Briefs are posted weekday mornings, M-F
The world’s most famous groundhog saw his shadow early Thursday morning.
That means the United States should prepare for six more weeks of winter, according to Groundhog Day lore.
As per tradition, a smiling crew of top-hatted handlers from the Groundhog Club Inner Circle pulled Phil from his burrow on Gobbler’s Knob in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, shortly after 7:20 a.m. EST.
Punxsutawney Phil’s annual prognostication comes as Winter Storm Mara pummels Texas and other parts of the South with freezing rain and sleet, creating hazardous travel conditions and leaving hundreds of thousands without electricity.
Temperatures in the teens didn’t phase revelers who showed up in the wee hours of the morning for food, drink, fireworks and live music.
Phil’s playful predictions have been accurate about 40% of the time over the past 10 years or so, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Last year, Phil saw his shadow and declared six more weeks of winter. That was followed by temperatures in the continental U.S. near average in February and above average in March.
Organizers of the annual Groundhog Day event acknowledge that turning to a large toothy rodent for weather forecasting is mostly just a way to break up winter monotony.
—-The Weather Channel
Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Dan Kelly is refusing to say he would endorse his conservative opponent if she advances in the February primary.
Waukesha County Judge Jennifer Dorow, in turn, said she would endorse Kelly if he advances to face a liberal candidate in April, but accused two of his surrogates of attacking her in recent weeks.
The comments came Tuesday night at a forum for the conservative Supreme Court candidates hosted by the Republican Women in Greater Milwaukee in Greendale that was moderated by News Talk 1130 host Dan O’Donnell.
Dorow and Kelly are running against two liberals, Dane County Judge Everett Mitchell and Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewicz, for a seat being vacated by conservative Justice Patience Roggensack. The outcome could change the ideological makeup of the court, which now has a 4-3 conservative majority.
The April 4 ballot will pit the top two finishers from the Feb. 21 primary.
Tuesday was the first time the two conservatives showed any public sign of disloyalty to each other.
Kelly said he was burned by his endorsement of Justice Brian Hagedorn, who was elected to the state Supreme Court in April 2019 as a conservative but has sided with the liberal minority on some key cases, including upholding President Joe Biden’s win in Wisconsin and rejecting Trump’s lawsuit.
Still, Kelly said he can’t endorse Dorow because Hagedorn has not followed through on his promise to be a judicial conservative.
“I had to apologize to countless, hundreds of people and I won’t be put in that position again,” Kelly said. “This is not politics, this is about the court. I will promote judicial conservatism in any way I can. I don’t want to go to the people again and say I endorse a candidate when I don’t know what that candidate will do.”
When reached by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Wednesday, Hagedorn said he did not want to comment on Kelly’s remarks.
Dorow said if Kelly comes through the primary, he’ll “unequivocally” have her support but quickly added that Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge Shelley Grogan and Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, who have both endorsed Kelly, have turned on her.
“I won’t do that, it’s not judicial, and I’m not going to take the chance to take someone out so that the left can win this election,” Dorow said. “We need to win this. We need to win this based on momentum, experience, a fresh face, based on what all of you saw of me last October.”
Dorow became known to many voters after presiding over the high-profile trial of Darrell Brooks and sentencing him to hundreds of years in prison for killing six people and injuring dozens more when he drove through the Waukesha Christmas parade in 2021. Dorow released her first radio ad Wednesday, focusing on her role in the Brooks trial.
—Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled Wednesday that a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the father of a man shot and killed by Kyle Rittenhouse during a protest in 2020 can proceed against Rittenhouse, police officers and others.
The father of Anthony Huber, one of two men shot and killed by Rittenhouse, filed the lawsuit in 2021, accusing officers of allowing for a dangerous situation that violated his son’s constitutional rights and resulted in his death. Anthony Huber’s father, John Huber, also alleged that Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time of the shootings, conspired with law enforcement to cause harm to protestors. John Huber is seeking unspecified damages from city officials, officers and Rittenhouse.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman on Wednesday dismissed motions filed by Rittenhouse and the government defendants seeking to dismiss the civil rights lawsuit.
“While we respect the judge’s decision, we do not believe there is any evidence of a conspiracy and we are confident, just as a Kenosha jury found, Kyle’s actions that evening were not wrongful and were undertaken in self defense,” Martin said.
