29 thoughts on “News/Politics 3-20-21

  1. Justice delayed is… justice denied.


    “Arizona legislators have ordered a recount of 2.1 million ballots for the 2020 presidential election, this time to be done by hand, to verify if President Joe Biden’s victory was legitimate.

    The Arizona Senate, which is controlled by Republicans, released a statement confirming their intent to do another audit of the ballots from Maricopa County, the state’s most populous county.

    The Arizona State Senate statement released on Thursday says that they will conduct a “broad and detailed” audit, adding that they will test voting machines, scan ballots, look for IT breaches, and perform a hand count.”


  2. Biden says there’s no terrorists here, so he removed them from the list.

    Yet another huge error.

    “Iran-Backed Houthi Terrorists Strike Saudi Arabian Oil Facility

    Last month, the Biden admin removed the pro-Iranian jihadi group from terrorism list.”


    “A month after President Joe Biden’s administration reversed the Trump-era terrorist designation on the Iran-backed Houthis group, the Yemen-based militia has stepped up drone strikes against Saudi Arabian oil facilities.

    On Friday, the Houthi militia again struck an oil facility near the Saudi capital Riyadh. The state-run Saudi Aramco refinery was hit by several explosive-laden drones, the pro-Iranian terrorist group claimed. The attack targeting the oil giant Saudi Aramco, the world’s biggest oil company, caused a blaze but did not result in any casualties, the media reports said.

    The Iran-sponsored Houthi militia, officially called the “Ansar Allah,” Arabic for ‘fighters for Allah,’ took responsibility for the terrorist attack. “Our armed forces carried out at dawn today an operation… with six drones which targeted the Aramco company in the capital of the Saudi enemy, Riyadh,” Houthi spokesman admitted.””


    Democrats, a terrorists best friend.


  3. Child abuse, plain and simple.

    Anyone who willingly submits their children to this should be investigated by child services.



  4. Plant them in red states, right Joe?



  5. I know I am, and proudly so.

    “Parents, according to the teachers, should be considered an impediment to social justice.”

    “NC School District’s Campaign Against ‘Whiteness in Educational Spaces’ Told Teachers to Ignore Parental Concerns”


    “Subversive Education

    Last year, the Wake County Public School System, which serves the greater Raleigh, North Carolina area, held an equity-themed teachers’ conference with sessions on “whiteness,” “microaggressions,” “racial mapping,” and “disrupting texts,” encouraging educators to form “equity teams” in schools and push the new party line: “antiracism.”…

    At the first session, “Whiteness in Ed Spaces,” school administrators provided two handouts on the “norms of whiteness.” These documents claimed that “(white) cultural values” include “denial,” “fear,” “blame,” “control,” “punishment,” “scarcity,” and “one-dimensional thinking.” According to notes from the session, the teachers argued that “whiteness perpetuates the system” of injustice and that the district’s “whitewashed curriculum” was “doing real harm to our students and educators.” The group encouraged white teachers to “challenge the dominant ideology” of whiteness and “disrupt” white culture in the classroom through a series of “transformational interventions.”

    Parents, according to the teachers, should be considered an impediment to social justice. When one teacher asked, “How do you deal with parent pushback?” the answer was clear: ignore parental concerns and push the ideology of antiracism directly to students. “You can’t let parents deter you from the work,” the teachers said. “White parents’ children are benefiting from the system” of whiteness and are “not learning at home about diversity (LGBTQ, race, etc.).” Therefore, teachers have an obligation to subvert parental wishes and beliefs. Any “pushback,” the teachers explained, is merely because white parents fear “that they are going to lose something” and find it “hard to let go of power [and] privilege.”

    Perhaps these teachers have forgotten that the parents pay the taxes that fund this school district. Taxpayers have to start standing up and making themselves heard.

    A.P. Dillon of the Lady Liberty 1885 Blog describes more from these sessions, where the rewriting of American history was also apparently a hot topic:

    Another session called “Teaching Real History” describes ways to dismantle current social studies lessons they claim “glorify” events or people that should not be glorified.
    The replacement materials listed in the “Teaching Real History” session notes include revisionist history from Howard Zinn and James W. Loewen, as well as the ideologically slanted K-12 “standards” from Teaching Tolerance, the pseudo-educational arm of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    In a separate session, as seen in the image below, several of the previously mentioned authors and materials are considered “disrupting texts.”

