24 thoughts on “News/Politics 7-2-21

  1. Moderate?


    Same tactics as Obama. Radical ones.

    “Atlanta’s ‘Marxist Land Grab’ Is a Preview of Joe Biden’s Nefarious Plans for the Suburbs”


    “Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms has opted not to run again after a disastrous year that has placed her city on the growing list of urban centers with alarming increases in crime. Recently, Bill White, chairman and CEO of the Buckhead City Committee, appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight to talk about the movement to separate Buckhead from Atlanta. White pointed to the increase in violent crime in residential neighborhoods as a key driver of the initiative.

    The group’s primary goal is to increase the law enforcement presence and remove limits placed on police by the mayor to patrol and apprehend criminals. But, unfortunately, instead of taking the concerns of the citizens of Buckhead seriously, Bottoms and other city leaders are taking a different approach. Rather than trying to convince Buckhead to end its bid to form its own municipality by restoring effective law enforcement, city leaders ramped up their attacks on residential areas like Buckhead.

    In a move that bites the hand that feeds it, Atlanta recommends moving to abolish the suburbs ahead of the Biden administration requiring the city to do so. Buckhead is not what is traditionally considered a suburb. Residents there provide about 20% of the city’s budget, and their children attend Atlanta Public Schools. However, it is an area of the city primarily made up of neighborhoods with single-family homes.

    Atlanta would like to change that. According to the Saporta Report, single-family zoning comprises 63% of Atlanta’s land area. In 2018, Mayor Bottoms said her vision was One Atlanta, a more “affordable, resilient and equitable city.” The Atlanta City Housing Design report operationalized this vision. Unfortunately, the recommendations buried in the text use the city’s policies from 1929 as a model to increase population density. (Yet, the proponents of these policies call themselves progressive.) Their proposals include:

    End single-family zoning, allowing any property owner by right to build an additional dwelling unit (called an “Accessory Dwelling Unit,” or ADU) on any lot now zoned for one family residence.

    Allow the property owner by right to then subdivide the lot and sell the ADU separately on its own “flag lot,” then presumably build another and repeat the process.

    “Loosen” the building requirements, such as size and height, for ADU’s making them cheaper, encouraging the use of modular housing technology.

    Reduce minimum lot sizes and minimum set-backs from the street and adjacent properties to get more buildings onto every property.

    Allow any property owner within one-half mile of a MARTA station to build an apartment building with up to 12 units, regardless of the neighborhood’s zoning.

    End minimum residential parking requirements citywide so that new apartment and condominium buildings would not have to provide parking for their residents requiring them to park on city streets.

    End minimum parking requirements for commercial properties, allowing more of them to occupy a given area.

    If you wonder why BlackRock and other investment firms are outbidding traditional home buyers, plans like this are a clue. Even though this is the plan for residential neighborhoods within the City of Atlanta, it is precisely the kind of initiatives the Biden administration is trying to force through the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing policy using highway funds as leverage.

    Investment firms really can’t lose. If the Biden administration is successful, or if cities like Atlanta voluntarily adopt these rules, as Minneapolis and the entire state of Oregon already have, it is a win. Investment firms can carve up single-family properties and add additional units of varying sizes and shapes to them. Depending on local rules, the new housing will be sold or rented. In cases where an entire development is purchased, as it was outside Houston, investment firms can knock them down, build high-density apartment buildings, and create an endless income stream. If the Biden plan fails, they still have long-term investment rental properties.”


  2. Funny, this doesn’t sound “moderate” either.

    How could anyone with a functioning brain think these are the “moderate” positions?

    “Dems Push Taxpayer-Funded Abortions Overseas”


    “House Democrats are fighting for taxpayer-funded abortions through international aid in a bid to overturn a decades-long bipartisan agreement.

    A spending bill advanced by the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs subcommittee Monday would repeal the Helms Amendment, which bans direct funding of abortions through foreign aid. The bill would also repeal the Mexico City policy, known by critics as the global gag rule, which prevents the United States from funding international organizations that are involved with abortion services. The policy has been implemented and repealed by presidents of opposing parties since its inception under President Ronald Reagan in 1985.

    The United Nations Population Fund, which the Trump administration stopped funding in 2017 due to the group’s relationship with the Chinese Communist Party’s family planning program, would receive a 50 percent increase in funding under the bill.

    Supporters of the Helms Amendment and the Mexico City policy expressed concern with the U.S. government using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions globally.

