Vice President Kamala Harris says she&#8217;s ready to run again as President Joe Biden&#8217;s running mate in 2024 should he decide to go.
But it might not be her choice.
&#8220;As the president said, he intends to run. And if he does, I will be running with him,&#8221; Harris told reporters on board the Philippines Coast Guard ship Teresa Magbanua as she finished up a news-free trip to Asia.
Harris touted the Biden administration&#8217;s record, telling the media, &#8220;I have no doubt about the strength of the work that we have done over these past two years.&#8221; Well, tell that to the 64% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck.
And she tried to say spending another couple trillion dollars would solve everything. &#8220;We have delivered unprecedented relief for the American people during the pandemic,&#8221; she said. &#8220;We have passed an infrastructure law that many are talking about &#8212; we actually did.&#8221;
But Harris is wildly unpopular, even among the party faithful. And one very liberal news site this week said if Biden &#8212; who turned 80 over the weekend &#8212; really does go again, he oughta&#8217; bail on Kamala and pick someone else.
&#8220;As Joe Biden weighs a run for re-election even as he becomes the first octogenarian U.S. president in history, he should think back on what it was like to watch the Harris campaign flame out,&#8221; Slate <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/kamala-harris-joe-biden-new-vp-2024.html">wrote</a>.
&#8220;A second Biden term would mean even higher stakes for a vice-presidential pick—not only because Biden is older than he was the first time around, but because the VP serving when he leaves could be the de facto frontrunner in the [2028] Democratic primary. Harris, a proven dud of a presidential candidate who has done little to distinguish herself since, is not a good choice for the Democrats’ top billing. For his second term, should he seek one (he shouldn’t!), Biden should tap someone else,&#8221; the mag said.
According to RealClearPolitics, Harris has a 40% approval rating and a whopping 54% disapproval rating, the Los Angeles Times <a href="https://www.latimes.com/projects/kamala-harris-approval-rating-polls-vs-biden-other-vps/">reported</a> last week. Compared to her predecessors, Harris is faring far worse.
&#8220;As the country has become more partisan, vice presidents have been less likely to enjoy broad support among the public. Pence, for example, had a net favorability of roughly zero for much of his four years in the White House. Joe Biden, Dick Cheney and Al Gore all began their tenures with higher ratings than Harris currently enjoys,&#8221; the Times wrote.
Harris is unpopular in large part for her inattentiveness to the U.S. southern border, a task Biden assigned her in the early days of his administration.
&#8220;After becoming vice president, Harris was asked to lead the administration’s response to the contentious issue of immigration. Her handling of the topic has been criticized, which some observers link to her approval rating sinking at a greater rate than Biden’s thus far,&#8221; said the Times.
That has led some to say Biden should just run away from her.
&#8220;At the end of the day, it doesn’t much matter why Harris’s public favor has fallen,&#8221; Slate wrote. &#8220;Even though her bad polling numbers are not entirely her fault, for a variety of substantive reasons, she is not the rising political star she was initially made out to be. And an aging, past-his-prime statesman—especially one as disliked as Biden—needs the momentum of a rising star.&#8221;
&#8220;Democrats know this. They are already worried about it. I’ll leave it to them to decide who should replace Harris and how she could transition out of the job. (Would a Cabinet position do the trick?) At this point, almost any of the people who have been named as possible successors to Biden would be a better pick.&#8221;
&#8220;If Harris cares about the future of the Democratic agenda, she should gracefully step aside. The vice presidency is a valuable mechanism for soft-launching future presidential hopefuls. Democrats cannot waste it on a candidate who has already failed to launch,&#8221; Slate wrote.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Joseph Curl has covered politics for 35 years, including 12 years as White House correspondent for a national newspaper. He was also the a.m. editor of the Drudge Report for four years. Send tips to josephcurl@dailywire.com and follow him on Twitter @josephcurl.

