FBI Whistleblower Steve Friend, A Messenger Worthy Of The Message

John Nantz

The FBI is a threat to our civil liberties, at least with the current crop of HQ executives at the helm. Coupled with a Department of Justice, led by a Democrat party apparatchik, there has hardly been a time when the liberties enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution have endured such a subversive attack. 

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland is a coward. You can see it in his soft, watery eyes. He simply does the bidding of his addled master, targeting the little guy — the most at-risk among us. Garland stands with his baton extended toward school board moms and January 6th attendees while a legion of his DOJ and FBI storm troops usher from the darkened denizens of the Hoover Building, backed by his cadre of Assistant U.S. Attorneys General. 

What many people do not understand is the FBI and DOJ work hand-in-glove. The FBI collects information and builds a case, while DOJ brings prosecution. Consequently, the FBI Director, Christopher Wray, is lorded over by the U.S. Attorney General, his immediate boss. A courageous FBI Director would balk at Garland’s fascism, but Director Wray has made no attempt to protest. 

So, there is no calumny perpetrated by the FBI that does not have its inception within the halls of DOJ, and there is no DOJ cabal that isn’t given birth within the Oval Office. Every executive power devolves from the Chief Executive, the President. Or, from whoever is filling the role of puppeteer these days. As President Truman said, “the buck stops here.” 

Under such a dysfunctional regime, the responsibility to speak out devolves to those courageous souls with fractional power and with everything to lose. Several FBI whistleblowers have made their voices heard in recent weeks, but none as thoughtfully or as professionally as Special Agent Steve Friend — a messenger worthy of the message. 

Friend recently gave an exclusive interview to Dan Bongino and discussed his personal experience when convicted by conscience to speak out about violations of FBI policy, and the FBI’s posture regarding the January 6th investigation. Friend, in contradistinction to others, conducted himself in an entirely professional manner. He focused his comments on the critical issues, highlighting the problems and not his personality. Clearly, Friend isn’t about personal aggrandizement, he’s part of the quiet professional cadre. You hear it in his measured words, his precision with language, and in his avoidance of ad hominem attacks on private individuals within the FBI — which only serve ego and divert attention from the critical message. 

Friend isn’t disgruntled, a broken toy, or a performance problem, he’s persuaded by conscience and therein lies a world of difference. He’s someone to be taken seriously, not a clown show enjoying his five minutes of fame. Friend needs to be heard, because what he says rings with sincerity. It’s not just enough to get the message out there, it has to be carried by serious individuals; otherwise, the adversary will have a jolly time conflating the issues with buffoonery.  

Some may object that Trump was hardly the perfect messenger and that his coarse personality detracted from the Make America Great Again message. However, the critical difference is this: Trump’s bombast was effective, welled up from a pure intention, and rallied thinking people to his message. 

He’s an invective savant and a virtuoso at striking the delicate balance between humor and vitriol. There are, perhaps, a handful of people with that kind of talent — who truly understand their audience. And, what’s effective for a political figure with a lifetime of experience, making deals and creating empires, doesn’t suit a neophyte with an axe to grind — it’s about as effective as a blind man juggling nitroglycerin. 

But, Friend is no neophyte and he doesn’t seem to be motivated by a stale grudge. His eyes are clear and his purpose is sharp and clean. Friend claims the FBI disseminated January 6th leads nation-wide to create the appearance of a ubiquitous white supremacist threat. He claims he was suspended without pay for bringing his concerns to FBI management and for refusing to participate in SWAT operations against individuals charged with misdemeanor offenses.

Friend told Just the News, “We took an oath, before our family and our friends and the Lord Almighty, and we are supposed to be people of integrity." This is the kind of person you want out front on issues so critical to the future of the American Republic. Friend also objects to being listed as a case agent on January 6th matters that he did not personally investigate. Friend rightly believes this to be in contradiction to FBI DIOG rules — the FBI bible on investigative practices and procedures. He also expressed concerns surrounding the overuse of FBI SWAT in January 6th investigations, and the potential for an unnecessary escalation in use of force. 