    “Repealing the Helms Amendment and funding United Nations Population Fund would endanger unborn lives worldwide and represent cultural imperialism of the worst kind, attempting to impose leftist values on countries whose people overwhelmingly reject them,” Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, told the Washington Free Beacon. “This extremism is also widely opposed by Americans, and Democrats will be forced to answer for it next time voters head to the polls.”





  3. In a word?


    “Is The Entire Democratic Party Compromised By China?”

    “From corporate donors to Biden family investments to a Chinese spy compromising a sensitive intelligence position, the Democrat Party is clearly in bed with America’s top adversary.”


    “House Democrats shot down a GOP motion earlier this month that sought to bar corporate cooperation with Chinese slave labor.

    The Motion to Recommit proposed by Kentucky Republican Rep. Andy Barr amending a Democrat bill on corporate disclosure would have required businesses to report to the Treasury Department if they discover a supplier or other business partner was found using forced labor.

    Two-hundred and seventeen Democrats rejected the measure and the amendment failed. A look at their corporate donors might reveal why.

    Slave Labor Profits to Campaign Coffers
    In March last year, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) published a report credibly accusing 82 major brands of profiting, either directly or indirectly, from Chinese slave labor by minority Uyghur workers from the northern Xinjiang province. According to the report, investigators estimate more than 80,000 Uyghurs were taken from their native provinces to work in factories across China between 2017 and 2019, with thousands more sent straight to concentration camps.

    Using open-source Chinese-language documents, satellite imagery, academic research, and on-the-ground reporting, ASPI linked 82 brands with forced labor operations among 27 factories across nine Chinese provinces. A Federalist analysis drawing on financial disclosure reports published in OpenSecrets found at least 44 of the 80 companies named made U.S. campaign contributions in last year’s election cycle.

    A vast majority went to Democrats, who raked in three-quarters of all federal donations from companies credibly accused of harnessing Chinese slave labor, while less than 12 percent flowed to Republicans. Of the nearly $40 million that went to congressional candidates between the two major parties, Democrats took home more than 85 percent, as opposed to Republicans, who received less than 15.

    Meanwhile, 39 out of the 42 companies that made donations gave more than half to Democrats, with nearly a dozen skyrocketing contributions in last fall’s contest compared to previous cycles. Apple and Nike, for example, which deployed high-powered Washington lobbyists to fight the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act barring importing products from Chinese slave labor, each spiked their donations to Democrats by more than 400 percent in a year Republicans embraced a tough stance on China.”

    “Beijing Bidens
    Chinese influence over the Biden family has remained a primary area of concern since the new president entered the crowded Democratic primary in the spring of 2019.

    While President Joe Biden was vice president, his son, Hunter, had been leveraging the family name to engage in potentially criminal business ventures with Chinese leaders. In 2013, Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two on a trip to Beijing with his vice president father. Then followed a series of meetings with powerful Chinese businessmen while Hunter built a global private equity firm that included approval for a Chinese business license for a firm known as BHR. Hunter was one of its nine directors.

    A Wall Street Journal analysis of the firm’s finances show the company channeled at least $2.5 billion into automotive, energy, mining, and technology deals on behalf of its investors, prioritizing overseas projects. One included a joint acquisition of the Michigan motor company Henniges in 2015, marking “the biggest Chinese investment into U.S. automotive manufacturing assets to date.”

    Interest in the Biden family’s connections with China peaked in the final weeks of the presidential campaign last fall however when a business partner-turned-whistleblower named Tony Bobulinski declared the Democratic nominee is “compromised” by the Chinese Communist Party.

    Bobulinski was recruited by Hunter to serve as the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, another firm in partnership with the Chinese firm CEFC China Energy Co. Ltd (CEFC), led by Ye Jianming. In September, Senate investigators wrote Ye held “significant connections” to the CCP and previous affiliations with the People’s Liberation Party.

    Bobulinski spoke on the heels of a blockbuster exposé series in the New York Post that detailed an arrangement securing millions for the Biden family, with 10 percent set aside for Joe Biden himself for “introductions alone.”

    “I just don’t see, given the history here and the facts, how Joe can’t be influenced in some manner based on the history that they have here with CEFC,” Bobulinski told Tucker Carlson on Fox News while he outlined in detail how Joe Biden was intimately involved with Hunter’s overseas ventures.

