Affirmative Action Is Another Nonsense Leftist Position We’ve Been Conditioned To Take Seriously

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent is an extension of all the other nonsensical, offensive arguments made by the left.  

It’s often incredibly surreal to remember that concepts and arguments from the left are at all taken seriously in this country. Reading Justice Ketanji “Black Girl Magic” Brown Jackson’s dissenting opinion in the college race-based admissions case is truly one of those times.

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against institutions of higher education using race as a factor in the admissions process, which prestigious ones like Harvard have been doing for years in order to artificially boost black and Hispanic enrollment, at the expense of white and Asian applicants.

In essence, the court determined that it violates the 14th Amendment for colleges and universities to prefer some races over others, a concept traditionally known as racism. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

And then there’s Jackson, who professed to believe in the opposite. “Our country has never been colorblind,” she said in her dissent. She said that in reality, because race-based admissions “help to address” past discrimination against blacks, they are actually “to the benefit of us all.”

Hear that, Asian applicants? Losing a spot at Harvard to someone of lower academic achievement is actually to your benefit! You should be saying thank you.

Jackson then chronicled every way in which blacks are at a disadvantage — including in fictional ways — asserting that the only way to remedy the matter was to then compensate black Americans with preferential treatment. “The only way out of this morass—for all of us—is to stare at racial disparity unblinkingly,” she wrote, “and then do what evidence and experts tell us is required to level the playing field and march forward together, collectively striving to achieve true equality for all Americans.”

It’s unclear whether Jackson knows that she’s a sitting justice charged with determining whether policies are constitutionally sound and not an academic theorizing on what a perfect world might look like.

“If the colleges of this country are required to ignore a thing that matters, it will not just go away,” she continued. “It will take longer for racism to leave us. And, ultimately, ignoring race just makes it matter more.”

It just does!

We’re told to take this person seriously, just like we’re told to take it seriously that a man who says he’s a woman is actually, literally indistinguishable from any other woman.

People like Jackson say things like, “If we aren’t allowed to discriminate based on race, racism will get worse,” and we’re expected to consider it a legitimate and logical argument. Up is truly down and the quickest way from point A to point B is to zig-zag and take a break at the halfway mark.

Covid might have leaked from a virology lab.

That’s racist!

It definitely came from the primitive Chinese tradition of filthy wet markets with exotic sea creatures.

Thank you for the respect.

Dump another trillion dollars into America’s oversaturated welfare economy. We’ll call it “inflation reduction”!

Earlier this month a Marine vet saved New York subway passengers from an erratic vagrant screaming about death. The intellectual response from the left was that it was an act of white supremacy.

Legalizing crime makes everybody safer, freer, and happier.

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent is an extension of all of that tripe. A confident declaration that is on its face ridiculous and offensive for insulting the intelligence of anyone made to consider it.

https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/30/affirmative-action-is-another-nonsense-leftist-position-weve-been-conditioned-to-take-seriously/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/watch-student-activist-humiliates-clueless-cnn-journalist-after/

https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/30/affirmative-action-is-another-nonsense-leftist-position-weve-been-conditioned-to-take-seriously/

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/06/which_party_is_divisive_and_acts_more_like_dictators.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/06/the_supreme_courts_three_decisions_honor_the_constitution.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/06/nyc_bans_delicious_pizza_for_climate_change.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/06/so_is_frances_macron_weakened_as_they_said_putin_was_with_the_fiery_disorder_in_france.html

California Dems Advance Legislation to Give Therapists Unconditional Power to Remove 12 Year Olds From Their Parents

 Leaving California is pretty popular.

 

California Democrats advanced legislation on Tuesday that would give therapists unconditional power to remove 12-year-old children from their parents.

One of the bill’s co-authors, state senator Scott Wiener, also authored a bill that would revoke or limit custody for parents who do not “affirm” a child’s chosen “gender identity.”

The new bill does not mention “gender identity” specifically, but given Weiner’s track record, people are rightly alarmed.