All of these concerns are valid. No sane person wants another Ruby Ridge. And, the FBI must be held accountable for infractions of its own policy, certainly for its disregard for the civil rights of those on the Republican side of the isle — who espouse the MAGA perspective. 

FBI Whistleblower Steve Friend, A Messenger Worthy Of The MessageThe FBI tradition is honored by people like Steve Friend, and he deserves the support of the retired FBI agent community, as well as currently employed special agents. 

The FBI is broken, but it can be fixed. Calls to abolish the FBI are simply misguided. What would replace it? The U.S. Marine Corps has issues, but wouldn’t it be foolish to argue for its abolition? At the FBI and DOJ the head is corrupt. Rejuvenate the head of the beast and the body will heal. In November, we have an opportunity to move in the right direction. Simply put, AG Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray must go. 

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnnantz/2022/10/18/fbi-whistleblower-steve-friend-a-messenger-worthy-of-the-message-n2614631

The Quiet Desperation Of Woke Fanatics

The Quiet Desperation Of Woke Fanatics

What's driving them? And how can they be defeated?

Michael Shellenberger

---

“The fiercest fanatics are often selfish people who were forced, by innate shortcomings or external circumstances, to lose faith in their own selves. They separate the excellent instrument of their selfishness from their ineffectual selves and attach it to the service of some holy cause.”

— Eric Hoffer, The True Believer

---

Over the last few weeks, climate activists in Britain have blocked highways (because cars emit carbon dioxide), poured milk onto the floors of supermarkets (because livestock emits methane), and thrown tomato soup at Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” (because climate change is more important than art. Or something). The activists are a kind of reboot of the Extinction Rebellion (XR) climate protests in the UK in the fall of 2019.

People in the UK are at risk of dying from natural gas shortages. Still, the climate activists with “Just Stop Oil” think it’s outrageous that their government is desperately trying to produce more natural gas for its people. But without more natural gas, there could be three-hour-long blackouts, which threaten the operation of medical equipment, and thus the lives of vulnerable people.

The various media stunts appeared authentically grassroots but were, in fact, financed by a $1 million grant from a philanthropic group called Climate Emergency Fund, which is funded by their heirs to the Getty and Rockefeller oil fortunes, and founded in 2019. The Board of Directors consists of a who’s-who of climate alarmism including “Don’t Look Up!” film director, Adam McKay, who donated $4 million, New Yorker writer Bill McKibben, and New York Times columnist David Wallace-Wells. The Fund and their grantees have been cheered on by the Secretary General of the United Nations and much of the mainstream media.

Share

A portion of the web page of Climate Emergency Fund.

In a series of recent articles I have argued that what lies behind climate fanaticism and narcissism is an apocalyptic religion born from nihilism. The power of science to explain humankind’s place in the universe (e.g., the big bang, evolution by natural selection) resulted in a dominant narrative coming out of society’s elite institutions for over 100 years that human life has no inherent meaning or purpose (nihilism). We’re just animals like any other.

This depressing story has led the ostensibly secular elite, which are educated and indoctrinated in universities that teach nihilism as unquestioning scientific gospel, to create a new apocalyptic religion (climate catastrophe), complete with a new victim-god (nature), a new reason for guilt (sins against nature), and a path for redemption (renewables and low-energy living). It, and the broader Woke religion, have found intellectual ballast since World War II from Rousseau, Malthus, and Foucault.

But that account only partly addresses the motivations of the fanatics. It doesn’t answer why some people become fanatics and others don’t. It doesn’t explain the specific role of fanatics, particularly in relation to other actors, such as the intellectual architects of the movement, and the institution-builders. Nor does it address how fanaticism ends and what, if anything, can be done to hasten its expiration date.