    Notably, this section includes a reference to the debunked and academically criticized “1619 Project,” of which the author has admitted it is not factually accurate, but instead is about driving a narrative.”


  6. Lapdogs to the rescue!


    “Joe Biden stumbles, but press has his back”

    “It pays to have the press and pundits on your side — especially when you’re a president who’s had a rough couple of days.

    On Thursday, President Biden referred to his second-in-command as “President Harris” during a press conference on COVID-19 vaccines.

    That “whoops” moment received a smattering of coverage, but nothing like the gotcha blasts aimed at former President Trump, for such gaffes as pronouncing Tanzania as Tan-zay-nia.

    On Friday, Biden took a digger while walking up the steps to Air Force One.

    That, too, has gotten coverage, and comments — but the nasty edge that defined Trump jokes was notably absent.”


    “Of course, no one can pass up a chance to take a jab at Trump.

    One person tweeted “Ok ok it makes sense now,” with a mashup clip of Trump hitting a golf ball that bonks Biden in the head, causing him to stumble.

    Imagine if affable jocularity accompanied Trump’s now-infamous walk down a West Point incline last summer. A CNN reporter dolefully intoned “you see him walking very haltingly, one leg at a time” — something we’re pretty sure all bipeds do.

    The late night talk show hosts had a field day with the clip.

    Trump did not get the same sort of “that’s not so bad” collegiality being shown to Biden.

    “The story ain’t about President Biden tripping as he entered Air Force One. It’s about how quickly he got back up,” tweeted DNC adviser Scott Dworkin.

    The White House cited weather for Biden’s missteps.

    “It’s pretty windy outside. It’s very windy. I almost fell coming up the steps myself,” White House deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters.

    It’s par for the course that Biden gets a pass from the mainstream media for things his predecessor was mocked and excoriated for.

    And not just being victim of life’s little stumbles.

    This week, the president told potential immigrants “don’t come over” as the U.S. sorts out the surge at the southern border. “Don’t leave your town or city or community.”

    No pushback from outraged critics decrying this call for migrants to stay in the countries from which they may seek asylum, nor are there any slams for a lack compassion in not opening our doors to those seeking a better life. Those were a steady drumbeat against Trump’s immigration policies, most notably his Remain in Mexico program.

    There was a time when the mainstream press just reported the news. This predated the 24-hour news cycle, where every moment must be filled — now by commentary and political screeds masquerading as analysis.

    And it’s not lost on the 74 million people who voted for Donald Trump that the press and entertainment industry is treating Biden with kid gloves. If the aim is to stoke resentment of this double standard, it’s an unqualified success.”


  7. Failure, all around.

    “Influential people in public health, government and the media failed to rise to the moment”


    “Ron DeSantis on the Pandemic Year: Don’t Trust the Elites”

    “The Covid-19 pandemic represented a test of elites in the U.S., from public-health experts to the corporate media. The results have been disappointing. Policy makers who bucked the elites and challenged the narrative have been proven right to do so.

    To begin with, highly publicized epidemiological models were as consequential as they were wrong. The model produced by Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London—which forecast millions of Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. without mitigation efforts—sparked panic among public-health elites and served as the pretext for lockdowns throughout the U.S. and Great Britain. The lockdowns failed to stop the virus but did a great deal of societal damage along the way—damage that a more targeted approach, seeking to reduce total harms, would have been able to avoid (and did, in places like Sweden and Florida).

    Similarly, models predicting massive shortages of hospital beds helped to precipitate the disastrous policy—enacted by states like New York, New Jersey and Michigan—to send contagious, Covid-positive hospital patients back to nursing homes. States like Florida that rejected the models and adopted policies to protect nursing-home residents had comparatively lower nursing-home mortality rates as a result.

    The reliance on faulty models was matched by poor public messaging. Elites sent conflicting messages about the efficacy of cloth masks, the uniformity of risk across age brackets, the danger of outdoor transmission and the practical benefit of taking a Covid vaccine.

    Perhaps most damaging to public trust was the public-health campaign urging “15 Days to Slow the Spread.” This short-term mitigation, we were told, was necessary to buy time to prepare hospitals for any patient surges. But that reasonable aim was soon transformed into a lockdown-until-eradication approach that left no end in sight for most Americans. Going from “save the hospitals” to “zero Covid” represents one of the greatest instances in history of moving the goal post.