Rittenhouse was charged with homicide, attempted homicide and reckless endangering for killing Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum and wounding a third person with an AR-style semi-automatic rifle in the summer of 2020 during a tumultuous night of protests over the shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, by a white Kenosha police officer.
Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges in November 2021 after testifying he acted in self-defense. Rittenhouse’s actions became a flashpoint in the debate over guns, vigilantism and racial injustice in the U.S.
Rittenhouse went to Kenosha from his home in nearby Antioch, Illinois, after businesses were ransacked and burned in the nights that followed Blake’s shooting. He joined other armed civilians on the streets, carrying a weapon authorities said was illegally purchased for him because he was underage.
Rittenhouse first killed Rosenbaum, 36, in the parking lot of an auto dealership and as Rittenhouse ran from the scene he stumbled and fell. Anthony Huber, 26, struck Rittenhouse with his skateboard and tried to disarm him. Rittenhouse fell to the ground and shot Anthony Huber to death and wounded demonstrator Gaige Grosskreutz, 27.
Most students who responded to a survey about free speech on University of Wisconsin campuses said they’re afraid to express their views on controversial topics in class because they fear other students won’t agree or it could hurt their grades, according to findings released Wednesday.
A third of respondents, meanwhile, said they’ve felt pressure from an instructor to agree with a certain viewpoint. Almost half said they at least somewhat agree that administrators should bar controversial speakers if some students find the message offensive.
“I want the University of Wisconsin System to be looked upon as a beacon across the country where people want to go if free speech rights are very important to them,” Republican state Rep. David Murphy, chairman of the Assembly universities committee, said during a panel discussion on the survey results at UW-Oshkosh on Wednesday afternoon. “Our ideas need to be unsafe on campus. They need to be something we expect to be challenged and we cannot be offended by that.”
Free speech issues have come to the forefront in academia, as Republicans push schools to crack down on students who disrupt conservative speakers and to allow conservative speakers on campuses. The GOP also has maintained that liberal professors are indoctrinating students or making them feel uncomfortable about expressing conservative views.
UW-Stout’s Menard Center for Public Policy and Service sent the survey to undergraduates at all 13 UW System campuses last fall. The Menard family, a major Republican donor that founded the Menards home improvement store chain, donated $2.6 million to the center in 2019 and contributed $100,000 toward the survey. Republican Ryan Owens, a UW-Madison political science professor who ran unsuccessfully for attorney general in 2021, sat on an advisory board that reviewed the survey before it went out to students.
The survey was emailed to students at all 13 UW system schools last fall. Nearly 10,500 of the system’s 161,000 students responded.
The survey asked students if they there have been times when they’ve wanted to express their thoughts on a controversial topic in class but decided to remain silent. Almost 57% of respondents said yes.
A little more than 60% said they were afraid other students would disagree with them and 31% said they were afraid someone would file a complaint about them. About 40% said they were afraid their grades would suffer if they spoke up. Three-fourths of those students identified themselves as “very conservative.”
Nearly 37% of respondents said they’ve felt pressured by an instructor to agree with a specific viewpoint, with 64% of those students identifying as very conservative.
First son Hunter Biden and his legal team sent a slew of letters to government agencies on Wednesday demanding investigations into the dissemination of materials from his laptop, while also threatening to sue Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
A source familiar with the letters, obtained by CBS News, indicated to the outlet that the scandal-plagued Biden intends to take the initiative in combatting negative press and Republican-led investigations.
“He is not going to sit quietly by as questionable characters continue to violate his rights and media organizations peddling in lies try to defame him,” the source said.
The letter to Carlson demands that the Fox host retract statements describing a “money laundering scheme” connected to Biden allegedly paying his father “rent” money. The letter acknowledges that other outlets have retracted such claims.
—Just the News
For more than two years, Hunter Biden and his father have dismissed the “laptop from hell” as a fraud, a hack or “Russian disinformation.”
Then, Wednesday evening, Hunter’s lawyers did an abrupt U-turn. Yes, the laptop computer is his, they finally admit. But information from it was published without his permission!
Why the change? Well, investigations are coming from the Republicans in Congress, and pretending the laptop isn’t real won’t work anymore. Under Elon Musk, Twitter won’t run interference for the president by censoring stories, and even The New York Times admitted, grudgingly, that Hunter’s emails are authentic.
New tactic: Hunter is the victim.