    Senate investigators had also flagged as potential criminal activity a six-figure shopping spree arranged by Ye for Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s brother James, and James’ wife Sara Biden that included extravagant items from airplane tickets to Apple products.”


    It’s great that there was nothing to those Hunter Biden stories, huh?

    ^%$@%$#@@^%$ idiots.


  4. Of course he did.

    “Pa. Gov. Tom Wolf vetoes election overhaul bill with voter ID requirement”


    “As he said he would, Gov. Tom Wolf has vetoed a bill to overhaul the state’s elections.

    Wolf’s office announced he vetoed the bill Wednesday morning. Last week, the Republican-led General Assembly approved a wide-ranging bill to revamp elections, including a voter identification requirement.

    The Democratic governor had said he was opposed to legislation that would require voters to show identification every time they went to the polls. The legislation also would have shortened the timetable for people to register to vote and to submit applications to vote by mail. Democrats criticized those elements of the bill.

    “We believe democracy is important,” Wolf said at a press conference Wednesday morning. “We want people to be able to vote.”

    The Voting Rights Protection Act, sponsored by Rep. Seth Grove, R-York County, emerged after a series of hearings held by the House State Government Committee. Grove, the committee’s chairman, said it would modernize the state’s election law and takes steps to protect voting rights while increasing accessibility and security.

    The governor and Democratic lawmakers said the legislation would have essentially made it harder for people to vote. The legislation would have reduced the number of drop boxes in some counties – it would limit the number of drop boxes a county can have to one from every 100,000 residents. The legislation also included a signature verification requirement.

    Republican lawmakers argued the legislation is necessary to restore voter confidence in the integrity of the state’s elections. Democratic lawmakers counter Republicans have sowed much of the distrust in the elections, in particular by asking Congress not to count the state’s electoral votes after the 2020 election. Wolf and Democrats say too many GOP lawmakers have undermined confidence by failing to recognize President Joe Biden’s legitimate victory in Pennsylvania.

    Senate Republicans said the bill requiring voters to produce ID is far from the burden that Democrats claimed.

    According to the bill, permissible forms of ID would have included a PennDOT-issued driver’s license or non-photo ID; a free durable, scannable voter registration identification card; or a free Department of State ID. If none of those are available, a voter could sign an affidavit affirming under penalty of law that they are who they say they are and are eligible to vote when they show up at the polls.”


  5. “Zampolits of Wokeness

    Veterans-turned-lawmakers, with active duty whistleblowers, are the nation’s last defense against the Pentagon’s racialist commissars.”


    “Wokeness might do to the American military what no foreign enemy ever could: Fracture the world’s greatest armed forces from within, through divisive political indoctrination and controls.

    Wokeness—extreme ideological intolerance of opposing views and the imposition of life-destroying punishments for the insufficiently woke—is organized fratricide.

    The fratricide has a higher purpose: A political purge of a targeted institution or culture through mass action, the destructive power of which will create a new utopian status quo.

    The Soviets tried this. Their armed forces had a dual command structure, one military and one political, throughout the ranks. The purpose, amid purge after woke purge, was to purify the military along ideological lines.

    Wokeness itself isn’t an ideology, however. It isn’t critical race theory. It’s a behavioral system of dictatorial political and cultural control.

    The wokeness that General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, denies he is imposing throughout our armed forces, is nothing new. Robespierre of the French Revolution was woke. So were the Bolsheviks. The Wehrmacht was woke, as was the National Socialism it served. In America, the Ku Klux Klan, Weather Underground, and the Black Liberation Army were woke. The latter two groups from the 1970s became incubators of the critical race theory that has flowered into controversy today.

    Once implemented, wokeness swarms upon people to pit them against one another. It destroys national, cultural, and professional identity and unity. It decays mutual respect and trust. It rots our institutions and our spirits from the inside.

    Wokeness imposes the resentful mindset of an extremist few onto the vast majority. Meek compliance is not enough. Going through the motions won’t suffice. Passive silence is even worse. With hateful force, wokeness compels the majority to become active participants in objectionable mindsets, rituals, and behavior, in order to make its extremism mainstream. Resisters must be destroyed. If the people wish to preserve themselves from personal opprobrium and professional destruction, they will go along with the woke extremism.”

    Wokeness requires a network of informants to betray and root out the noncompliant.

    It requires agitators and propagandists to shame and defame.