As such, we need to ask, who exactly are the climate fanatics? And how can their power over Western cultural and political life be reduced?

Top of Form

Subscribe

Bottom of Form

The Psychology Of Fanaticism

Harper and Row published Eric Hoffer’s now-classic work of political psychology, The True Believer, in 1951.

All mass movements have certain things in common, argues Eric Hoffer in his now-classic 1951 work of political psychology, The True Believer. Hoffer was mostly describing Nazis and Communists but his observations are incredibly fresh and relevant. I devoured most of the book in a single sitting and underlined many sentences and shouted to myself “Yes! That’s it!” as I reflected on how well it described climate fanaticism and Woke fanaticism more broadly. While at times Hoffer can sound reactionary, he was himself working-class, laboring as a longshoreman (stevedore), and he is writing in defense of liberal democracy, not pining for a return to the aristocracy.

Hoffer argues that fanaticism is born from personal frustration. Fanatics are people with more ambition than talent. Notes Hoffer, “most of the Nazi bigwigs had artistic and literary ambitions which they could not realize. Hitler tried painting and architecture; Goebbels, drama, the novel and poetry; Rosenberg, architecture and philosophy; von Schirach, poetry; Funk, music; Streicher, painting. ‘Almost all were failures, not only by the usual vulgar criterion of success but by their own artistic criteria.’”

You can see the connection to wounded pride. Many narcissists are seeking to feel relevant but lack the talent or stamina to become any good at their craft. They must thus resort to cruder actions that require courage but little creativity, or hard work, like throwing a can of tomato soup onto a Van Gogh painting, stopping traffic, or emptying milk onto the floor. It is notable the extent to which the first and last of those behaviors are typical of the temper tantrums of children. Konstantin Kisin aptly dubbed the climate fanatics as belonging to “tantrum groups.”

For Hoffer, the fanatic pursues politics for the same reason an addict pursues drugs: to escape inner demons. “The burning conviction that we have a holy duty toward others is often a way of attaching our drowning selves to a passing raft,” he notes. “What looks like giving a hand is often holding on for dear life. Take away our holy duties and you leave our lives puny and meaningless… in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless.”

Martha’s Vineyard church offers “kneeling every Sunday.” (Author photo)

All mass movements are religious movements, says Hoffer. Both the swastika and the hammer and sickle are versions of the cross. “The ceremonial of the parades is as the ceremonial of a religious procession.” Such movements aren’t only religious; they can be nationalistic or communistic, too. But they are movements offering the feeling of immortality to their true believers. Today we can see such religious rituals in the kneeling promoted by Black Lives Matter activists including (or especially) in secular places like uber-woke Martha’s Vineyard.

Harsh as it sounds, fanatics tend to be losers. They are those with the least to gain from the status quo and the most to gain from radical change. “The reason that the inferior elements of a nation can exert a marked influence on its course is that they are wholly without reverence toward the present,” he writes. “They see their lives and the present as spoiled beyond remedy and they are ready to waste and wreck both; hence their recklessness and their will to chaos and anarchy.” Hoffer doesn’t mince words. He goes so far as to refer to fanatics as the slime that serves as the mortar for building a castle.

It is worth noting that Hoffer is not suggesting that there is never a role for outcasts. America was founded, after all, by them. “The stone the builders reject becomes the cornerstone of a new world. A nation without dregs and malcontents is orderly, decent, peaceful, and pleasant, but perhaps without the seed of things to come. It was not the irony of history that the undesired in the countries of Europe should have crossed an ocean to build a new world on this continent. Only they could do it.”

The first fanatics tend more often to be bored elites than exploited or oppressed victims, writes Hoffer. But this is a “boredom” of nihilists. “The consciousness of a barren, meaningless existence is the main fountainhead of boredom,” he writes. Such people lack the experience of “flow” that comes from being engaged in absorbing, meaningful work. Disruptive activism offers a kind of high. It’s the feeling of power that comes from breaking the rules. “The rules are for thee, not me,” says the law-breaker. For some, like Prince Harry and Duchess Megan Markle, who keep getting caught jet-setting to UN climate conferences, the hypocrisy is the point.