Vice President Kamala Harris Travels to San Francisco California

Lib Mag: If President Joe Biden Runs Again In ’24, He Should Dump Kamala Harris

Lib Mag: If President Joe Biden Runs In '24, He Should Dump Kamala Harris

Elections

Executive

Joe Biden

Kamala Harris

Politics

Slate

Even though the backlash against Netflix&#8217;s &#8220;Cuties&#8221; was largely bi-partisan, a <a href="https://slate.com/culture/2020/09/netflix-cuties-controversy-explained-why-conservatives-are-obsessed-with-the-movie.html">new op-ed in Slate</a> has put the blame squarely on the shoulders of conservatives.
According to Sam Adams, conservatives have a &#8220;creepy&#8221; obsession with the new French film, which has been accused of indefensibly sexualizing 11-year-old girls in the name of artistry.
&#8220;The movie finds itself at the toxic intersection of QAnon delusion and right-wing moral panic, with a smattering of leftist outrage on the side. Brietbart has posted about the movie a half-dozen times in the past two days, singling out critics who praised the film, several of whom have received death threats and been harassed off social media,&#8221; wrote Adams. &#8220;And Thursday night, Tucker Carlson made it a <a href="https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1304223742630006786">centerpiece of his show</a>, accusing a nonspecific ‘they’ behind the movie of wanting to &#8216;<a href="https://dailycaller.com/2020/08/20/tucker-carlson-netflix-cuties-twerking-young-girls/">destroy young girls</a>.'&#8221;
Adams argued that critics of the movie have not actually seen it, choosing instead to go off of the marketing materials and viral clips online. Addressing those who would say that &#8220;Cuties&#8221; pushes soft-core child pornography, Adams argued that &#8220;intent&#8221; matters in this case.
&#8220;By definition, pornography requires intent, and whether or not Doucouré succeeded (and the reviews are divided on this point), her intent is clear,&#8221; Adams continued. &#8220;The movie’s protagonist, Amy, is an 11-year-old bouncing between the repressive culture of her conservative Islamic upbringing, where she is warned that &#8216;evil shows itself in the scantily clad women,&#8217; and the hypersexualized environment of Western culture, where images of adult women doing strip-club gyrations are emulated by tweens on social media for likes. The movie presents those images in order to critique them.&#8221;
Adams then addressed the politics of the situation by highlighting how conservatives were quick to point the finger at Susan Rice and former President Barack Obama — as Rice is a member of Netflix’s board of directors and the Obamas have a production deal with the streaming giant. According to Adams, conservatives now have a rallying cry to enlist more QAnon followers.
&#8220;It’s hardly accidental that most if not all of the right-wing attacks on Cuties invoke Netflix’s connection to Barack Obama, although the Obamas, who do have a production deal with Netflix, had nothing to do with the film’s acquisition,&#8221; said Adams. &#8220;It’s a way of winking at QAnon’s insistence that the Democratic Party is a haven for pedophiles.&#8221;
Conservatives are hardly the only people in America currently denouncing the movie &#8220;Cuties.&#8221; As of this writing, the movie holds a lousy <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/">2.1 rating on IMDb</a> and an audience score of <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cuties">3% on Rotten Tomatoes</a> — two difficult scores to achieve unless the movie was universally disliked beyond the elite critical class. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) also joined in the attack on &#8220;Cuties&#8221; over the weekend when she said the movie will &#8220;whet the appetite of pedophiles.&#8221;
&#8220;[Netflix] child porn &#8216;Cuties&#8217; will certainly whet the appetite of pedophiles &amp; help fuel the child sex trafficking trade. 1 in 4 victims of trafficking are children. It happened to my friend&#8217;s 13 year old daughter. Netflix, you are now complicit,&#8221; tweeted Gabbard.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/you-are-now-complicit-tulsi-gabbard-blasts-netflix-for-promoting-child-porn">‘YOU ARE NOW COMPLICIT’: Tulsi Gabbard Blasts Netflix For Promoting ‘Child Porn’</a>

In this photo illustration the American global on-demand

Slate Op-Ed Explores The ‘Creepy Conservative Obsession With Netflix’s Cuties’

