reasons”. Biden had also joined the push to use the pandemic as a pretext for reducing sanctions on the terror state.

That same year, the Left succeeded in forcing out Rep. Elliot Engel, one of the few remaining pro-Israel Democrats, and replaced him with the militantly anti-Israel Rep. Jamaal Bowman, whose election was backed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her antisemitic ‘Squad’.

Engel, who had served as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was replaced by Rep. Gregory Meeks, a strong backer of the Iran Deal. Meeks’ position was cheered by Iran Lobby groups. As far back as 2009, Meeks had declared at a hearing, “I have developed a tremendous appreciation for the work of the National Iranian American Council. I am pleased that we will hear the perspective of NIAC’s President, Mr. Trita Parsi.”

Emails released allegedly showed Parsi telling Iran's Foreign Minister, "I am having a meeting with Gilchrest and Meeks, and they asked for our assistance in getting some communication going between the parliamentarians."

Speaking to the Islamic Republic News Agency, the official state news agency of the Islamic terrorist state, Chairman Meeks allegedly stated that he was willing to travel to Iran and had been engaged in dialogue with Iranian legislators.

Meeks took the lead in attacking the designation of the Houthi Islamic terrorists as terrorists, arguing that, “No solution in Yemen will be sustainable unless the Houthis are involved.”

And that gets at the real reason why Biden and Democrats oppose the designation.

It’s not about humanitarian aid, which would have kept on going anyway, only to be stolen by the Houthis. It’s about supporting Iran’s bid to take over parts of Yemen in order to control shipping and tighten the grip of the Islamic terrorist regime over the entire region.

The ‘diplomatic’ solution advocated by Biden and the Democrats would finalize Iran’s grip over parts of Yemen. Designating the Houthis as terrorists would get in the way of another in a series of Islamist dirty deals with Iran that began with Obama and that will continue on under Biden.

Even while the Democrats insist loudly that the Houthis must be part of the solution in Yemen, they just as vocally cry that the Republicans must be isolated and eliminated in America.

The Democrats militarized D.C. with an armed occupation and are criminalizing political dissent. They have claimed that one riot, after a year full of them by their own activist wing, requires a permanent state of emergency that will be run through the National Security Council.

The Biden administration is not only taking the Houthis, and likely other Islamic terrorist groups, off the terror list, it’s putting the domestic political opposition on its terror list. This is an extension of the same Obama policy that illegally shipped foreign cash to Iran even while it was using the NSA to spy on pro-Israel members of Congress and on the Trump campaign.

The Democrats are happy to fight terrorism by designating their domestic political opponents as terrorists while removing the “Death to America” Houthis who have kidnapped and killed Americans, who fired on the USS Mason, and ethnically cleansed Jews, from the terror list.

And what do the Houthis plan to do with their newfound support from the Biden administration?

In addition to sanctioning the Houthis, the Trump administration sanctioned three of their leaders, beginning with Abdul Malik al-Houthi. The Houthi leader has made it clear that he intends to build up the same missile program that was used to attack the USS Mason.

“To have rockets that could reach far beyond Riyadh, this is a great achievement,” he said, referring to the Saudi capital.

He also promised to send terrorists to fight against Israel.

“Many of Yemen's tribesmen are ambitious to fight against Israel, and they are looking for the day to participate along with the freemen of the Islamic nation against the Israeli enemy,"

This is the terrorist group that the Biden administration and the Democrats are bailing out even while they’re criminalizing the Republican political opposition as terrorists.

“Death to America” is something that the Houthis and their Democrat supporters can agree on.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.