Other fanatics are oblivious to their privilege. Last month, a 16-year-old climate activist in New Zealand told a radio journalist that people should have to apply to take gas-guzzling flights. Under her rules, the reporter asked, would people be “allowed to go to Fiji”? Said the activist, “In the current climate crisis I don’t think that that’s necessary.” After the reporter asked what the last place she had flown to was, the 16-year-old admitted it was Fiji. Stressed the teenager, “Of course, I’m not embarrassed.”

In addition to attracting teens, the ennui of everyday life attracts church lady types — something I found in my research into XR in 2019. “Boredom accounts for the almost invariable presence of spinsters and middle-aged women at the birth of mass movements,” finds Hoffer. Such was also the case with the birth of the anti-nuclear and “population control” movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

Conversely, marriage cuts against activism because it offers women a “new purpose in life, a new future, and a new identity… The boredom of spinsters and of women who can no longer find joy and fulfillment in marriage stems from an awareness of barren, spoiled life…. Hitler made full use of ‘the society ladies thirsting for adventure, sick of their empty lives, no longer getting a ‘kick’ out of love affairs.”

Who, then, are the climate fanatics? They are frustrated, needy, and lonely. They are in the grip of nihilism and wounded, narcissistically. They are spiritual seekers and creative failures. They have both a strong need to feel special, and powerful, but also to lose themselves in the group. They are people who desperately want to get away from having to deal with themselves and the confrontation with inner demons required for personal growth.

 https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/the-quiet-desperation-of-woke-fanatics

Why The Left Hates God, Family and Country

Scott Hogenson

 Rob Schneider is a funny guy. A lot of his humor is irreverent and better suited to the Beavis and Butt-head demographic but his physical comedy and sense of timing are hilarious. His Saturday Night Live skits as the Richmeister / makin’ copies office nerd still crack me up 30 years later. 

But there’s more depth to Schneider than his off-color gags and pratfalls suggest. During a recent interview on Fox News in which he explained why he is moving his family to Arizona from California, Schneider touched on the biggest threat facing America today. 

During his interview, Schneider observed, “You know something’s wrong when people say, ‘If you put God, and family, and country first, that’s somehow controversial,” then asking rhetorically, “How is that controversial?”

Putting God, family and country first is not controversial at all. It does, however, represent an existential threat to authoritarians across the globe. Whether it’s today’s American totalitarians or the Chinese Communist Party, God, family and country stand in the way of subjugating free people. 

These three principles have been under attack for centuries, and the reason is simple. If people believe in God, family and country, they are less apt to embrace tyrannical politicians and their political systems. For this reason, these three institutions must be destroyed. 

Let’s start with God. There has always been atheism but the idea of basing a political system on it began to take form during the 18th century. It was Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who theorized that man is fundamentally good and corrupted by society, and that citizenship doesn’t require compassion for other people. 

Rousseau’s repudiation of the the Bible’s views on the nature of man - that we’re infinitely sinful, hopelessly corrupt and depraved by virtue of original sin - ushered in the false notion that man and society are perfectible. All we need to do is replace the word of God and biblical  law with Man’s law.

Many of Rousseau’s theories were incorporated into the French Revolution of 1789. The promise of liberté, égalité, fraternité was quickly betrayed and devolved into the Reign of Terror, resulting in tens of thousands of decapitations and other murders. 

Along the way, the cathedral of Notre Dame was rebranded as a Temple of Reason, other churches were sacked or destroyed entirely, clergymen were killed and exiled, and the Georgian calendar was rejected. The storming of the Bastille did not occur in ‘The Year of Our Lord 1789’ but the Year 1 of what was called the Era of Liberty. In truth, it was an era of vicious paganism. 