“Wiener, who recently honored anti-Catholic drag nuns at the California legislature, is also pushing a bill that would require California foster parents to “affirm” the transgender identities of foster children,” the Washington Free Beacon reports. “Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced another bill that Wiener co-authored to make parents’ non-affirmation of their child’s transgender identity grounds for revoking or limiting custody. Last year, a law that Wiener authored went into effect, empowering California courts to take temporary jurisdiction of kids who come to California from out of state in search of hormone therapy or other transition treatment.”

According to the report, many California parents testified against the bill calling it the “emancipation of 12-year-olds,” “heinous,” and “dangerous.”

“Have each of you used your elected platforms and networks to inform and speak with the people of California?” Los Angeles mother Wendy Minas asked the Senate panel during her testimony against the bill. “It doesn’t seem so, because when I talk to my community, no one knows about it. And when they hear about it, they are shocked and angry that you would consider passing an extreme bill that would break apart families during a child’s most difficult and challenging years.”

The parents warned that troubled children could exploit this law to be able to run away from home.

Beef Company CEO: “I’ll Shut Down the Company Before We Ship a Single Bag With mRNA-Injected Meat”

“The authors want to change the law to let a 12-year-old opt out of their home on a whim, invoking parental separation and emancipation of minors without any claim of danger or parental consent,” Nicole Pearson, an attorney, said while testifying. “This is child emancipation.”

Restaurants In Peoria With Good Senior Discounts

TheWalletGuru.com

If Your Dog Has Tear Stains (Most Dog Owners Don't Know This)

UltimateDogFoodGuide.com

MD: If You Have Dark Spots, Do This Immediately (It's Genius!)

GundryMD

Their concerns were written off as a product of “misinformation” by the Democrat lawmakers.

“This bill protects children. It makes children safer. It makes children healthier,” Wiener said. “It’s unfortunate that this bill, like so many, has been caught up in this right-wing outrage machine.”

The Free Beacon’s report explains, “The bill would leap beyond the autonomy granted to children under existing law. There would be no obligation, as there is for minors on private insurance, for therapists or counselors to show that a 12-year-old patient is mature enough or in a dangerous situation before transferal to a “residential shelter.” Whether or not to inform the parents of the move would also be left to the discretion of the mental health professional, who could be an intern or trainee.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/california-dems-advance-legislation-give-therapists-unconditional-power/

The World Economic Forum and U.N. Agenda 2030

 Many articles are being published about the globalist agenda being put forward by the World Economic Forum and its megalomaniacal leadership, first and foremost Klaus Schwab, but also including Bill Gates and a mysterious figure Dr. Yuval Noah Harari who boasts a Ph.D. from Oxford in world history and now teaches at a university in Jerusalem.

Harari, like many of the globalists can sometimes sound non-threatening and even benign. For example, he writes, “There is no contradiction between nationalism and globalism. Because nationalism isn’t about hating foreigners. Nationalism is about loving your compatriots. And in the twenty-first century, in order to protect the safety and the future of your compatriots, you must cooperate with foreigners.” This is a kind of Rodney Kingism on a global scale. What could be more benign than “cooperation?” Remember, there were riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the jury found the police “Not Guilty” of criminal assault and wanton brutality after they beat up King, who had resisted arrest.  As the riots were going on, Rodney attempted to defuse the situation by saying, “Why can’t we all just get along?” 

Harari sometimes makes more controversial comments than the need for “more cooperation.”  We sometimes find shocking one-liners such as his claim that there were originally six species of humans, but only one -- homo sapiens -- has survived.  How he “discovered” or “justifies” knowledge of six types of human beings is anything but obvious. He has no proof.