Netflix

&#8220;Never let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.&#8221; – Leftist Journalism 101
Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit is, you see, a conservative man. In what was still a relatively rare move, at the time, Senate Democrats filibustered the judicial nomination of the then-Alabama attorney general due to their belief that Pryor was a devil-may-care extremist. In 2004, President George W. Bush first installed Pryor on the bench via <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/20/bush.pryor/">recess appointment</a>. During an at-times heated eventual Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, the avowedly pro-life Pryor had these <a href="https://www.congress.gov/108/chrg/CHRG-108shrg91200/CHRG-108shrg91200.htm">remarkable exchanges</a> with Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Arlen Specter (R-PA):
<blockquote>Schumer: Now, you have said on occasion, on several occasions, that Roe v. Wade is &#8220;the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.&#8221; Do you believe that as of right now?
Pryor: I do.
Schumer: I appreciate your candor, I really do. &#8230;
Specter: &#8220;In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court preserved the worst abomination of constitutional law [Roe] in our history.&#8221; Is that an accurate quotation of yours?
Pryor: Yes.
Specter: Is that [comment] one which would fall into the category that Senator [Orrin] Hatch has commented on, you wish you had not made?
Pryor: No, I stand by that comment.
Specter: Why do you consider it an abomination, Attorney General Pryor?
Pryor: Well, I believe that not only is the case unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children. That&#8217;s my personal belief.</blockquote>
Since joining the federal judiciary, Pryor — on issues ranging from criminal sentencing to habeas corpus to due process to the role of religion in public life — has indeed been a consistent voice for an originalist, conservative jurisprudence. He was publicly floated as a leading contender for the Supreme Court vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, which was ultimately filled by now-Justice Neil Gorsuch. Alas, that was a botched opportunity for those of us <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-yes-alabama-legislature-right-openly-defy-josh-hammer">staunchly pro-life</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-a-political-wish-for-2020-less-socialism-more-law-and-order">traditional law-and-order</a> conservatives with no small degree of skepticism for the genre of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-three-things-conservatives-must-look-future-josh-hammer">libertarian-infused</a> originalism sometimes <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/gorsuch-dead-wrong-immigration/">peddled by Gorsuch</a>.
Regardless, the Left has never forgiven Pryor for his steadfast refusal to bend the knee at the altar of the progressive golden calf. He has repeatedly found himself, over the years, in the crosshairs of what Andrew Breitbart famously called the &#8220;<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574451703003340362">Democrat-Media Complex</a>.&#8221; Which brings us to the recent 11th Circuit case of <a href="http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201715470.pdf">U.S. v. Brown</a>.
If you believe the findings of the trial court, former U.S. Congresswoman Corrine Brown of Florida is about as corrupt as an elected Democrat can come. Brown, who served in Congress for 24 years, was ultimately convicted in May 2017 on 20 federal corruption charges, ranging from mail fraud to filing false tax return documentation. In December 2017, she was sentenced to five years in federal penitentiary and ordered to pay restitution.
And now, just last week, her federal appeal in the 11th Circuit was denied — over the dissent, perhaps curiously at first blush, of Judge Pryor. For having the temerity to opine that an allegedly deeply venal Democrat is rightfully &#8220;entitle[d] to a new trial,&#8221; Pryor was <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/trump-supreme-court-shortlister-william-pryor-god-juries.html">excoriated at Slate yesterday</a> by longstanding leftist legal blogger Andrew Cohen.
It is important to understand why Cohen&#8217;s risible smear does not even pass the smell test.
Brown&#8217;s trial featured a peculiar twist. One prospective juror, to whom the dueling 11th Circuit opinions only refer as &#8220;Juror 13,&#8221; appears to have been a devout Christian. For the trial court, this was problematic. Here is how Matthew Franck <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/the-case-of-the-florida-politico-and-the-praying-juror/">accurately summarizes</a> the crux of the legally relevant issue at National Review&#8217;s &#8220;Bench Memos&#8221; blog:
<blockquote>After an eight-day trial, the jury was given its instructions by the court; at the end of the second day of its deliberations one juror (Juror 8) relayed her concern to the judge that another juror (Juror 13) had spoken of being guided by a “higher being” in reaching the conclusion that Brown should be acquitted on all counts.
Summoned to meet with the judge and counsel in the case, Juror 13 was questioned about what he had said, and about his ability to participate in deciding the case according to the evidence and testimony. After two probing — but often somewhat opaque — interviews, the judge decided to excuse the juror (and seat an alternate in his place), ruling that it was “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he could not be trusted to abide by his juror’s oath to do impartial justice according to the evidence.</blockquote>
Specifically, Juror 13&#8217;s purportedly disqualifying sin was saying, at some point during juror deliberations, &#8220;something to the effect of &#8216;the Holy Spirit told me that Corrine Brown was not guilty on all charges.'&#8221;
Cohen, mocking Pryor&#8217;s &#8220;long, rambling dissent,&#8221; cavalierly asserts that &#8220;[t]he problem with Juror 13 wasn’t just that he believed he was being directed by God to render a decidedly secular verdict. The problem also was that he evidently did not understand that to say so, to believe so, would undermine his ability to abide by the judge’s instructions and evaluate Brown’s guilt or innocence based solely on the evidence in court.&#8221;