    Lockdowns proved a huge boon to America’s corporate media, which primed its captive audience with fear and partisanship. Everything the corporate press did regarding Covid coverage was inseparable from its yearslong obsession with attacking Donald Trump. Weaponizing Covid in an election year superseded any obligation to present the facts with needed context and perspective.

    While it was abundantly clear by May that schools represented low-risk environments for the spread of Covid and that the consequences of prolonged school closures were potentially catastrophic, the corporate media did its best to obscure the data and stoke fear and panic among parents and teachers. After all, the media had to take the position opposite Donald Trump.

    Had the media presented the data on schools in a rational fashion with proper context and perspective, it is quite possible that the extended school closures we’ve seen in lockdown states would have been untenable and millions of students would be in markedly better shape academically and socially.

    For months we were told to “trust the experts,” but far too often over the past year those who were most influential in our society—in public health, government and media—proved incapable of rising to the moment.”


  8. Cue the lapdogs!

    They want you to know this video is edited, because they think you’re a moron who couldn’t figure it out.


    Liked by 1 person

  9. Judge speaks truth.


    “Federal Judge Drops A Truth Bomb: American Press Is In The Tank For Democrats”

    “D.C. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman is making headlines for his frank assessment of the American press, specifically mentioning The New York Times and The Washington Post. He exploded on both of the news outlets, as well as including the news section of the Wall Street Journal, in a partial dissent of a libel case. His opinion reads as though this has been a long time coming and he finally snapped.

    The case isn’t a high-profile case by any measure. It centers on a report published in 2018 by Global Witness Publishing that accused Liberian government officials Christiana Tah and Randolph McClain of accepting bribes from Exxon. Tah and McClain sued Global Witness Publishing for defamation and their claim was dismissed Friday. Included in his dissent is Silberman’s argument that the Supreme Court should take a second look at a landmark ruling. The ruling in the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case – one that grants media broad First Amendment protections from being sued by public officials – should be revisited given how biased the press has become in the last fifty years.

    Silberman describes one-party control of the press and its threat to democracy.

    “[N]ew considerations have arisen over the last 50 years that make the New York Times decision (which I believe I have faithfully applied in my dissent) a threat to American Democracy,” he writes. “It must go.”

    Silberman, a Reagan nominee and senior judge on the D.C. Circuit Court since 2000 continued, “The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions,”

    Age has its privileges and at age 85 it sounds like Judge Silberman is ready to let loose against the direction of press coverage in today’s media.

    “Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s,” Silberman wrote. “Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.”

    Silberman points to social media and the way Silicon Valley controls the flow of information to its followers. For example, he points to how the NY Post’s story of Hunter Biden’s computer was suppressed. Some polling shows that voters now say if they had known about that story they likely would not have voted for Joe Biden. Silberman makes the point that, clearly, Silicon Valley was in the tank for Democrats and Joe Biden in the last election cycle. He also addresses the push to muzzle networks not under “Democratic Party ideological control.”

    “It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination ‘raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace,’” Silberman said. “But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.”

    “It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy,” the judge continued. “It may even give rise to countervailing extremism.

    “The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.”

    The judge is not wrong.”


    Not at all wrong….


  10. Word.



  11. ———-


  12. Michelle’s link is actual journalism.

    It’s very informative, and points out the problem with the faux journalists (actually they’re activists) employed at the NYT, WaPo, and other MSM sources.


    “We should not take the killer’s confession as definitive, of course. But we can probe it — and indeed, his story is backed up by acquaintances and friends and family. The New York Times originally ran one piece reporting this out. The Washington Post also followed up, with one piece citing contemporaneous evidence of the man’s “religious mania” and sexual compulsion. It appears that the man frequented at least two of the spas he attacked. He chose the spas, his ex roommates said, because he thought they were safer than other ways to get easy sex. Just this morning, the NYT ran a second piece which confirms that the killer had indeed been in rehab for sexual impulses, was a religious fanatic, and his next target was going to be “a business tied to the pornography industry.”

    We have yet to find any credible evidence of anti-Asian hatred or bigotry in this man’s history. Maybe we will. We can’t rule it out. But we do know that his roommates say they once asked him if he picked the spas for sex because the women were Asian. And they say he denied it, saying he thought those spas were just the safest way to have quick sex. That needs to be checked out more. But the only piece of evidence about possible anti-Asian bias points away, not toward it.