He founded a company called Sapienship with his “husband,” and they are committed to finding solutions to world problems in the areas of technological disruption, ecological collapse, and global war.  One of Harari’s most radical views is that human beings lack free will.  He wrote in the Guardian, “Unfortunately, ‘free will’ isn’t a scientific reality. It is a myth inherited from Christian theology. Theologians developed the idea of ‘free will’ to explain why God is right to punish sinners for their bad choices and reward saints for their good choices… “ Here, free will is not accepted as an almost universal premise, but is “Christian theology.”  Patently, this premise is false.  Joshua, the first Jewish judge in the Old Testament, said “Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve, but as for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.” Jesus said, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness…”  And the Islamic murderous hordes as they swept across North Africa in the seventh century cried, “Convert of die!!” to the Christians unfortunate enough to be in their path. These were all “choices” presented to different populations.

The above quote from this sinister professor is a red flag for this writer pointing to positions that deny free will, deny morality, deny faith in Almighty God Creator of Heaven and Earth, and is a precursor to immoral and hateful propositions that the author and pundit Harari will justify as predetermined and thus “reality.” 

But in 2015, the views of the WEF and Sapienship were reinforced by the United Nations which produced a new document, Agenda 2030, which positioned that body to move towards world governance.  The U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Rights of 1946  was supplemented (read “replaced”) by the new Agenda 2030.  In this document, “sustainability” and “meeting needs” became the two most important terms, and rights were diminished to being referred to only once in the entire document in Article 19. The Agenda begins with five lively terms designed to turn the reader’s mind to a more lively appreciation of the Agenda: People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership. These are catch-phrases or rhetorical devices intended to appeal to readers’ emotions, not appeal to reason per se. We can herewith look at three of those “Ps.”

People: “We are determined to end poverty and hunger… and to ensure that all human beings can fulfill their potential in dignity and equality…” Meanwhile in the USA, which is more than $30 trillion in debt, students at the college where I teach were notified that if they are hungry they can get free food at an office, and even find some items that are halal or kosher.  And if they do not show up for most classes in a course, they can receive a WU (Unofficial Withdrawal) instead of an F so their grade point average (GPA) will not be adversely affected.  One student requested special accommodation for the final exam. When asked how she would take the final since she had missed the last 10 classes, she replied, “I know.  But I’m pregnant and just don’t feel up to going to class.” Needless to say, she did not take the final.  This is in the USA.  Now we have signed up to bring “dignity” to the rest of the world.  How can anyone not be convulsed with laughter and disdain for this “goal” in light of there being so many irrational, contaminated policies in our own country?

Planet:  The document says, “We are determined to protect the planet from degradation, including… sustainably managing its natural resources… so that it [“the planet”] can support the needs of the present and future generations.”  So the idea is to stop using up our resources like oil or gas so we do not run out of oil or gas which we will have in the future even though we will not be using them.  We become more secure by having these resources in the ground and knowing they are there rather than risk using them up.  Thus, we shall lower the standard of living of all developed countries and start carrying pitchers of water on our heads from some giant reservoirs because we do not wish to use pipes or “waste water.”  However, we used up the buffalo meat by killing off the buffalo, but we are still eating meat. We used up the whale oil, but we still have light in our homes. 

Peace:  The Agenda states, “We are determined to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence. There can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development.” This is an updated Marxist idea that true peace in society comes from meeting economic needs.  Yet, no societies on Earth have prospered more than the capitalist societies of the world.  Even those sinister Chinese with their attachment to Maoism established empowerment zones in the 1980s where multinational corporations were allowed to operate, and after doing so, the Maoists gradually enriched themselves (bribe-taking is rife in the PRC) and the per capita incomes of their populations. Yet they are on a war footing.  War is not caused by unmet “needs.”

We must openly and aggressively as a country withdraw our support from Agenda 2030, and our leaders must aggressively and openly rebuff the claims of the World Economic Forum if we are to prosper again as a country and be the exceptional center of hope in the world.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/06/the_world_economic_forum_and_un_agenda_2030.html

8 Straight-Fire Quotes From Neil Gorsuch’s Defense Of Free Speech In 303 Creative

 You here this and it makes you appreciate Constitutional Judges. I cant imagine what it would have been like with that Anti American Scumbag would have got on the Supreme Court.  He is such a Scumbag in his current spot and Stinks from the Far Left influence

Writing for the majority, Neil Gorsuch left little doubt the current Supreme Court has a vested interest in defending Americans’ First Amendment rights.

