Here are the concessions won by conservative Republicans in the Speaker race

I was 100% behind the conservative rebellion against newly-elected Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy. A lot of people said it was pointless to challenge him, but if you looked closely, there was a specific list of concessions that the conservatives were trying to get. The mainstream news media tried to call the delays “chaotic” and “divisive”. But this is how you get what you want from a negotiation.

Here’s the story from Daily Wire:

After days of negotiations and 15 roll call votes, California Rep. Kevin McCarthy became House speaker early Saturday morning after reportedly giving major concessions to a group of Republican holdouts increasing the influence of some of the chamber’s most conservative members.

McCarthy’s concessions include changes to how the House is run, placing members of the House Freedom Caucus on key committees, and the creation of a committee to conduct a major investigation into the FBI.

Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz… told the New York Post. “Many of these things had been resisted by Kevin McCarthy as early as Monday and now we have an exquisite rules package.”

According to Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), the “juice was worth the squeeze.”

Here are the concessions:

These included getting a vote on a border security plan, a budget that doesn’t allow the debt ceiling to increase, an end to all COVID mandates and funding, a term limit vote, single subject bills, and allowing at least 72 hours given for members to read bills.

Another key provision is allowing for any member to introduce a motion to vacate the chair, meaning that members can demand a vote to remove the Speaker from the position. Another concession that was discussed throughout the week was creating an open amendment process to bills, making it easier for lawmakers to change bills during debate.

“Any power that limits the speaker’s power is a step in the right direction,” one Freedom Caucus staffer told the Post. “The Freedom Caucus is more relevant than ever, and McCarthy won’t be able to get anything done without our endorsement and support.”

Members of the Freedom Caucus will also reportedly be placed on the Rules Committee and the Appropriations Committee, committees crucial to how the House runs and how funding is doled out.

The House Freedom Caucus is the conservative wing of the conservative party. They have a reputation for solving problems with smart policies that win votes on both sides of the aisle. So the more influence they have, the more the actions of the Republican party are going to reflect the will of the Republican voters (rather than the Republican DONORS).

And here is the best win of all:

Another key concession given to the McCarthy holdouts was the guarantee that a Church-style committee would be formed to look into the politicization of the FBI. The Church Committee investigated CIA abuses in the 1970s, which led to the exposure of things like the infamous MKULTRA program.

“With the rules agreement we negotiated, we will have a powerful Church-style committee to go after the weaponization of the federal government – the FBI, DOJ, DHS, and all the rest,” Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) said. “This is a victory for the Constitutional rights of all Americans.”

Just to refresh everyone, here is the list of Republicans who refused to be rolled over by the Republican establishment:

Dan Bishop (NC), Lauren Boebert (CO), Byron Donalds (FL), Josh Brecheen (OK), Mike Cloud (TX), Andrew Clyde (GA), Eli Crane (AZ), Matt Gaetz (FL), Bob Good (VA), Paul Gosar (AZ), Andy Harris (MD), Anna Paulina Luna (FL), Mary Miller (IL), Ralph Norman (SC), Andy Ogles (TN), Scott Perry (PA), Matt Rosendale (MT), Chip Roy (TX), Keith Self (TX), and Andy Biggs (AZ).

What I thought was interesting is that Andy Ogles is a first-term representative from the 5th district in Tennessee, which includes the city of Nashville. I think we should expect great things from Andy Ogles. He did not go to Washington to mark time.

Canada wants to re-educate Dr. Jordan Peterson for disagreeing with wokeism

In Canada, two thirds of voters support liberal political parties. Only a third of voters supports the conservative party, which is not very conservative. So, whenever they have an election, there’s usually a Liberal Party majority, or a Liberal Party-led coalition formed with the Even More Liberal Party. If you want to know what American liberals would do with a perpetual majority, just look north.

Here’s a story from the Australian Spectator:

Wokeism has destroyed Canada. We knew the situation was bad when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze the bank accounts of protesters in order to silence political action against his regime’s appalling abuses of human rights. It became unsalvageable when Trudeau followed up this behaviour by speaking about his love of China’s dictatorial powers over citizens.

Long gone are the days of suffocating niceness from our northern cousins. Now, professionals who disagree on social media with Canada’s ruling elite find themselves ruthlessly threatened by institutions that are meant to stand for liberty of thought.

[…]In a series of tweets today, Dr Jordan Peterson reported his situation at the hands of these lunatics:

‘BREAKING: the Ontario College of Psychologists @CPOntario has demanded that I submit myself to mandatory social-media communication retraining with their experts for, among other crimes, retweeting @PierrePoilievre and criticising @JustinTrudeau and his political allies.

‘I am to take a course of such training (with reports documenting my “progress” or face an in-person tribunal and suspension of my right to operate as a licensed clinical psychologist.