This is a disingenuous and willful distortion of the record in this case.
Pryor&#8217;s dissent, spanning 65 pages, painstakingly produces large chunks of the trial court record in order to demonstrate that Juror 13 did not do precisely what Cohen accuses him of having done. The 11th Circuit&#8217;s legal standard for dismissing a deliberating juror is the high threshold of &#8220;beyond reasonable doubt,&#8221; and as Pryor writes, &#8220;[i]f this devout juror’s religious language alone proved his misconduct &#8216;beyond reasonable doubt,&#8217; &#8230; then the phrase &#8216;reasonable doubt&#8217; has changed its meaning.&#8221;
Pryor&#8217;s dissent is a tour de force, devoting pages to citations of religious texts from manifold faiths in order to demonstrate that &#8220;every prayer implies a hope that the prayer be answered.&#8221; Every juror takes a solemn oath, after all, and it is undisputed that the taking of such an oath — &#8220;an ancient tradition of ensuring honesty by invoking supernatural sanction on those who swear a false oath&#8221; — necessarily means that jurors are allowed to pray for guidance that they reach the correct outcome. And &#8220;if religious jurors may pray for God’s guidance, it follows that they must be entitled to receive God’s guidance, or at least to believe that they have received it.&#8221;
As with so many others facets of our legal and constitutional order that leftists routinely obfuscate and bastardize, the legal principles in play here are really not that complicated. In fact, Pryor expressly and unambiguously disavows the very line of argumentation that Cohen recklessly imputes to him (some internal citations omitted and emphasis bolded):
<blockquote>
<div class="page" title="Page 94">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
[A] juror who refuses or is unable to apply the law to the evidence for a spiritual reason is no less subject to dismissal than a juror who does the same thing for a secular reason. When it is apparent beyond a reasonable doubt that “‘religious inspiration’ prevent[s] [a] juror from considering the evidence at all,” United States v. Salvador, 740 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir. 1984), that juror may be dismissed, just like a juror who refuses to deliberate for any other reason. And when it is apparent beyond a reasonable doubt that a juror has “abandon[ed] his or her judgment [about the evidence] to what he or she perceives to be oracular signs,” that juror may be dismissed, just like a juror who decides to base her vote on any other nonevidential event, like the weather or the outcome of a coin flip.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="page" title="Page 94">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
On the other hand, &#8220;[a]s long as the object of [a religious juror&#8217;s] prayers is an honest attempt to discern the facts from the evidence and to apply the law to those facts, the prayerful meditations of such a juror are no less valid a form of deliberation than any other.&#8221;
The Founders would have been positively aghast at the notion that this could somehow be controversial. That it is deemed controversial, in the year 2020, says everything one needs to know about the insidious secularization of contemporary society.
In short, there was nothing in a careful review of the trial court record to demonstrate that Juror 13 was incapable of assessing the evidence presented at trial. On the contrary, Juror 13 &#8220;told the district court time and time again that he was basing his decision on the evidence,&#8221; and only believed that the Holy Spirit spoke to him in the context of answering his prayers for guidance in reaching the right outcome after adducing the evidence. Those would be the same prayers for guidance that must be viewed in the context of Juror 13&#8217;s having sworn an oath, just like all his fellow jurors, to &#8220;truly try the case now before this court and render a true verdict, according to the law, evidence, and instructions of this court, so help [him] God.&#8221;
Secularists may not care for such niceties, but the reality is that, as constitutional law scholar Michael Stokes Paulsen has been fond of noting over the years, the Founding generation viewed the solemnity of oaths quite seriously. In fact, as I note in my <a href="https://fedsoc.org/contributors/josh-hammer">current Federalist Society</a> lecture on the constitutionality (or <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-646_d18e.pdf">lack thereof</a>) of stare decisis in constitutional interpretation, the gravity of the judicial oath helped undergird Chief Justice John Marshall&#8217;s iconic ruling in the landmark 1803 <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137#writing-USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZO">Marbury v. Madison</a> decision:
<blockquote>Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support! &#8230;
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
</blockquote>
The reality is that those like Cohen — those who would fearmonger and alienate by putting &#8220;religious freedom&#8221; in scare-quotes — reek with dripping condescension for religious Americans. Cohen, a lawyer himself, is part of the &#8220;culture of legal discourse&#8221; that Pryor rightly describes as one that &#8220;often struggles to understand religious practice or to take religious perspectives seriously.&#8221; Cohen and his ilk, part of our most supercilious bicoastal ruling class clerisy, simply despise the rubes and yokels of flyover country. They despise the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-who-will-stand-for-the-forgotten-american">forgotten Americans</a> of the heartland. And they despise those members of &#8220;our credentialed judicial elite,&#8221; such as Pryor himself, who adamantly stand for those same forgotten Americans.
This is the narrative that motivates Andrew Cohen. And he will not allow such stubborn things as facts to get in the way of his preferred narrative.
</div>
</div>
</div>