Justice Neil Gorsuch offered a straight-fire defense of free speech and religious liberty in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 303 Creative v. Elenis decision on Friday, which represented a major win for Americans’ First Amendment rights.

As The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd reported, the high court ruled that the government cannot force Colorado graphic artist Lorie Smith to “make wedding websites celebrating same-sex couples because it would violate her constitutional right to exercise her Christian belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.” The high court further noted that such state-enforced coercion is a violation of Smith’s First Amendment rights.

Writing for the majority, Gorsuch left little doubt the current court has a vested interest in defending Americans’ rights to free speech and religious liberty. Here’s a list detailing eight of his best lines from the opinion.

1. Gorsuch blasted Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the dissent for distorting the facts of the case.

It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case. Much of it focuses on the evolution of public accommodations laws … and the strides gay Americans have made towards securing equal justice under law … And, no doubt, there is much to applaud here. But none of this answers the question we face today: Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?

When the dissent finally gets around to that question—more than halfway into its opinion—it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom.

2. State-enforced speech is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

If [Ms. Smith] wishes to speak, she must either speak as the State demands or face sanctions for expressing her own beliefs, sanctions that may include compulsory participation in ‘remedial . . . training,’ filing periodic compliance reports as officials deem necessary, and paying monetary fines. … Under our precedents, that ‘is enough,’ more than enough, to represent an impermissible abridgment of the First Amendment’s right to speak freely.

3. The dissent’s arguments in favor of coercing Smith’s speech are illogical.

In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position. For instance: While stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse ‘the full and equal enjoyment of [its] services’ based on a customer’s protected status … the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services ‘to the public’ does have a right ‘to decide what messages to include or not to include’ … But if that is true, what are we even debating?

4. The First Amendment guarantees free speech protections for all Americans.

[T]he First Amendment extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct, including those who seek profit (such as speechwriters, artists, and website designers). … If anything is truly dispiriting here, it is the dissent’s failure to take seriously this Court’s enduring commitment to protecting the speech rights of all comers, no matter how controversial—or even repugnant—many may find the message at hand.

5. Nuking the dissent for abandoning its obligation to uphold free speech.

Today, however, the dissent abandons what this Court’s cases have recognized time and time again: A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all. By approving a government’s effort to'[e]liminat[e]’ disfavored ‘ideas,’ … today’s dissent is emblematic of an unfortunate tendency by some to defend First Amendment values only when they find the speaker’s message sympathetic.

6. The Constitution calls for tolerance of others’ speech and religious expression, not state-enforced coercion.

Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider ‘unattractive,’ … ‘misguided, or even hurtful’ … But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.

7. Free speech is a foundational principle of the American experiment.

[T]he opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.

8. The Constitution trumps all.

[T]his Court has also recognized that no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this Court has held, public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech. … When a state public accommodations law and the Constitution collide, there can be no question which must prevail.

 https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/30/8-straight-fire-quotes-from-neil-gorsuchs-defense-of-free-speech-in-303-creative/

Supreme Court Nukes Biden’s Unconstitutional $400 Billion Student Loan Bailout

 The Biden Regime aka his Puppet Masters Don't like the Constitution.  Thank God we still have Constitutional Justices on the Supreme Court that.  They will be the next to be attacked from the Marxist Communist Left

The Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s plans to offer a taxpayer-funded bailout to millions of student loan borrowers without congressional approval.

In a 6-3 decision handed down at the end of the summer term Friday, the high court ruled President Biden’s plan to forgive $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients and $10,000 for other borrowers under a certain income ceiling was unconstitutional. The White House initiative would have cost taxpayers more than $400 billion over 30 years to bail out more than 43 million borrowers.