The French Revolution did not bring liberty, equality or fraternity to France. Instead, it established the template for instituting Marxist-Leninism in Russia in 1917. Clearly, God has no place in a society ruled by tyrants.

There’s no place for family either. Karl Marx declared marriage a farce and argued for the abolition of the nuclear family. In his 1848 Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx opined, “The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.”

Frederick Engles, Marx’s parter in political theory, backed-up Marx in his 1884 opus Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, writing, “The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules.”

Then there’s country. Not content with blowing up the institutions of marriage and family, Marx did his best wreck the idea of sovereign nations. “The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality,” wrote Marx. That’s clear as crystal. 

Rob Schneider wasn’t wrong to ask why putting God, family and country first is controversial, even though it isn’t. But to put those things first is to repudiate the three pillars of Communism and similarly tyrannical forms of government. That means putting a big fat target on yourself. 

Authoritarians know very well that if one person puts God, family and country first, they won’t put the government first. They also know that if one person says it, others are likely agree. That is repugnant to those who believe in the writings of Marx, Engles, Rousseau and others like them.

In response, belief in God must be reduced to something between ignorant bumpkinism and dangerous radicalism. The family and marriage are diminished to systems of oppression and whoredom. National identity is decried as the, “handmaiden of the bourgeoisie.”

The American Left is obsessed with demonizing ordinary beliefs, questions and observations. The good news is, they can only succeed if we let them. 

Scott Hogenson is a political and social commentator who lives in Texas.

https://townhall.com/columnists/scotthogenson/2022/10/22/why-the-left-hates-god-family-and-country-n2614871

After the Jan. 6 Committee finishes, maybe a GOP Congress can probe some actual ‘threats to democracy’

After the Jan. 6 Committee finishes, maybe a GOP Congress can probe some actual ‘threats to democracy’

By 

Glenn H. Reynolds

The Jan. 6 Committee issued a subpoena for former President Trump.AP

MORE ON:CAPITOL RIOT

• Why November’s starting to look like a ‘red tsunami’: Dems have nothing on voters’ top concerns

• Jan. 6 committee issues subpoena to Trump, demanding his testimony

• Pennsylvania convict accused of death threats to Biden, Dem lawmaker and judge

• Judge: Trump knew vote fraud claims in legal docs were false

Congressional Democrats have nearly wrapped up the political circus generally known as the Jan. 6 Committee.

That panel was supposed to look into the allegedly democracy-shaking events of Jan. 6, 2021. Though this has been called an “insurrection,” it was closer to a campus mob occupying the dean’s office than a coup d’etat. 

The actual violence that day pales in comparison to the bloody and fiery riots that raged across American cities in 2020, with approval, tacit and otherwise, from Democratic politicians and media (who described those riots as “fiery but mostly peaceful”).

Now Americans are more concerned with skyrocketing prices, economic stagnation and the threat of a nuclear war in Europe, after some unwise comments by President Joseph Biden gave Vladmir Putin an apparent green light to invade Ukraine. (The White House staff walked them back, as they so often do with the dodderer-in-chief’s remarks, but the damage was done).

The events of Jan. 6 have been labelled a “riot.”

AP

Indeed, after a disastrous almost two years in office for Biden, things are looking grim for the Democrats. The midterm elections loom, and everyone seems to expect the Democrats to get a shellacking, which they richly deserve.

If that happens, the question is what a new Republican congressional majority should do. The answer is lots of things, but I have one suggestion: It’s time for some hearings of their own.

SEE ALSO

Democrats’ Jan. 6 hearing theater bares evil at heart of the Capitol riot

How the United States went from an energy-exporting nation with a booming economy, low gas prices and no new foreign wars to an energy-short nation with a stagnating economy, soaring prices for gas (and everything else) facing a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia deserves some looking into.