Hand of witness on Bible in courtroom

HAMMER: Judge William Pryor Is Yet Again A Victim Of The Left’s War On Truth

Abortion

Christianity

Constitution

First Amendment

Judicial Branch

Judiciary

Lawsuit

Religion

The leftist writers of the leftist online magazine, Slate, have voted to protest Slate for not being leftist enough.
The writers voted 52-1 to authorize a strike and are considering walking out of their jobs over several demands, including right-to-work policies, <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/slate-writers-vote-to-strike">according to the Washington Examiner</a>.
&#8220;Today we&#8217;re announcing the results of our strike authorization vote,&#8221; the union said on its official account, @SlateUnion. &#8220;Last week, 100 percent of our bargaining unit voted and 98 percent chose to authorize a strike if necessary. We&#8217;re proud of this overwhelming representation of solidarity.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Today weâ&#8364;&#8482;re announcing the results of our strike authorization vote. Last week, 100 percent of our bargaining unit voted and 98 percent chose to authorize a strike if necessary. Weâ&#8364;&#8482;re proud of this overwhelming representation of solidarity.
&#8212; Slate Union (@SlateUnion) <a href="https://twitter.com/SlateUnion/status/1072514820933595136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Before the vote, the employees also protested by not responding to their managers for hour-long periods on Slack, a workplace communication and collaboration hub, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-11/slate-s-newly-unionized-writers-and-editors-give-ok-to-strike">Bloomberg reported.</a>
In a thread, the union explains that they&#8217;ve been in a bargaining contract for eight months. 
&#8220;We&#8217;re excited by a lot of what we&#8217;ve achieved at the table,&#8221; they tweeted. &#8220;But we&#8217;re still dismayed by management&#8217;s position on certain key issues.&#8221;
The writers are reportedly unhappy with the pay, the lack of diversity, and the management&#8217;s support of &#8220;right-to-work&#8221; policies which allow workers to opt out of joining a union and contributing financial support.
The union called on Slate to consider a diverse mix of candidates for positions. In November, Slate Union tweeted it was &#8220;committed to enshrining policies that ensure we&#8217;ll collectively adhere to best practices when hiring,&#8221; adding, &#8220;This is critical given the lack of diversity in newsrooms, including our own.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
3/ Slate Union is committed to enshrining policies that ensure we&#8217;ll collectively adhere to best practices when hiring. This is critical given the lack of diversity in newsrooms, including our own. To that end, we&#8217;ve proposed a Rooney Rule, which our management has yet to accept.
&#8212; Slate Union (@SlateUnion) <a href="https://twitter.com/SlateUnion/status/1063492549061500928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 16, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Slate employee, Jenny G. Zhang, tweeted that &#8220;management needs to take seriously&#8221; the requests for &#8220;diversity/inclusion&#8221; because &#8220;ya&#8217;ll already know slate is too f****** white.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
i&#8217;m a member of <a href="https://twitter.com/SlateUnion?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SlateUnion</a>, and i was one of the 98 percent to vote for strike authorization. management needs to take seriously the requests for pay equity, diversity/inclusion (y&#8217;all already know slate is too fucking white), and union security. please share this thread, thanks <a href="https://t.co/oTVxHSua9K">https://t.co/oTVxHSua9K</a>
&#8212; Jenny G. Zhang (@jennygzhang) <a href="https://twitter.com/jennygzhang/status/1072522107735674880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Of the right-to-work policies, Slate Union <a href="https://twitter.com/SlateUnion/status/1072514822158409735">called them</a> a &#8220;technique designed to degrade the legitimacy of our union.&#8221;
Jordan Weissmann, who writes about the economy, healthcare, and taxes for Slate, called the right-to-work policies &#8220;unacceptable,&#8221; in a tweet. 
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Slate&#8217;s union has voted to authorize a strike, in part because management has refused to budge on its demand that we agree to a right-to-work clause in our contract, which we find unacceptable. <a href="https://t.co/lgjfFbwsMt">https://t.co/lgjfFbwsMt</a>
&#8212; Jordan Weissmann (@JHWeissmann) <a href="https://twitter.com/JHWeissmann/status/1072520279635714048?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;We love Slate,&#8221; the union added in the thread. &#8220;We want make the strongest [sic], best Slate possible. But Slate is its workers&#8212;it&#8217;s the writers, editors, producers, and staffers who make the magazine.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We love Slate. We want make the strongest, best Slate possible. But Slate is its workersâ&#8364;&#8221;itâ&#8364;&#8482;s the writers, editors, producers, and staffers who make the magazine.
&#8212; Slate Union (@SlateUnion) <a href="https://twitter.com/SlateUnion/status/1072514822988853249?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;We just feel that it&#8217;s a total and absolute betrayal of Slate&#8217;s most fundamental values,&#8221; said Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern, told Bloomberg.
According to Bloomberg, a group of law professors and legal experts who freelance for Slate released a statement urging Slate to rescind its right-to-work policies, calling them &#8220;anathema to the values that drew us to Slate in the first place.&#8221; 
Slate Union also urged its Slate+ readers to send letters of support.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We really appreciate the support of our readers. If you&#8217;re a Slate reader, please share this thread. If you&#8217;re a Slate+ member, you can send a letter of support to slateunion@gmail.com.
&#8212; Slate Union (@SlateUnion) <a href="https://twitter.com/SlateUnion/status/1072514825694134273?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
In January, Slate&#8217;s writers voted 47-5 to form a union represented by Writers&#8217; Guild of America East, which said the Slate employees are fighting for a &#8220;reasonable&#8221; contract.
&#8220;The WGAE-represented employees at Slate have made two things clear to management: they want a reasonable contract that addresses their needs and respects their decision to unionize, and they&#8217;re willing to fight for it. The Writers Guild of America, East and its thousands of members stand with the Slate employees, and we know that solidarity works,&#8221; the group&#8217;s executive director, Lowell Peterson, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/media/420771-newly-unionized-slate-staff-votes-to-strike">said</a>.
In recent years, several leftist media companies have reportedly unionized, including HuffPost, Vice Media, the Guardian, the Daily Beast, and the New Yorker.