Six states challenged the president’s student loan program last fall, provoking a preliminary injunction by the Eighth Circuit Court in Biden v. Nebraska. The six justices in the majority on the court ruled the president does not have the power to authorize such a large payout without Congress signing off.

“The question here is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion. “Our recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA involved similar concerns over the exercise of administrative power.”

In its decision on the EPA case exactly one year ago, the Supreme Court checked the administrative state’s power, ruling that executive agencies don’t have the power to implement rules with wide-ranging effects in excess of their authority established by Congress.

“So too here, where the Secretary of Education claims the authority, on his own, to release 43 million borrowers from their obligations to repay $430 billion in student loans,” Roberts wrote in Friday’s decision. “The Secretary has never previously claimed powers of this magnitude under the HEROES Act. … The Act has been used only once before to waive or modify a provision related to debt cancellation.”

Roberts ruled that Biden’s plan to forgive $430 billion cannot qualify as a “waiver” because the program “does not remotely resemble how it has been used on prior occasions.”

Roberts cited a time in 2003 when the education secretary eased the requirement for those seeking loan forgiveness via a public service program to engage in “uninterrupted” service.

“In sum, ‘[n]o regulation premised on’ the HEROES Act ‘has even begun to approach the size or scope’ of the Secretary’s program,” Roberts ruled, writing that the administration’s plan for loan forgiveness is “staggering by any measure.”

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett concurred with the majority opinion. The three Democrat-appointed justices on the high bench, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.

Justice Kagan wrote the minority opinion and claimed the majority exceeded their own authority by taking the case at all.

“At the behest of a party that has suffered no injury, the majority decides a contested public policy issue properly belonging to the politically accountable branches and the people they represent,” Kagan wrote.

“No proper party is before the court,” she added. “A court acting like a court would have said as much and stopped.”

The student loan case caps off a consequential term for the high court. On Thursday, justices ruled race-based affirmative action programs in higher education unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Earlier Friday morning, the court declared government could not compel speech from business owners that violates their religious beliefs.

https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/30/supreme-court-nukes-bidens-unconstitutional-400-billion-student-loan-bailout/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/06/29/supreme-court-eliminating-racial-discrimination-means-eliminating-all-of-it/

https://www.breitbart.com/pre-viral/2023/06/29/supreme-court-racial-preferences-unconstitutional-college/

https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/30/in-landmark-free-speech-decision-supreme-court-rules-government-cant-force-americans-like-lorie-smith-to-violate-religious-beliefs/

House GOP Rejects Socialist Mortgage Rule, But That Won’t Stop Biden From Taking Your Money For ‘Equity’

 The Democrat’s ‘reparative’ policies have become an omnipresent part of the U.S. economy and only continue to grow in prevalence and scope.

American homebuyers can breathe a little easier, at least for now. Last Friday, the House of Representatives passed a Republican-led bill to reverse President Joe Biden’s socialist mortgage rules — the latest item of his administration’s “whole-of-government equity agenda” to fight “systemic racism” and “affirmatively advance equity, civil rights, and racial justice.”

Biden’s Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which oversees federally backed home mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, instituted new mortgage rules on May 1 that penalize responsible homebuyers to subsidize high-risk — especially minority — borrowers. Under the new rules, borrowers with good credit scores and larger down payments have been saddled with higher monthly mortgage payments so that borrowers with poor credit scores and smaller down payments can receive better rates.

Under the new rules, a borrower with a credit score of about 640 will pay around $40 more per month on a $400,000 mortgage, and borrowers with even better credit scores or larger mortgages have seen their monthly payments increase by $100 or more (that’s $36,000 or more over the course of a 30-year mortgage).

The new rules came at a time of slowing housing markets and rising interest rates. Home sales are already depressed, and the critical spring and summer selling seasons have brought no signs of improvement.

“Subsidies for borrowers with low credit scores hurt the housing market and by extension all prospective homebuyers,” warned David P. Goldman, a Washington fellow at the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life and former head of fixed income research at Bank of America, when asked to comment on the new rules.