America has a president who’s not all there mentally, a doddering figure controlled by those around him. He was elected despite hiding out in his basement during a close election season. Scandals involving his son Hunter — and him — were banned from the media and from tech platforms in the leadup to the election. Problems with his mental capacity were known to the press and to Democratic Party officials but were hushed up.

Time magazine even ran a triumphant story, post-election, about how a “cabal” — Time’s word — of tech companies, political officials and media folks “saved” the election from Trump by ensuring Biden’s victory. 

We need to find out more about that.

The FBI falsely blamed Russian collusion for rumors about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

AP

How involved were government officials in this “cabal?” The FBI knowingly spread false information about Russian “collusion” during Trump’s presidency, and then told media organizations that the truthful stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop were Russian misinformation. Dozens of retired intelligence officials were produced to denounce the stories, though on what basis isn’t clear. We should find out.

As soon as Biden was sworn in, he — or his administration — began undercutting America’s hard-won energy independence. Pipelines were canceled, drilling leases were blocked and a war on fracking, in collaboration with financial companies following Environmental and Social Governance politics, drastically reduced US production. Then in the runup to the midterms, the Biden administration drew down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to historically low levels.

The United States is now more vulnerable to the manipulations of foreign energy producers than it has been in many years.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has been treating Americans with political views it dislikes as domestic terrorists. Attorney General Merrick Garland, at the behest of teachers unions and the White House, sicced federal investigators on parents who spoke up at school-board meetings. Now the FBI is breaking down doors among pro-life activists, even as it turns a blind eye to widespread arson against crisis pregnancy centers. Polls indicate that a majority of Americans now view the FBI as Biden’s personal Gestapo.

How did we get to this state of affairs? Congress should be asking pointed questions, and getting answers under oath.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the InstaPundit.com blog.

https://nypost.com/2022/10/21/after-the-jan-6-committee-finishes-maybe-a-gop-congress-can-probe-some-actual-threats-to-democracy/

Awesome Actual Diversity Among GOP Candidates Owns the Libs

Kurt Schlichter

Liberal "diversity" is stupid and evil, and we should utterly reject it. It's based on the origin of grandparents and other meaningless box-checks involving stuff like genitalia and genitalia preferences, and it has resulted in a grim uniformity in the kind of humorless pinko dorks who make up the Democrat candidate roster. What a bunch of stiffs, socialists, and schmucks. But the kind of diversity Republicans are demonstrating is something totally different. It has nothing to do with what continent their ancestors came from, what religion they adhere to, or even how they pee. It's conservative diversity – nominating a broad range of exceptional people with unique skill sets leveraged for maximum effect. And we're making it happen this election cycle.

For example, look at the Senate roster we might well have come January. Bad candidates? These guys are remarkable, especially compared to the unaccomplished Karens, woke weirdos, and posing weenies the Democrats are trying to shove down voters' throats.

Let's start with Dr. Oz. He's a TV star, sure, but that means he connects with people. He was poor and made himself rich – and from my conversations with him, that love of the American dream will bring an understanding to the Senate that we need in order to be the party that helps people get rich, or at least prosperous and secure. Plus, he's a cardiac surgeon – maybe having some more people who know a little about medicine might help us avoid "COVID II: Everybody Wear Your Groin Mask to Prevent Monkey Pox."

His opponent? The commie wife of a mutated ogre who not only was a parasite to his parents but has a parasitical lump on his neck. Perhaps Fetterman can provide the perspective of the mentally defective in the Senate, but frankly, the world's most tiresome deliberative body has that demo covered already.

In Arizona, we have Blake Masters, a brilliant entrepreneur with an understanding of business and tech. I met him recently, and this guy knows the score on technology policy and modern business. He's smart, and we can use the smart perspective as opposed to the dumb one. We ought to be grateful Blake will take the cut in pay and prestige to join the Senate.