    And yet. Well, you know what’s coming. Accompanying one original piece on the known facts, the NYT ran nine — nine! — separate stories about the incident as part of the narrative that this was an anti-Asian hate crime, fueled by white supremacy and/or misogyny. Not to be outdone, the WaPo ran sixteen separate stories on the incident as an anti-Asian white supremacist hate crime. Sixteen! One story for the facts; sixteen stories on how critical race theory would interpret the event regardless of the facts. For good measure, one of their columnists denounced reporting of law enforcement’s version of events in the newspaper, because it distracted attention from the “real” motives. Today, the NYT ran yet another full-on critical theory piece disguised as news on how these murders are proof of structural racism and sexism — because some activists say they are.”


    “The media is supposed to subject easy, convenient rush-to-judgment narratives to ruthless empirical testing. Now, for purely ideological reasons, they are rushing to promote ready-made narratives, which actually point away from the empirical facts. To run sixteen separate pieces on anti-Asian white supremacist misogynist hate based on one possibly completely unrelated incident is not journalism. It’s fanning irrational fear in the cause of ideological indoctrination. And it appears to be where all elite media is headed.”


  13. Remember folks, always believe the “experts.”


    “He’s polite as always in his criticism here, but this is a quietly brutal assessment of the CDC’s lethargy in adjusting its guidance to help the public navigate the dangers of COVID. And it could have been harsher: The word “schools” never leaves his lips even though students are among the biggest casualties of the six-foot rule.

    The CDC began the pandemic operating on the assumption that the coronavirus transmits the way the flu does, he notes, and they never quite abandoned that assumption despite the data to the contrary gathered over the past 12 months. Six feet of distance and frequent hand-washing makes sense when you have a virus that’s borne by large droplets. Those are more likely to end up deposited on surfaces than they are to be inhaled, particularly if you’re keeping some space between yourself and the infected person. For a virus that’s borne by aerosols, distance becomes less important. Aerosols can travel beyond six feet and may linger in the air; masking is more important than hand-washing when facing a threat like that.”

    The CDC was operating on the wrong model of what they were dealing with at the beginning — based on a guess, not on hard science — and by the time they started to move away from it many thousands of people were already infected. We’ll never know how many contracted COVID while studiously observing the six-foot rule, believing they were safe at that distance when they weren’t.”

    “DR. GOTTLIEB: I think the masks are the single biggest mistake because it was the easiest intervention that we could have reached for early to prevent spread. I think this was a real failure to detect all of the asymptomatic spread. We overestimated the role of fomites, of contaminated surfaces in spreading this virus, because we weren’t recognizing all the spread that was happening from asymptomatic individuals, because we weren’t doing good tracking and tracing. We were using a flu-model to detect COVID spread and it wasn’t applicable. So CDC was very slow to recognize this. If we had recognized earlier all this spread through asymptomatic transmission and the fact that this is spreading not just through droplets but also aerosolization, enclosed environments, we probably would have recommended masks and high-quality masks much earlier. So that was probably the single biggest mistake, largely because it was a single easiest intervention that we could have reached for early.”


  14. Setting the record straight, because the media and other Dems won’t.


    “Former President Donald Trump formally announced Operation Warp Speed (OWS) on May 15, 2020. OWS was constituted as a projected $18 billion business-government-military partnership, charged to “produce and deliver 300 million doses of safe and effective vaccines with the initial doses available by January 2021, as part of a broader strategy to accelerate the development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics.” No date was set for fulfilling the 300 million doses target, other than the understanding that it would be “accelerated” relative to conventional standards.

    The most innovative feature of OWS was government purchases of large quantities of vaccine types undergoing clinical trials, irrespective of the outcome (such as $2 billion and $483 million in early purchases from Pfizer and Moderna, respectively).

    OWS called for clinical trials, manufacturing, and logistics to be conducted on a parallel rather than a sequential basis. The pursuit of multiple vaccine types built redundancy into the program to insure as many approved vaccine types as possible. (Currently, 251 vaccines are in the process of development).

    Some ten months later, the results of OWS are as follows:

    On Dec. 11, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for emergency use authorization (EUA) a vaccine produced by Pfizer for “the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in individuals 16 years of age and older.” Approval of Moderna’s vaccine followed seven days later. The first Americans were vaccinated on Dec. 15, 2020, only four days after FDA approval of the Pfizer vaccine.