‘About a dozen people from all over the world submitted complaints about my public statements on Twitter and [Joe] Rogan over a four year period (out of the 15 million who follow me on social media) claiming that I had “harmed” people (not them) with my views.

‘In its wisdom @CPOntario decided to pursue these complaints even though they could have dismissed them as vexatious.

‘I have been accused of harming people (although none of the complainants involved in the current action were clients of mine, past or present, or were even acquainted with any of my clients).

‘And even though many of them falsely claimed that they were or had been clients of mine and were allowed by @CPOntario to have their complaints investigated despite this falsehood.

‘We are now in a situation in Canada under @JustinTrudeau where practising professionals can have their livelihoods and public reputations threatened in a very serious manner for agreeing with the Official Opposition and criticising major government figures.

‘If I comply the terms of my re-education and my punishment will be announced publicly. I have already had the second most serious category of punishment levied against me and have been deemed a high risk to “re-offend”.

‘Canadians: your physicians, lawyers, psychologists, and other professionals are now so intimidated by their commissar overlords that they fear to tell you the truth. This means that your care and legal counsel has been rendered dangerously unreliable.

He tweeted a bit more, to the effect that he was willing to go public with everything that was happening, so that Canadians (and the rest of the world) could see what Canadian left-wing fascists do to intellectuals who dissent from socialism. You shouldn’t expect anything different from American left-wing fascists. Why would they act any different than their secular left fascist idols: Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc.? Human life is nothing to a secular left fascist. Anything is possible when there’s no moral law. And that’s exactly what we’ve seen in the past, and what we’re seeing now – today.

Daily Wire had a little more about the laws of Canada, which you should know about if you are thinking of visiting, and thinking that it’s just like America, with first amendment rights.

It’s not:

Canada enacted a law last year banning any form of therapy that does not affirm a child’s chosen transgender identity by labeling it as “conversion therapy.” They succeeded in the ban by equating “watchful waiting,” which is a form of psychotherapy that focuses on exploring underlying causes of dysphoria and delaying medical interventions, with the controversial practice of trying to get gays and lesbians to “convert” to heterosexuality.

“It’s actually mandatory by law, in many jurisdictions,” Peterson said on his podcast. “Because of standards of ‘gender-affirming care,’ if you’re a girl and say something like ‘I’m a boy,’ the therapist is now required to agree with you.”

According to my legal friends in Canada, even praying for someone who is experiencing unwanted same-sex attractions can now be construed as “disapproval”, and be targeted for breaking their laws.

Don’t travel to Canada. It’s not a safe place to travel to. They don’t respect basic human rights there. They will treat you like a criminal for disagreeing with the positions of their secular left fascist government. They aren’t capable of critical thinking or debate. Their only answer to dissent is the use of power to silence and punish.

William Lane Craig lectures on the moral argument at Georgia Tech

This video has 3 parts, as well as questions and answers in individual clips.

For those who cannot watch the video, you can read this essay by Dr. Craig which covers exactly the same ground as the video. The essay is for Christians already familiar with basic apologetics.

Part 1 of 3:

Part 2 of 3:

Part 2 of 3:

Here’s a quick couple of quotes from the essay for those who cannot watch:

If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,”5 then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

The objective worthlessness of human beings on a naturalistic world view is underscored by two implications of that world view: materialism and determinism. Naturalists are typically materialists or physicalists, who regard man as a purely animal organism. But if man has no immaterial aspect to his being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different from other animal species. For him to regard human morality as objective is to fall into the trap of specie-ism. On a materialistic anthropology there is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats. Secondly, if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do something. But without freedom, none of our choices is morally significant. They are like the jerks of a puppet’s limbs, controlled by the strings of sensory input and physical constitution. And what moral value does a puppet or its movements have?

[…]Moreover, if atheism is true, there is no moral accountability for one’s actions. Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are irrelevant because there is no moral accountability. If life ends at the grave, it makes no difference whether one lives as a Stalin or as a saint. As the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky rightly said: “If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted.”

If you want a much shorter, slicker version of this argument to share, Reasonable Faith has produced this nice 5-minute video that you can tweet or share on your Facebook page or whatever:

The moral argument is the easiest argument in the world to discuss with non-Christians, as everyone has to have an answer to questions like “what makes humans valuable?” and “why should I do the right thing when it goes against my self-interest?” and “will evildoers who escape justice in this life be punished when they die?” and “do humans have free will to make moral choices?” These are interesting questions, and people can just give their opinion and then think about it as they discuss it.

You can read a debate transcript where Dr. Craig puts his ideas to the test, against Dr. Richard Taylor. I found this debate very helpful for answering the question that everyone should be able to answer: “why should I be moral?”