His privacy was invaded. He has struggled with demons, we all know, but Congress is just victimizing him to go after his dad.
Don’t buy a word of it. Hunter Biden is a privileged son who leveraged his family’s name and access to make millions — much of which he frittered away on drugs and prostitutes. His laptop wasn’t “stolen.” He dropped it off at a computer repair shop, handed over the password, then never picked it up because he was too addled to do so.
Hunter Biden isn’t a victim. He’s a con artist. One lie has been admitted. Let’s see what is revealed next.
—NY Post Editorial Board
Several reports were released on Monday by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) showing how media outlets were derelict in their duty while covering the Trump-Russia collusion story. The articles include some harsh quotes from famed Washington Post editor and reporter Bob Woodward, who criticized the mainstream media at large, calling for a self-assessment from the entire industry.
In the first of a four-part series entitled, “The press versus the president,” investigative reporter Jeff Gerth cites specific media outlets and how they worked in tandem with intelligence agencies, fellow publications, and dodgy sources — including the now infamous Christopher Steele dossier — to take down Donald Trump at all costs.
Woodward, who rose to fame during the 1970s with the Watergate scandal and resignation of former President Richard Nixon, told Gerth the Russia probe “wasn’t handled well.” He even went so far as to accuse the mainstream press of having “cheated” the public out of the truth.
Woodward urged modern newsrooms to “walk down the painful road of introspection,” as they look back on their failures with the Russia-collusion stories. He also described Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the matter as having no teeth — but said it was good enough to serve as anti-Trump fodder for the media, just the same.
Woodward told Gerth the Mueller report was a “fizzle” but journalists were “never going to declare [that] it’s going to end up dry.”
The former Washington Post reporter had previously appeared on Fox News Sunday in 2017, during the height of the Steele dossier drama, only to call it a “garbage document” that “never should have” been part of an official intelligence briefing.
He also later told CJR and Gerth that the Post wasn’t interested in any of his critiques regarding the dossier, despite his senior status and wide berth of journalistic experience.
After Woodward made those remarks on Fox News in 2017, he said he had “reached out to people who covered this” at the Post, identifying them only as “reporters.”
When asked how they replied, Woodward said: “To be honest, there was a lack of curiosity on the part of the people at the Post about what I had said, why I said this, and I accepted that and I didn’t force it on anyone.”
This news comes after one of MSNBC’s most widely read opinion writers, Zeeshan Aleem, said Friday that Russia’s “influence operation on Twitter” to get Trump into the White House “was a dud,” and only weeks after the Post itself admitted that any Russian meddling on social media did not contribute to Trump’s victory in 2016, Fox News reported.
—Just the News
I had an Army buddy who was a former police officer. He and a fellow cop had an encounter with a criminal who shot (didn’t kill) his partner, then took off running. My buddy chased him down, caught him, tackled him, and proceeded to beat him nearly to death; and would have, had several other officers not pulled him off. Continuing his story, he said that in the chaos of the situation, adrenaline took over. The concept of stopping before he’d completely eliminated the threat never occurred to him. He reacted completely on survival instinct and to protect his partner. It was that encounter that convinced him to leave the force or he’d end up killing someone.
Because of my time in the military, I tend to give a large benefit of the doubt to policemen, first responders, and the military. Ask yourself the simple questions, what would you do, and how would you react to any of the infinite number of situations police officers find themselves? In the heat of the moment, would you think to shoot for the legs to wound the perp (as Biden says cops should do), would you throw a single punch and then back off? Or would you do what most people do in life-and-death encounters — continue your actions until the threat is neutralized?
Last week, the Memphis PD released the video of the killing of 29-year-old Tyre Nichols. It was horrible.
Nobody should ever get killed because of a mere traffic stop. When someone gets killed by the police, the narrative immediately becomes we need police reform, better police training, and so on. Of course, police could always be better trained. There’s no profession that couldn’t use better training. However, why don’t we ever hear about civilians needing to be better trained — as in obey law enforcement?