    Consistent with OWS’s stated goal, some 50 million initial doses of approved COVID-19 vaccine were available on Jan. 31, 2021. Of these, nearly 30 million had already been administered. On a peak day, 1 million vaccinations were being administered, and hundreds of millions of doses had already been ordered by the Trump administration.

    As to the OWS goal of 300 million doses, delivery data shows that 80 percent of the target will have been met by the end of this month. Moreover, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that the Trump administration had already ordered some 800 million doses for delivery by July 31, 2022. Pfizer alone is planning to deliver 200 million doses to the United States by May 2021 and claims it can deliver 2 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

    The data therefore suggest that the OWS goal of 300 million doses is being met much sooner than would have been conceived as the program was launched.

    It was OWS’s buying of vaccines prior to regulatory approval that shortened the time between approval and scaling-up of manufacturing. Remarkably, the Pfizer vaccine was administered five days after FDA approval. A $483 million grant facilitated Moderna’s partnering with a major U.S.–Swiss pharma manufacturing company back in July 2020. Other contenders for FDA approval, such as Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, entered early on into similar manufacturing arrangements.

    In sum, judged by its own benchmarks — regulatory approval and vaccinations by the end of 2020 and the accelerated delivery of 300 million doses — OWS is a rare private-public partnership that has met its performance benchmarks.

    The heavy lifting of ushering vaccines through clinical-trials, scaling-up mass production, and initiating the complicated process of distribution to the states were well on their way as the Biden administration took office.

    It should be emphasized that OWS was launched to almost universal skepticism and even scorn. At the time of OWS’s launch in Spring 2020, a strong consensus prevailed among media, public-health experts, consultants, and betting markets that regulatory approval by the end of 2020 and the accelerated delivery of 300 million doses were unrealistic goals. Consider some typical examples:

    The June 6, 2020 issue of the medical journal Lancet opined that “on average, it takes 10 years to develop a vaccine. With the COVID-19 crisis looming, everyone is hoping that this time will be different. Although many infectious disease experts argue … even 18 months for a first vaccine is an incredibly aggressive schedule.”

    The federal government’s top COVID advisor, Dr. Anthony Fauci, joined the skeptics: In February 2020 and again in April 2020 he predicted that a year to a year and a half would be required for vaccine approval — versus the half year that was actually required.

    The media echoed general skepticism about OWS in the Spring of 2020. Vanity Fair in its May 28, 2020 edition characterized OWS “as dangerous and likely to fail.” CNN complained that OWS neglected “tried and true” procedures for vaccine development in favor of new and untested methods. A New York Times article dated April 30, 2020 somberly states: “Our record for developing an entirely new vaccine is at least four years — more time than the public or the economy can tolerate social-distancing orders.”

    Similar skepticism was expressed by McKinsey Consulting. In its June 1, 2020 COVID report, McKinsey warned that only one vaccine had started phase 2 clinical trials and that 21 months has been the shortest time between phase 2 and 3.

    Prediction and betting markets were also wagering as late as July 15, 2020 against timely approval. One of the largest public prediction markets put the odds of approval by January 2021 at less than one in three and that the best chance was after the first quarter of 2021. Another major online prediction market put the chances of a vaccine being mass-produced before January 2021 at one in five.

    OWS’s critics did more than cast doubt on the FDA approval date. They also cast doubt on the ability of OWS to scale up production: Dr. Fauci cautioned that an additional year could be required to scale up production “to get enough doses to be meaningful to anyone.” In its June 1, 2020 COVID report, McKinsey warned that it usually takes five years to build a production facility for an entirely new virus vaccine.

    Thus, the actual history of OWS diverges dramatically from that anticipated by its skeptics at the time it was launched. Based on their knowledge as of Spring 2020, experts, media, public health officials, and betting markets predicted FDA approval, at best, near spring or summer of 2021 (versus the actual approval in December 2020). They warned of the possibility of at least another year to scale up to large orders. In other words, our “specialists” grossly underestimated the power of OWS to accelerate vaccine approval, manufacturing, and distribution.”


    Thank Trump.

    All Biden did was continue Trump’s work.


  15. David vs. Goliath.

    David takes Round 1. 🙂



    Last September, Project Veritas released a video that suggested there has been substantial voter fraud in Minnesota elections, particularly in the Somali community, and linked that fraud to Ilhan Omar’s machine. The New York Times then published a series of articles that smeared Veritas and its video as a “coordinated disinformation campaign,” alleging that the video was “deceptive” and “false.” Project Veritas sued the Times in state court in New York, and the Times moved to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim.