“When the Clinton administration forced banks to lower mortgage lending standards in 1998, it set in motion a housing bubble with its liars’ loans, 5 percent down mortgages, and other abuses that benefited middle-class home-flippers rather than minorities,” Goldman continued. “The Biden administration’s $3 trillion of handouts in 2021 set in motion an inflation that priced homes out of the reach of tens of millions of Americans, especially families with modest means and less-than-perfect credit. This measure is unfair, harmful to the housing market, and an insult to the vast number of Americans hurt by the administration’s economic policy.”

Republican Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., a cosponsor of the bill, gave Biden the benefit of the doubt by suggesting he might be “unaware of what the [FHFA] policy really does.” This, of course, is utter nonsense. The new FHFA rules are merely Biden’s latest foray into the redistributionist politics of “racial justice,” and if the House bill clears the Senate, he very well may veto it.

Biden and BLM’s Greater Plan for ‘Racial Justice’

Biden and the Democrats have redefined equality to mean rewarding imprudence and punishing people who have followed the rules of our financial system. Under this twisted definition, redistribution of wealth becomes both a way to solidify political power and remake society. Organizations such as Black Lives Matter (BLM) have already proven just how successful brazen attempts to extort money can be. BLM demanded redistribution, and the Biden administration, which rode into the White House with BLM’s help, has obliged.

Lest we forget, in 2020 the BLM movement, with the help of its Democrat benefactors, culminated in the largest and most successful shakedown in American history.

During the “summer of love,” as then-Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan dubbed it, BLM rioters burned more than 200 cities and caused more than $2 billion in damages. A healthy civilization would have prosecuted and incarcerated them for their trouble, but “our democracy” is no such civilization. Instead, as shown by the Claremont Institute’s BLM Funding Database, corporations pledged or contributed more than $97 billion to the BLM movement and its related causes.

Incredibly, our figure is conservative; a study by McKinsey & Company, the famed consulting firm, found that corporations pledged about $340 billion to these causes. As a point of reference, that is $10 billion more than the German government says is needed to end world hunger.

BLM’s brand of racial blackmail also resulted in new private-sector policies that satisfy many of their demands. These include the acceleration of corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and discriminatory hiring programs across the country.

But more importantly, BLM’s efforts informed Biden’s decision to center his administration’s activities on “equity” and “racial justice.”

More Racial Socialism

An early example of Biden and the Democrats’ racial socialism came when they passed the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act, a $4 billion discriminatory debt relief program exclusively for black farmers.

More policies have followed, including increased federal grant funding for “police reform”; prohibitions on federal law enforcement practices disfavored by BLM; updated, impotent guidelines for federal prosecutors; enhanced career pathways solely for black entrepreneurs; the advancement of racial “equity” in education and housing; actions to combat “white supremacy” and enhance voting access for minorities and other protected classes; and the race-based appointment of federal judges.

Biden has even gone so far as to make the promotion and advancement of transgenderism and the transing of children priorities of the federal government. Both are elemental to BLM’s “intersectional” agenda, which states that the perceived injustices of various aggrieved categories of race, class, and sex coalesce.

BLM may lament behind closed doors the institutionalization of their revolutionary movement by the ruling class, but it’s hard to see the normalization of their agenda as anything other than a major victory for the radical left.

That victory has come at the expense of everyday, law-abiding Americans. Democrats seek to take Americans’ wealth and hard-earned privilege and redistribute them to their constituents, namely profligates and radical activists hellbent on undermining what remains of our constitutional order.

Ultimately, the transfer of wealth and privilege from decent Americans to degenerates punishes virtue and rewards imprudence. Yet tragically, the Democrat’s “reparative” policies have become an omnipresent part of the U.S. economy and only continue to grow in prevalence and scope. The effects of these policies are undeniably disastrous to both the economy and America’s social fabric. When will Americans finally stand up to such injustice?

https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/30/house-gop-rejects-socialist-mortgage-rule-but-that-wont-stop-biden-from-taking-your-money-for-equity/