    It requires a system of professional punishment and cancellation from ordinary life.

    It requires a mechanism of professional incentives to reward the craven and selfish. These become the enabling cadre who disengage their brains and mindlessly repeat the ideological pablum they are fed, with the knowledge that they will advance in rank and prestige as they sell out those around and under them.

    Decades of political correctness within the Pentagon’s civilian and uniformed bureaucracies softened the ground for wokeness to germinate.

    Milley has testified to Congress that he has studied Communism. So he should understand that Communist systems applied wokeness in their own armed forces.

    The Soviets had an entire command structure for wokeness in their military. That structure consisted first of political officers in uniform to impose and enforce party doctrine among conscripts and military professionals. These were known as political commissars. Commissars functioned from the ministry of defense level on down. Commissars ultimately were replaced at the regimental level by political officers known in party bureaucratic shorthand as zampolits.

    The commissars and zampolits ran the systems of indoctrination, coercion, informants, rewards, and punishments. Many rose to the top.”


  6. Surprised?

    Not. At. All.

    “From the Free Beacon:

    Time magazine failed to disclose Chinese government funding for content published in its most recent print edition.

    The magazine’s June 21-28 double issue included an insert from China Daily, a media outlet controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Disclosures on the insert label it as an advertisement from China Daily in Beijing and note that additional “information is on file with the DOJ, Washington DC.” Chinese government funding for China Daily is not mentioned. China Daily registers with the Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a law aimed at tracking foreign government influence.”



  7. BLM will now have to admit the truth.

    “After A Judge’s Dismissal And A Damning Report, BLM May Have To Admit What Really Happened In Lafayette Park

    Black Lives Matter must reframe their case, acknowledging the falsity of their initial allegations, or risk sanctions for alleging facts without evidentiary support.”


    “A federal judge on Monday dismissed all but two of the claims Black Lives Matter and several individual demonstrators brought against Donald Trump, William Barr, and others in the sprawling lawsuit filed after the clearing of Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020.

    Bigger than this legal defeat, however, was the report from the inspector general of the Department of the Interior disproving many of the substantive allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint — all of which the court had accepted as true in its 50-page opinion.

    Attorneys for BLM and the demonstrators now face the unpleasant choice of reframing their case, and thus acknowledging the falsity of their initial allegations, or risking sanctions for alleging facts without evidentiary support.

    Court Assumed BLM Complaints Were True
    In an opinion issued earlier this week, Judge Dabney Friedrich analyzed the claims Black Lives Matter and several individual plaintiffs brought against a bevy of defendants, including former President Trump, former Attorney General Barr, the U.S. Park Police, the D.C. National Guard, the U.S. Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Arlington County Police Department, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, as well as individual officers working for the various agencies.

    Before delving into the various constitutional and statutory claims, Friedrich made clear he “must accept as true all material factual allegations in the complaint” at this stage of the litigation. This governing standard created an interesting dynamic because the complaints (which were amended three times before the court addressed the defendants’ motions to dismiss) and the corresponding oral argument predated the report from the inspector general. Released earlier this month, that report undermined the prevailing narratives about the clearing of Lafayette Park.

    So, in deciding the defendants’ motions to dismiss — a procedure used to quickly toss out a case because the alleged facts fail to support a legal claim — the court cited the falsehoods or half-truths of the complaint. “Peaceful protesters assembled in historic Lafayette Park across from the White House,” the court quoted, when “officials, wielding batons, sprayed the crowd with tear gas, flash-bang grenades, smoke bombs, and rubber bullets.”

    According to the complaint, law enforcement did this “to clear the area to permit the President to walk to a photo opportunity at a nearby church.” The plaintiffs further alleged (and the opinion recounted) “the Department of Justice has officially acknowledged that Defendant Barr ordered Lafayette Square cleared minutes before the assault started.” Some of the plaintiffs alleged — in addition to Arlington County Police Department officers, Secret Service agents, and Park Police — officers from D.C. Metropolitan Police Department had assisted in the clearing of Lafayette Square.

    Claims Contradicted by Inspector General’s Report
    During oral argument last month, the plaintiffs’ lawyers hammered these same points, with attorney Randy Mastro proclaiming “Attorney General Barr incredibly shows up himself to survey the scene, looks at the assembled crowd, and then gives the order, ‘Clear the park.’”