    On Thursday, the presiding judge denied the Times’s motion to dismiss in an opinion you can read here. Denial of the motion to dismiss does not mean that Veritas will ultimately win the case, obviously, but it means that Veritas will be able to proceed with discovery and try to prove that the newspaper’s reporters and editors acted with “actual malice.” That means they knew their stories were false, or realized they were likely false, and printed them anyway.

    The court’s opinion is notable in part for what it tells us about the Times’s defenses. The Times now argues that when it said the Veritas video was “deceptive,” “false,” and part of a “coordinated disinformation campaign,” those were mere statements of opinion, not fact, even though they appeared in news reports. Judge Wood comments:

    Defendants argue that their statements describing Veritas’ Video as “deceptive,” “false,” and “without evidence” were mere opinion incapable of being judged true or false. However, if a writer interjects an opinion in a news article (and will seek to claim legal protections as opinion) it stands to reason that the writer should have an obligation to alert the reader, including a court that may need to determine whether it is fact or opinion, that it is opinion.
    Stating that the video is “deceptive” and stating “without verifiable evidence” in a factual way in a news article certainly presents the statement as fact, not opinion.

    I also find it ironic that the Times, whose news section consists largely of narratives based on leaks by anonymous sources, now criticizes Project Veritas because its video allegedly relies on “unidentified sources.”

    Finally, the Times argued that its disparagement of Veritas’s video was true as a matter of law because its assertions had been echoed by other “fact checkers.” In other words, if liberal news outlets all gang up on a conservative source, none of them can be sued. Judge Wood rejected this novel theory:

    While this is a lengthy media list, polling does not decide truth nor speak to evidence, and Defendants have not met their burden to prove that the reporting by Veritas in the Video is deceptive.

    Thus, Judge Wood concluded that “Plaintiff is entitled to try to establish whether NYT’s writers were purposely and/or recklessly inaccurate, or whether they were inaccurate, sloppy, or something less.””


    I love their attempted “well other liberal writers and their anonymous sources agree…” defense.

    Buncha parrots, that’s all they are.



  16. Just a bit of local politics but our “fearless leader” Polis declared yesterday as a “meat out” day in CO. Don’t eat meat…it’s cruel ya know? So we drove to Elizabeth and partook of a hamburger lunch along with hundreds of cattle ranchers in the area…yeah…didn’t go over well Polis!
    He along with some of his ilk in our CO legislature want to place restrictions upon our ranchers…they cannot kill their cattle until the cow, poultry, hogs etc have lived a quarter of their life…so the cattle ranchers would have to feed and keep their cows for 5 years as pets! And there are other ridiculous restrictions they want to place upon them. Reporters are suggesting this all stems from Polis’s “boyfriend/husband” being an animal rights activist…I’m thinking it’s time to move if this state continues on this trajectory….

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Other than the Sunni Islamic State (a neglible force with some Saudi support), there isn’t a terrorisst force in Yemen. Both the Iranian backed Shia Houthis and the Saudi backed Wahhabist Supreme Council claim to be the legitimate gov’t. The Houthi’s have bombed Saudi oil fields several times mostly as retiliation and to cut the oil supply to the Hadis. The latter is a legitimate target in a war; its not a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack does not further startegic war goals — this attack does. In a civil war, the best thing for a foreign power to do is stay away and be neutral. By supporting the Saudi war effort, Israel and the US have exposed US weapons to reverese engineering by Wahhabist forces including the Islamic State. Biden’s withdrawal is the right move–avoid other wars in non-strategic areas.


  18. Dr Seuss wasn’t banned or cancelled. The corporate entity that controls his books made a business decision to longer print his pre-WWII books. They hadn’t printed them in years and there was hardly any demand for those books. Hence, a straight business decisions. You can still purchase Green Eggs and Ham and the Lorax.

    Moving illegal migrants away from border regions is a good idea. The Germans did the same with Syrian refugees — housing was overcrowded near their southern border so they moved many of the migrants to east Germany, where there were many empty buildings and high unemployment. There’s lots of federal money invovled in detaining migrants, perhaps they US gov’t should consider moving the migrants to areas of high unemployment and a need for federal assistance. Build or repurpose detention centers in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky — good middle class federal jobs for local people and new infrastructure.