When a police officer says, “stay in your vehicle,” “exit your vehicle,” “show me your hands,” or “lay face down on the ground” — they’re telling you that for a reason. You should obey him/her, without questions and without resisting. Complain later. If not, expect the situation to escalate — quickly. Why? Because all of us, especially the police, have seen far too often where weapons are produced, and the situation immediately becomes life-and-death. In some videos of police killings, the victim resisted the police. Michael Brown (Ferguson), Eric Garner (NYC), George Foster (Minneapolis), Rayshard Brooks (Atlanta) and Jacob Blake (Kenosha) all resisted. Again, that doesn’t warrant a death sentence. But when someone fails to comply with the police, when they resist, it’s inevitable — a fight will ensue. When that occurs, anything can (often does) happen.
I refuse to believe that any cop shows up to work hoping “today’s the day I get to kill someone,” though sometimes that happens. Why do police killings happen? Almost always, it’s because a routine situation (for example, Nichols was stopped for reckless driving) gets out of hand and things escalate. Again, why? Yet again, almost always, it’s because the eventual victim decides to resist and becomes uncooperative. Yes, police are trained in de-escalation techniques, and so was my Army buddy. But when someone takes a swing, spits in a cop’s face, pulls a gun, shoots an officer, etc., etc., adrenaline kicks in. When that happens, the fight-or-flight syndrome takes over, and the officer continues his actions (whether it be with fists or with a gun) until the threat is 100% neutralized.
Well, I don’t buy their narrative. Sure, there are bad cops but the vast majority are there to protect and defend.
—Sloan Oliver, The American Patriot
For ordinary Americans, watching the unending flow of illegal aliens into America leads to an inevitable question: Why is no one showing the political will to stop it? It turns out that more institutions and people than just the Democrat party benefit from that flood of humanity, drugs, and crime.
One of the big drivers of illegal immigration is the pernicious Chamber of Commerce, once a “Main Street” organization. Big Business in America needs workers. Illegal immigrants swell the worker pool, doing many of those supposed “jobs Americans won’t do.” You know, those in the construction industry, hotels, farming, etc. To the degree that Big Business can employ illegal immigrants at wages below those wages for legal American workers, illegal immigration is a winning issue for them.
Another pro-illegal institution is the Catholic Church. It not only solicits funds from parishioners but also generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually for supporting the illegal alien invasion.
Illegal aliens are profitable for everyone but the American worker.
Somebody has to sell the cell phones the government is giving to illegals. Companies must facilitate the tens of billions of dollars illegal aliens send home yearly. Someone has to provide the gasoline for planes to fly immigrants around the country.
Schools get bigger budgets—to the tune of $59 billion. Hospitals earn almost $20 billion a year. Even hotels get into the mix, with one upscale Times Square hotel that has rooms going for $400 a night completely booked with illegal immigrants, some of whom spend their time beating their spouses, doing drugs, drinking, throwing out food, and having sex in the stairways.
And of course, tens of thousands of bureaucrats across the country at all levels must be hired to deal with the onslaught. Their salaries must be paid for by the government, which means by taxpayers. Beyond all of that, we’re even paying $6 million a day to defense contractors to NOT build a wall on our southern border!
The amounts involved are simply staggering: well over $100 billion annually (or $200 billion, depending on who’s counting). In fact, that’s surely a severe undercount when considering those dollar figures don’t count the “enforcement“ of the border element of the equation. Every single year…
There’s worse. While your money goes into the pockets of the illegal alien empowerment cabal, it’s only money. There are other, far more vicious costs.
One tragic cost was paid by the families of the 100,000 Americans who died last year from fentanyl overdoses. (It’s a drug that almost exclusively comes over the southern border.) Plus, there were many times that number of addicts who didn’t succumb but continued to wreak havoc in their homes and communities.
Then there are the tens of thousands of women and children who suffer from sex trafficking across the border. And there’s the price paid in life and treasure by the victims of illegal alien crime. And Democrats whined when Trump wanted to spend a few billion to build a wall…
—Vince Coyner, The American Thinker
(CNN’S) ratings are a big “problema.”
The liberal news network’s average primetime viewership plunged to just 444,000 viewers, according to TV Newser.
How bad is that? Well, Fox News pulled in just under two million primetime viewers during that same week.
And even more liberal MSNBC more than doubled CNN’s ratings, with 943,000 average primetime viewers.
Of course, there’s a good reason CNN’s ratings are pathetic: They’re so biased that viewers are tuning out in droves.
Yes, they are running away because they can’t watch anyone talking seriously over there. It’s either Trump, white nationalists, climate change, or racism, and that’s the programming. No wonder people are voting and changing channels.
—Talk show host Silvio Canto Jr.