Not Woke Enough: Slate Writers Vote To Go On Strike

Protest

Over the weekend, a photo of George H.W. Bush&#8217;s service dog went viral. The photo showed Sully, a two-year-old yellow Labrador, laying in front of Bush&#8217;s flag-draped coffin, looking sullen.
Bush&#8217;s longtime aide and friend, Jim McGrath, posted the picture on Twitter, which then blew up <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38947/photo-george-hw-bushs-service-dog-goes-viral-joseph-curl">across the internet</a>.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Mission complete. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Remembering41?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Remembering41</a> <a href="https://t.co/rXdyXAS4lk">pic.twitter.com/rXdyXAS4lk</a>
&#8212; Jim McGrath (@jgm41) <a href="https://twitter.com/jgm41/status/1069411159730790400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 3, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
So how did the liberal online magazine Slate respond to the moving photograph? By writing a piece headlined: &#8220;Don&#8217;t Spend Your Emotional Energy on Sully H.W. Bush.&#8221;
<blockquote>
[I]t&#8217;s a bit demented to project soul-wrenching grief onto a dog&#8217;s decision to lie down in front of a casket. Is Sully &#8220;heroic&#8221; for learning to obey the human beings who taught him to perform certain tasks? Does the photo say anything special about this dog&#8217;s particular loyalty or judgment, or is he just &#8230; there? Also, if dogs are subject to praise for obeying their masters, what do we do about the pets who eat their owners&#8217; dead (or even just passed-out) bodies?
The photograph, in other words, is not proof that Sully is a particularly &#8220;good boy&#8221; or that &#8220;we don&#8217;t deserve dogs,&#8221; as countless swooning tweets put it on Monday. On its own, it says almost nothing other than the fact that Sully was, at one point in the same room as the casket of his former boss. This is simply a photograph of a dog doing something dogs love to do: Lie down. The frenzy around it captures something humans love to do, too: Project our own emotional needs onto animals.
</blockquote>
Well.
Needless to say, Slate got absolutely shredded for the pointless piece.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
And you are a bunch of idiots who haven&#8217;t had a lucid thought in the last six months <a href="https://t.co/oi7S728tqW">https://t.co/oi7S728tqW</a>
&#8212; Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1069785603779125248?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
I&#8217;ve only been aware of Sully for a hot minute and I love him. Don&#8217;t you dare try to tell me the man he helped after his wife died didn&#8217;t love him too.
&#8212; Phyllis (@connachtpa) <a href="https://twitter.com/connachtpa/status/1069805509455347713?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
Seriously <a href="https://twitter.com/Slate?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Slate</a>? Not getting enough attention today so you had to pick on a SERVICE DOG?? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/shame?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#shame</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/dogsrule?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#dogsrule</a>
&#8212; Amy Nichols (@amynichols) <a href="https://twitter.com/amynichols/status/1069806062549827585?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Shorter Slate:
&#8220;We have no souls and take no joy in life, so here&#8217;s the worst thing we could think of to write&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/TLLzM99uVq">https://t.co/TLLzM99uVq</a>
&#8212; Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) <a href="https://twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/1069758271194566656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I for one am shocked to learn that Sully was not George H.W. Bush&#8217;s lifelong companion, which would&#8217;ve made Sully about 658 in dog years. <a href="https://t.co/hWzR0eUwGc">https://t.co/hWzR0eUwGc</a>
&#8212; Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) <a href="https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1069767284716130305?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Here&#8217;s your daily reminder that <a href="https://twitter.com/Slate?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Slate</a> is complete garbage. <a href="https://t.co/D4L45DOmcA">https://t.co/D4L45DOmcA</a>
&#8212; Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams/status/1069767299199062021?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
Things that are good: Sully the Pup
Things that are bad: This article
&#8212; Will Piereson (@JWP1022) <a href="https://twitter.com/JWP1022/status/1069770330774888448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>

Slate Writer Gets Ripped To Shreds After Attacking George H. W. Bush’s Loyal Service Dog

George H.W. Bush

When a &#8220;Make America Great Again&#8221; hat enters the room, some people act as if they&#8217;re in a horror film, whimpering: &#8220;This is no dream. This is really happening&#8221;&#8212; to quote Rosemary&#8217;s Baby. The dreaded red cap has them so upset they&#8217;re firing off letters to parenting columns for advice on how to handle MAGA-wearing relatives.
The following exchange is from &#8220;Care and Feeding,&#8221; Slate&#8217;s <a href="https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/07/parenting-advice-about-maga-gear-bedtimes-and-playing-by-yourself.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">parenting advice column</a>. While the columnist tries to talk the distressed relative off the ledge with words of calm &#8212; just back away slowly &#8212; she isn&#8217;t too far from the edge herself. She talks about President Donald Trump supporters as if they&#8217;re mentally deranged cultists consumed by the dark side of the force. &#8220;Not only are you motivated by an objection to bad forces in the world,&#8221; she advises the terrified relative, &#8220;but you also have the chance to be motivated by a desire to keep someone you love from being a part of bad forces in the world.&#8221;
<blockquote>
Dear Care and Feeding,
What do you say to your 18-year-old niece wearing a Make America Great Again hat at a family party? Respect her autonomy as an adult to peacefully display her political views? Counsel her privately that her choice to wear the hat makes you and other people uncomfortable? Ask her why she&#8217;s wearing the hat?
&#8212;Make My Niece Great Again?
Dear MMNGA,
I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s a hard and fast rule about what to do with someone rocking MAGA gear. Sometimes I&#8217;d advise backing off; other times I would probably say that certain people could stand to be confronted. But even though the situations differ, the goals, to me at least, remain the same. Less harm, violence, and oppression for people and more kindness, equality, justice, love, and connection.
It is my personal belief that if fewer people thought Donald Trump was good, the world would probably be better off. But it&#8217;s also my belief that I can&#8217;t&#8212;nor should I&#8212;feel responsible for changing the mind of every such person I encounter. As a black person, that strikes me as absurd. I didn&#8217;t create the mess of this country&#8217;s wild history with race and violence, so why should I be consigned to be running around trying to fix it for people? I have to pick and choose my spots.
However, I am assuming that you are a white person (call it a lucky guess), so the situation is different for you. And in this case, you have a unique opportunity. You love and trust someone who currently supports Donald Trump, which means that you have an existing relationship with that person outside of politics. This means that you can talk with your niece without her having to doubt that you love her, and loving your niece has an extra value here. Not only are you motivated by an objection to bad forces in the world, but you also have the chance to be motivated by a desire to keep someone you love from being a part of bad forces in the world. I do believe that love is one of the most powerful forces of change. It does not mean that loving your enemy will keep them from killing you (people really love getting that message twisted). But it does mean that we are generally more courageous, clear, and therefore effective when motivated by love than we are when motivated by hate or fear.
You may hate seeing your niece in this hat. You may fear what her wearing this hat means about her, or what it means she may think of you. But what you must prioritize above those things is love. Love for your niece, love for the people who are harmed by what your niece&#8217;s hat represents and supports. With that in mind, not only can you talk with her, you must talk with her. Tell her what your concerns are. Listen to hers. Give her things to think about. It is not about the hat. It is about who she is and who she can be. But I have a feeling you already know this. Good luck.
</blockquote>