    Why do people say; “I’m (insert colour here) and proud of it”. The colour of my skin has nothing to do with my identity — why should I be proud of it. And what is white skini — do Sicilians and Greeks qualify,how about Arabs and Turks, maybe Hispanics or African Americans who are only 1/16th black (or is one drop too many?)? I give blacks in the US a break since skin colour was part of the formation of their cultural identiy, but why would anyone else be proud of their skin color. Natives are proud of being Cree, Navajo or Inuit. Europeans are proud of their ethnic backgroud same as most Asians and Africans. Other see class status as more important — I’m proud to a working class immigrant kid, colour isn’t a factor.


  19. Silberman is confusing the Democratic party with secular liberal values. Mass media is fairly uniform in its political and economic view but its not Democratic or left wing. Mass media is a private industry whose main purpose is to make money for its shareholders. It embraces capitalism and its values. Capitalism cares not for Democratic or Republican since both favour capitalism. Mass media does embraces secular liberal values because its reflecting the meida’s key democraphic — urban educated and 30 to 60 year olds. The market place has determiend the social viewpoints of mass media (similarly Dr Seuss no longer publishes certain books — reflects the value of the urban middle class).

    The corporate nature of mass media means they will never endorse a Bernie Sanders type and will ignore or minimize leftist politicians until they can’t. The free market guides the liberal secular social values of mass media. Ironically, Silberman should blame Reagan for the current mass media — the media and almost anything else was deregulated during the Reagan era with the mantra let the market decide — well the market has decided and he doesn’t like it. And what does Silberman suggest as a remedy? Gov’t intervention? Even repealing partial First Ammendment rights will do little to change the corporate and secular values of the media, In fact, repealing these protections will see Tucker Carlson in court fairly quickly.


  20. Curious; how do you suggest the media cover the Biden fall? Should they mock him? Trump Jr’s tweet is immature and I guess what we should expect from Twitter however if one aspires to political leadership shouldn’t they have more class and leave the slapstick humor to the comedians.


  21. Oh — your Hill article misses the important point that Pfizer developed the Covid vaccine without US funding and not part of OWS. Instead Pfizer developed the vaccine in Germany using funding from the EU. If Trump supporters want the “truth” of OWS to be told, they should tell the whole story.


  22. She was actually arrested? With no bail?

    Perhaps it will take those like Marlena Pavlos-Hackney who have actually lived under totalitarian regimes to help lead us in fighting for our rights to live and work in a free society.


    “A restaurant owner in Michigan was arrested on Friday for defying state CCP virus pandemic restrictions and ignoring a court order, according to the state attorney general.

    Marlena Pavlos-Hackney, owner of Marlena’s Bistro and Pizzeria in Holland, was taken into custody following a traffic stop for failing to comply in a civil case filed by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

    State officials said Pavlos-Hackney kept her restaurant opened for indoor dining when it was banned, did not comply with capacity limits, and did not enforce any mask-wearing rules amid the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus pandemic. The department then suspended her food license on Jan. 20 but she remained open, according to a statement.

    Pavlos-Hackney drew media attention this week over her decision to resist the state orders. A judge has characterized her actions as “selfish,” adding that she was putting the community at risk in the middle of a pandemic.

    Pavlos-Hackney explained that her actions were to stand up against authoritarianism and to safeguard individual liberty and freedoms. The 55-year-old had fled communism in her home country of Poland in 1983 and arrived in America in 1988. She became a citizen of the United States in 1992 and opened her business in Michigan as she worked toward achieving the American dream.

    “We the people, small business owners, like I told you, have to fight. I will fight for freedom [for] the American people. And I encourage everyone, business owners, other people stand up and fight for your freedom before it’s going to be taken away.””


  23. I think to shift the newly arrived on the border to areas of high unemployment is a recipe for disaster. The people in those areas are already stressed, financially and otherwise, why add another element–often of people who will work for lower wages–into those economies?

    One of the problems in California is the depression of wages owing to the many people (some of whom are wealthy), who choose to hire undocumented workers because they can exploit them–threatening to turn them in if they do not accept lower wages.

    It is a human rights issue–exploiting the undocumented so you can get cheap labor–and not even providing decent housing for them.

    Somehow, this point never comes up.


  24. “Curious; how do you suggest the media cover the Biden fall? Should they mock him?”

    Why not, they did Trump? Every missed step was signs of serious decline or medical issues. But now that’s crass because your guy is a stumbling, mumbling dolt. Deal with it. You lefties set the rules, we’re just playing by them. 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.