    “Several minutes later,” according to Mastro, “law enforcement advanced on the peaceful protesters, spraying them with tear gas, pelleting them with rubber bullets, dropping smoke bombs and incendiary grenades, and using their shields and batons like weapons.” He further stressed this was all so “the president could cross a cleared path to do a photo op in front of a church.”

    The American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing BLM, Scott Michelman, also pushed many of these allegations, and even brought up newspaper articles to support them. “These articles,” Michelman explained to the court, “are only in here to establish that as unbelievable as these events are to most of us and as shocked as we were to learn about them, they are corroborated not only by the eyewitness accounts that we give in the complaint but also by other news articles to show the court that we’re not making these things up.”

    What articles exactly did Michelman cite in the complaint? Among others, they included the Washington Post’s “Inside the Push to Teargas Protesters Ahead of a Trump Photo Op,” and a Reuters YouTube video entitled “Peaceful Protesters Fired at with Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets by U.S. Military Police.”

    But the inspector general’s report, released just more than a week after the court heard arguments on the motion to dismiss, disproved many of the plaintiffs’ allegations. For instance, the report refuted the spin that the protests were peaceful, noting the two days prior saw 49 Park Service officers injured and federal and private property vandalized.

    More significantly, the inspector general concluded the Park Police “cleared the park to allow the contractor to safely install the anti-scale fencing in response to destruction of property and injury to officers” that had occurred the days before. It was not cleared “to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church.”

    Further, the Metropolitan Police had not participated in the clearing of Lafayette Square. However, it appears to be the only law enforcement entity that used CS gas (known colloquially as tear gas) on protesters outside of the park.

    Most of BLM’s Claims Dismissed”


  8. The leftist press is unhappy that the Supreme Court didn’t give Democrats the intimidation tools they were seeking. Too bad. 🙂


    Liked by 1 person

  9. The NYT is gaslighting again….



  10. Want to be an anti-govt extremist?

    It’s easy. And you might already be one and not know it. Facebook will tell us if you are.

    “How I Got Classified as an Anti-Government Domestic Extremist

    When the United States says you are the most dangerous threat it faces, your life is about to change for the worse. The Biden Administration has just told conservative Americans they are that threat”


    “The Biden Administration recently released its National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. After reading the fact sheet, which was a bit disconcerting, I downloaded the full National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism document. By the time I finished reading, I was shocked. Evidently, President Biden thinks I am an anti-government domestic extremist. But that’s not all. Almost all of my friends and most of the people in the small Southern community where I live are anti-government domestic extremists, too.

    So, let’s unpack this “anti-government domestic extremist” business. An integral part of the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism is an intelligence community assessment published in March. Having spent some time in the intelligence community, I was puzzled as to how agencies with the mission of foreign intelligence collection—and which are statutorily and explicitly restricted from conducting domestic intelligence operations—are now writing Intelligence Community Assessments on U.S. citizens residing on U.S. soil. Notwithstanding the troubling legal aspects, the assessment also lacked evidence to back up its broad assertions that America’s greatest threat comes from domestic extremists.

    The strategy document claims to focus on unlawful violence from domestic extremists who pose a threat to public safety. The reality is there isn’t that much politically motivated domestic extremist violence happening in United States. Sure, there are countless FBI-manufactured plots and Homeland Security fever dreams of internet chatter to scare the public. But if one excludes Black Lives Matter and Antifa, actual political violence incidents, in a country of 330 million people, are a statistical anomaly. The extremely rare occurrences—the report mentions six over a 26-year period (including a Black Lives Matter activist misidentified as an anti-government extremist—does not make a domestic terrorism pandemic.

    Since our national security warriors need a domestic enemy, they have decided to focus on noncriminal (or, at best, pre-criminal) thoughts and intentions of that enemy. In other words, the national security apparatus plans to decide who will commit violence in the future, and then act against those individuals or groups to “disrupt” their plans.

    I’d feel a little better about this idea if this same national security apparatus had not failed to connect the dots on everything from the fall of the Soviet Union to 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombers, and the ISIS Pulse nightclub attack—while simultaneously entrapping mentally challenged homeless people into fake terrorism plots designed, funded, and led by FBI agents and informants.

    Like a scene out of “Minority Report,” the new focus on thought crimes, and the use of private-sector contractors to monitor citizens’ political activities, seems less about countering the rare political violence in America than it is about suppressing dissent from the current administration’s political and cultural ideology.