Slate Advice Column Frets Over MAGA Hat

Donald Trump

I think we can all agree there was no shortage of breaking news this week. Whether it was the firing of Anthony Scaramucci, Stephen Miller&#8217;s annihilation of Jim Acosta on immigration, or telephone transcripts leaked from the White House, it&#8217;s been a busy week in Washington. Despite the abundance of newsworthy stories, there were a number of other headlines this week that seemed &#8230; well, slightly obvious.
1. &#8220;<a href="https://apnews.com/fc9b1724800d466789a6926ad96d2f32">James Comey Has A Book Deal, Publication Set For Next Spring</a>&#8221; (Associated Press)
A blind man could have seen this coming. According to the article, &#8220;Comey is writing a book about leadership and decision making that will draw upon his career in government.&#8221; The book will largely focus on his (wait for it) &#8220;handling of the bureau&#8217;s probe into Hillary Clinton&#8217;s private email server to allegations of ties between Russia and Donald Trump&#8217;s presidential campaign.&#8221;
Although I anticipated this, I do find it odd that the former FBI Director, a man charged with protecting state secrets, is now in the midst of writing a tell-all book.
2. &#8220;<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/newswires/news/national/president-donald-trump-won-stay-social-media-article-1.3374419">President Donald Trump Says He Won&#8217;t Stay Off Social Media</a>&#8220; (Associated Press)
Stop the presses! This article was inspired by a Trump tweet (go figure) that reassured the free world that their daily dose of presidential entertainment would continue indefinitely. The tweet reads, &#8220;Only the Fake News Media and Trump enemies want me to stop using Social Media (110 million people). Only way for me to get the truth out!&#8221;
The tweet was apparently enough to warrant an entire article.
3. &#8220;<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/08/02/states_that_punish_pregnant_women_for_drinking_are_more_likely_to_restrict.html">States That Punish Pregnant Women For Drinking Are More Likely To Restrict Reproductive Rights</a>&#8221; (Slate)
Huh &#8230; It&#8217;s almost like those states don&#8217;t want you to maim and murder babies. This is a great reminder that Slate can always be counted on to provide crack journalism. Is that a Pulitzer Prize I see in your future?
4. &#8220;<a href="https://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2017/08/03/msnbc-host-seems-surprised-the-majority-of-Americans-want-immigrants-to-learn-English-n2364039">MSNBC Host Seems Surprised The Majority Of Americans Want Immigrants To Learn English</a>&#8220;(Townhall)
This was actually an interesting read. The article focuses on a tweet from Christopher Hayes, who is apparently perplexed by data showing Americans prefer that their neighbors speak English. Hayes tweeted, &#8220;Very interesting data in here. Among them: &#8220;learn English!&#8221; Is an overwhelmingly popular position across both parties.&#8221;
The data he references came from a recent <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/upshot/the-great-political-divide-over-american-identity.html">New York Times</a> article that explored American identity. The story cites research from <a href="http://www.democracyfund.org/">The Democracy Fund</a>, which found that an overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats (95% and 75%, respectively) believe the ability to speak English is important in the U.S.
Hayes may be surprised by this revelation, but his shout into the mainstream media&#8217;s echo chamber came as no surprise to me. To borrow Stephen Miller&#8217;s words, &#8220;Mr. Hayes&#8217;, your cosmopolitan is showing.&#8221;
With constant palace intrigue at the White House, the ineptitude of Congress continually on display, and new developments surrounding Robert Mueller&#8217;s Special Council breaking daily, I&#8217;m sure there will be ample sources of riveting news in the coming week. Every once in a while though, it&#8217;s nice to find the headlines that tell you exactly what you already know.

Tyler Dahnke is a father, husband and wine enthusiast who&#8217;s doing his best to make sense of today&#8217;s insane political landscape. You can follow him on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/TylerDahnke">@tylerdahnke</a>.