Most journalists have been pushing an agenda for a long time instead of reporting objectively or based on facts. This includes news and opinion journalists.
Now, we see a Washington Post article saying that the media can regain the trust of the people even if they intentionally are not objective. But if the media are pushing ideas on social policies and political activity, they are propagandists, not journalists. They are seeking to indoctrinate instead of educate their readers.
The media, government bureaucrats, and other Democrats pedaled lies about Russian collusion for years to destroy Trump. That was not subjective reporting. Those were intentional lies.
In 2020, the media, government bureaucrats, and other Democrats buried the truth about Biden family corruption by falsely calling it Russian disinformation. Those were intentional lies, not subjective reporting.
Democrats have challenged elections for years. Yet, the media did not call them far-left, extremist, election deniers who were seeking to destroy our country and who should not be allowed to hold office. The name-calling was reserved for Republicans, especially Trump. That was subjective and biased reporting meant to mislead the American people.
The media went along when Biden falsely called voter integrity laws Jim Crow laws. The lies were meant to gin up racial hate and division.
No matter how much the CDC and Fauci got wrong, the media pretended that everything they did was based on science and set out to silence anyone who disagreed with them. People who didn’t take an experimental vaccine that did not prevent the virus were said to want people to die and were fired. That was supported by subjective and biased reporting.
How many children were permanently harmed due to government edicts that were not based on science yet were supported by a very compliant media?
The media claims they care about laws and corruption, but they campaign for corrupt, career criminals like the Bidens and the Clintons.
The media claims that no one is above the law and the Justice Department is now an independent agency that doesn’t care about political affiliation. That is the biggest lie of all.
Journalists who believe it is their job to push a political agenda instead of reporting objectively and factually is a much dangerous threat to our survival as a great country than anyone who challenges elections.
—Jack Hellner, The American Thinker
Is abortion the next public health emergency? Who knew that pregnancy was a medical emergency? For generations upon generations, since mankind has been walking the face of the earth, pregnancy has been viewed as a normal and necessary facet of human existence. Without it, none of us would be here, and yet thanks to politics the Biden administration wants to effectively classify pregnancy as a “medical emergency.”
On Monday, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra stated that the agency is looking to use certain criteria “to be able to declare a public-health emergency.” While Becerra acknowledged that declaring public health emergencies is “typically done by scientists and those that are professionals in those fields,” an HHS spokesman explained that the administration is “exploring additional actions we can take to protect and expand access to reproductive health care, including abortion care.”
The truth is there is no medical emergency. The real issue, of course, is the Democrats’ insistence that abortion is a fundamental human right, which is why the Biden administration is declaring a “full-scale reproductive health crisis” in the wake of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Since several Republican-controlled states have acted to severely limit and in some cases effectively ban abortion, Biden and company are looking for ways to counter.
Declaring abortion a healthcare emergency would be a way to get women medication or out-of-state travel for an abortion, and all on the taxpayers’ dime. Expanding government funding of the abortion industry is likely the bigger underlying objective.
—The Patriot Post
Last year: Dolly. This year: Willie.
The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame may honor another country legend in its 2023 class – Willie Nelson – while 13 other nominated artists continue to expand the hall’s purview beyond the archetypal definition of rock.
Parton initially refused to be considered for entry, believing that a country artist shouldn’t take votes away from traditional rockers. But she acquiesced once Rock Hall organizers explained the breadth of what they consider rock ’n’ roll. (Parton is now readying her first rock album, a direct result of her 2022 induction.
This year’s inductees will be announced in May. The ceremony will take place this fall, with a location and date to be determined.
Through April 28, fans can vote online every day at vote.rockhall.com (or in person at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Museum in Cleveland). The top five artists selected by the public will comprise a “fan ballot” that will be tallied along with other ballots to determine the 2023 inductees.
Pete Rose has a baseball legend in his corner in his quest to one day be enshrined in Cooperstown.
Rod Carew, a former 18-time All-Star infielder for the Twins and Angels, advocated on Wednesday for Rose to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Quote-tweeting an account that asked people generally what they think about sports gambling, Carew answered, “It has gone too far and it’s hypocritical. How can you keep Pete Rose out and have a sportsbook at the Reds stadium??”
After that, one of Carew’s followers said it was a “pretty clear line” that Rose gambled on games he was involved with as a player or manager.