Recommended

So, What Is ESG?Spencer Brown

Darrell Brooks Has a Meltdown After Prosecutor Goes Off on His Childish BehaviorJulio Rosas

His opponent? Mark Kelly was an astronaut. Unless the Senate is being shot into space – which I'm all for, BTW – that's not super-useful. Admittedly, the short shuttle pilot does check the diversity boxes for Hobbits and Biden submissives.

How about Herschel Walker? We're told he's dumb by the same people who have utterly screwed up our country over the last couple of decades, but there's no need to defer to their intimate personal familiarity with being stupid. Listen to Herschel. The guy is all heart and love for others, even obnoxious folks who trot out horrific racial tropes. He's a genuinely good guy. A guy who overcame a tough past, including mental illness. We want a guy with that character and that experience in the Senate. He doesn't need the heartache or hassle. He wants to help. That's why he's running. We need guys like that.

His opponent? The Right Reverend Evicto, who would live by Jesus's word if Jesus had said, "Boot thy tenant from thy crappy apartment if ye tenant falls short $30 in rent."

In Nevada, we have Adam Laxalt, a personal friend who I watched get up before everyone and work past when everyone else crashed during the election fight. He has a young family, and he served as a Naval officer. His roots in Nevada are deep – he knows everyone and everything that is going on. And he's smart – this is a guy who knows how to dig in and cross-examine and get to the truth when the Senate once again starts performing oversight on the Biden Regime instead of tongue baths.

His opponent is a non-entity whose name I can never remember.

JD Vance was a Marine, a tech guy – gee, tech would seem to be a topic we need to address good n' hard – and he famously grew up poor. I think the Senate could benefit from a few guys who grew up with plastic spoons in their pieholes instead of silver ones.

His opponent? Tim Ryan, whose inspiring life story is one of a guy who has spent his entire life either as a legislative staffer or a legislator. A lifelong politician is the opposite of diversity. It's adversity – for us.

Speaking of silver spoons, we are likely to see Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts replace the useless Ben Sasse when he finally goes away in the next couple of months. I had a lot of doubts about Ricketts until I heard him on the "Ruthless" podcast, thinking him both a family, wealthy, rich guy and a moderate. He's probably softer than me – everyone is – but what was important about him is his business experience and his focus on using business management principles to make government work better. That is invaluable.

And others bring great stuff to the table. Eric Schmitt in Missouri is an attorney general who has waged a legal battle against Big Tech and the Biden administration, but who also has a special needs son. His opponent is some rich lib lady dilettante. Tiffany Smiley in Washington nursed her wounded warrior husband back to health while General Bolduc in New Hampshire killed jihadis. Their opponents? Both are up against generic Chardonnay wine women who vote for whatever bit of pinko nonsense Schumer tells them to. 

Joe O'Dea in Colorado was a contractor and built stuff. Sadly, for reasons that baffle me, he chose to pick a fight with Trump. His opponent is a sissy city boy when half of Congress is already sissy city boys, so if he somehow overcomes his wang-stomp, he will be useful.

And Mike Lee, who is super smart, has an opponent – that vendor-shafting dork McMuffin – who was so obnoxious in their debate that an audience of mellow Utah people booed him. 

Look at that GOP lineup. Not one is there for any reason other than what he or she has done and who he or she is. You have hard skills from folks like Oz and Ricketts. You have bureaucracy fighters like Schmitt. Master and Vance know tech and know how to rein it in. Smiley and Bolduc both love the (real) military but also know the price of war and will provide a check on Bill Kristolian chickenhawk adventurism. Herschel Walker will bring heart to the caucus. And Mike Lee is a constitutional scholar.

I don't want a Senate made up entirely of tech guys, crusading lawyers, military guys, or ex-athletes on a mission to help others. But I want some of all of them, together, on our team. And what's the alternative? A bunch of prissy snobs telling you their pronouns and shrimping the toes of every pinko with a blue check. They are all the same.

We're diverse.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2022/10/19/awesome-actual-diversity-among-gop-candidates-owns-the-libs-n2614704