WATER STILL WET: The Most Unnecessary Headlines Of The Week

James Comey

Media Bias

New York Times

We may never know what brutal torture and malign neglect American student Otto Warmbier suffered at the hands of North Korea&#8217;s dictatorship before losing his life this week at the age of 22.
But it wasn&#8217;t the first time the free-spirited Ohio native died.
More than a year before succumbing to the unknown illness or injury that left him in a coma thousands of miles away from home, Otto Warmbier&#8217;s own countrymen murdered his reputation. His character. His humanity.
Click-hungry media ghouls knew nothing about Warmbier&#8217;s small-town upbringing, his family life, politics, personality, disappointments or dreams. But they gleefully savaged a young man who made a mistake on a doomed trip to a totalitarian hell.
Warmbier&#8217;s thoughtless taunters instantly transformed him into a bigger, badder villain than the barbaric DPRK goons who beat, starve, rape and kill enemies of the state for such offenses as listening to foreign radio broadcasts, possessing Bibles and disrespecting Dear Leader &#8212; in Warmbier&#8217;s case, by attempting to steal a propaganda sign that read &#8220;Let&#8217;s arm ourselves strongly with Kim Jong-il&#8217;s patriotism!&#8221; as a souvenir.
The Huffington Post published an acid rant by &#8220;Blogging While Black&#8221; writer La Sha titled &#8220;North Korea Proves Your White Male Privilege Is Not Universal.&#8221; She rejoiced at Warmbier&#8217;s sentence because, she gloated, it taught him that &#8220;the shield his cis white male identity provides here in America is not teflon abroad.&#8221;
Instead of faulting a repressive socialist regime, La Sha blamed Warmbier for &#8220;being socialized first as a white boy, and then as a white man in this country.&#8221; The HuffPo&#8216;s megalomaniac millennial had the gall to compare her daily plight of living and breathing freely in America to Warmbier&#8217;s captivity:
&#8220;The hopeless fear Warmbier is now experiencing is my daily reality living in a country where white men like him are willfully oblivious to my suffering even as they are complicit in maintaining the power structures which ensure their supremacy at my expense.&#8221;
But it wasn&#8217;t just babbling diversity bloggers who exploited Warmbier&#8217;s imprisonment.
For a few cheap yuks, liberal black comedian Larry Wilmore plowed ahead with smug disregard to how Warmbier&#8217;s parents, family and friends must have suffered as photos and videos of their son and loved one were plastered all over media. To canned laughter, Wilmore mocked Warmbier on his Comedy Central show with a graphic labeling him an &#8220;ASS,&#8221; which spelled out a fake frat name, &#8220;Alpha Sigma Sigma.&#8221;
&#8220;It&#8217;s just tough for me to have much sympathy for this guy and his crocodile tears,&#8221; Wilmore snarked as he roasted the &#8220;Frat Boy.&#8221;
Left-wing website Salon added another layer to the white male-bashing echo chamber:
&#8220;This might be America&#8217;s biggest idiot frat boy: Meet the UVa student who thought he could pull a prank in North Korea.&#8221;
Not to be outdone, Affinity Magazine (a &#8220;social justice&#8221; online magazine for teens) stomped on Warmbier&#8217;s grave after his death was announced:
&#8220;Watch whiteness work,&#8221; the publication tweeted. &#8220;He wasn&#8217;t a &#8216;kid&#8217; or &#8216;innocent&#8217; you can&#8217;t go to another country and try to steal from them. Respect their laws.&#8221;
This from a rag that had deified Black Lives Matter icons Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin as downtrodden youth whose extensive rap sheets must remain unmentioned at all costs.
Otto&#8217;s saboteurs engaged in the very same bigotry and stereotyping they recklessly accuse everyone else of at every turn. The far left learned nothing from leaping to conclusions about the Duke lacrosse players or the wrongfully accused members of Phi Kappa Psi at University of Virginia &#8212; where Warmbier was a junior double-majoring in commerce and economics.
By all accounts, Warmbier was a charismatic and caring human being whom one high-school classmate called &#8220;Everyone&#8217;s friend.&#8221; He was a lover of cultures and intellectually open-minded &#8212; &#8220;a warm, engaging, brilliant young man whose curiosity and enthusiasm for life knew no bounds,&#8221; according to his family.
Utterly consumed by malignant identity politics, the left-wing intelligentsia have become the intolerantsia. They are bent on dehumanizing individuals, fomenting racial, ethnic and class division in the name of &#8220;progressivism,&#8221; and never taking responsibility for the damage done.
Contrast the no-regrets policy of these &#8220;Frat Boy&#8221;-bashers, with a former North Korean prison guard, Lim Hye-jin, who escaped recently and recounted the horrors of life in the camps.
&#8220;We were manipulated not to feel any sympathy for prisoners,&#8221; she said. The guards of the totalitarian state &#8220;do not see them as human beings, just as animals.&#8221; After realizing she had been brainwashed by ideological monsters, she spoke out.
&#8220;Now I know they were normal people, so I feel very guilty.&#8221;
Will the short, slandered life and double death of Otto Warmbier prompt the American left&#8217;s cruel character assassins to admit the same?
Soul-searching, alas, requires a soul.
Michelle Malkin is host of &#8220;Michelle Malkin Investigates&#8221; on CRTV.com. Her email address is writemalkin@gmail.com. To find out more about Michelle Malkin and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

Menu