“If they can embrace gambling to the level of putting it in the stadium they can forgive Pete and recognize him for the Great he is,” Carew retorted. “That’s the point.”
Another follower chimed in that Rose has never shown “contrition” for betting on games he was involved with, and that steroid users who partook in the performance enhancing drugs “at a time when EVERYONE was using steroids” have a better case than Rose.
“Let’s talk when they put steroid clinics in the stadium,” the 77-year-old Carew responded with a laughing emoji.
Rose, the sport’s all-time hits leader, was banned by MLB commissioner Bart Giamatti in 1989 after an investigation revealed that he bet on games in which he managed the Reds.
No Healthy Person Wants To Play With a Porcupine
That’s the last line from a very interesting Substack entry from Dr. Mike McDonald, the author of a couple of very interesting books about fear and society, which has percolated a good bit over the last month or so. McDonald’s post is entitled “Why American Women Are Undatable,” and it makes some good points. You should obviously read the whole thing, but quickly I’ll just note three of the items inside.
First, he offers this assessment of single women in America today:
American women today suffer from a combination of emotional and characterologic pathology that renders them unfit to be romantic partners to men. On the emotional side, they are angry, anxious, and dysregulated. Men find them exhausting and not at all fun to be around. In addition to their unpleasant emotions, men must also contend with their toxic personality traits: narcissism, ingratitude, and an overbearing and judgmental attitude that appears to be constant. American women approach dating as a fact and fault-finding mission, with a degree of arrogance that can only come from a profound absence of self-awareness. They have no idea what their role is in the encounter or how to properly support the man who is leading the date. They act as saboteurs rather than facilitators. Most men have tired of this.
It’s harsh, to be sure, and yes, there will be those out there who call it unfair. What I can say is that the sense of entitlement commonly found on a first date is breathtaking and exhausting; I’m still single and I run into it over and over again ad nauseam. And I’m not alone. One reason this thing became so viral is that so many men matched it to their experience.
McDonald also notes that both men and women are losing the virtues that made us attractive to each other.
He borrows a definition of masculinity from Jack Donovan, author of The Way of Men, that is pretty spot-on: strength, courage, mastery, and honor, and notes that all four are falling away. But on the feminine side, McDonald quotes Donovan as saying that all men really want out of women is that they be pretty, carefree, and charming, and he says there’s a big shortage of that out there. Unfortunately, he’s right about that as well.
People look like crap these days. Compare what you see in a neighborhood restaurant or on a subway train station or at an airport with what you’d see 50 years ago, and the decline is appalling. That even shows up when folks go on dates. With men, it’s kind of a problem, but men are success objects to women while women are sex objects to men, and men have a lot less potential ruin in their wardrobes in any event. So it’s far worse to see the fairer sex giving up on being fair.
And one more point McDonald makes is the obvious one, which is that this is environmental. Which is to say the culture. American women are bombarded with so much in the way of poisonous messaging that it almost seems like a deliberate attack. Per McDonald:
Women in this country have been taught that looks don’t matter, that career is more important than family, that men are either dangerous or weak and incapable, and that the world would be a better place if only women were in charge. Everything they are taught is wrong. Everything they are taught is a lie. And the fault lies with schools, media, feminism, and parents. These institutions and individuals have corrupted their minds, their emotions, and their characters. They have trained women to live in a fantasy world of us vs them, where the “me” is more important than the “we,” where one’s feelings dictate truth and goodness, and even virtue itself. These toxic teachings have rendered women developmentally arrested and incapable of adult partnerships with men.
Again, it isn’t a misogynistic screed. He’s highly critical of the decline in men as well.
What’s worth noting, as a response, is that this is accurate in describing single women, not all women. Those who don’t exhibit the unpleasant traits he’s talking about generally get snapped up in no time flat, which is why single guys will so often covet, openly and otherwise, the wives of their married friends and complain about not finding “somebody like Nicole.”
But this is a real thing, and it’s worth remembering when you hear the growing chorus of complaints from women that “there are no good guys out there.” There are, but if they’re not finding you, it’s probably because you’re driving them away, and that’s probably because McDonald has described you perfectly.
—-Scott McKay is a contributing editor at The American Spectator
ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY – In 1925 a dog’s sled reached Nome, Alaska, with an urgently needed diphtheria serum, which later inspired the Iditarod race.