    As we discovered with the PATRIOT Act, abstract initiatives like this—with overly broad definitions and objectives—always mean more surveillance, more government intrusion into constitutionally protected activities, and more curtailment of civil liberties.

    Slippery Definitions
    The strategy document starts out discussing domestic terrorism but quickly moves to using the term domestic violent extremists—who may or may not explicitly espouse violence. The extremist classification is further degraded to include self-proclaimed militias and a variety of individuals who may or may not oppose government authority.

    Eventually the document does away with terms such as terrorism and violent extremists altogether, and talks about “identifying potential threats,” or “evolving threats” of “potential violence,” and “indicators and warnings of preparation for potential violence.” It is one thing to be a terrorist—that is a pretty hard-wired definition—but it’s an extremely subjective judgment as to whether an American is a ”potential threat,” an “evolving threat,” or is “preparing for potential violence.”

    The strategy document goes on to define domestic violent extremists as individuals who entertain “dangerous conspiracy theories” regarding perceived federal government overreach and corruption, harbor beliefs about election fraud in the 2020 election, and fail to accept the establishment narrative regarding COVID-19.

    There are also “racially and ethnically motivated domestic violent extremists,” who allegedly hold racist or bigoted beliefs. Exactly what defines these racist and bigoted beliefs, however, is not specified. Fortunately, Homeland Security’s own critical race theory training program defines it for us as “people who attempt to treat people equally, regardless of race,” as well as the “denial of racism.”

    Worse, the report also claims—without any supporting evidence—that these racial extremists have transnational connections (to whom?), which make them even more dangerous. Of course, this mysterious transnational nexus may just be a pretext for the national security apparatus to “bring to bear relevant authorities and tools specifically focused on international terrorism.”

    Then there are the supposed multitudes of militia domestic violent extremists who, according to the document, are frequently attacking law enforcement personnel and government facilities. (I must have missed that in my daily news feed.) There are even droves of involuntarily celibate domestic violent extremists who are motivated to violence by their lack of sex.

    Evidently, it is not necessary for “extremists” to belong to an extremist group or believe in a specific ideology, which means they could be anyone—your neighbors, your coworkers, even members of your own family. According to the strategy document, these “lone wolves,” who radicalize rapidly through internet “misinformation,” are seemingly normal people who suddenly turn to violence, á la “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” This lone-wolf category means everyone is suspect and will therefore need to be closely monitored for wrong-think and risky behavior such as firearms ownership, weekend camping expeditions, and exceptional deference to individual liberty. ”


    Just feel the moderateness oozing from these people. Idiots.


  11. You say commission, I say pack of lying jackals….



  12. Oh good, now you can get that car you’ve been needing. 🙄

    And as anyone who shopped for groceries in the last 3 months knows, they’re lying again. Food prices are up across the board.



  13. Get ’em while supplies last!


    Eat up!


  14. A virus of this nature does not require a digital passport, or any passport.

    They are intentionally seeking to make life as difficult as possible for people who do not need or want the ‘vaccine’, so that they eventually conform to their dictates.

    There’s a nefarious agenda being played out, and it’s not good at all for freedom-loving people. Good thing that God is in control, and will have the final say…


    “The European Union on Thursday launched its digital COVID-19 certificate system, a “vaccine passport” type credential meant to smooth border crossings between the EU’s 27 member states.

    Called the EU digital COVID certificate, the credential indicates if a traveler has been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, has received a recent negative test result, or has immunity due to recent recovery. It takes the form of a QR code which can be displayed on an electronic device such as a smartphone or printed out.”


  15. They’re truly the enemy of the people.

    Just like all communists and their supporters.



  16. Playing mix and match can be fun but its easy to pick the articles which favor your point. In most cases, you can pick an op ed and contrast it with a news article. However, some of these articles do highlight how history will treat them differently — Rumsfeld for all his previous accomplishments will be remembered for the Gulf War and other errors he made during the Bush admin. Castro despite his detractors will be chiefly remembered for defying the US yet dying of old age still in power; very few leftists in the Americas have done this — Chavez is another. Why is history unkind to Rumsfield? His biggest accomplishment was negative and in retrospect a horrible error in geopolitics, economic stability, regional stability etc etc. Given this was his last major achievement recency bias paints a negative picture.

    Castro raised life expectancy and the infant mortality rate to match the US. He increased literacy and provided free education. On top of these social economic achievements he managed to prevent frequent assassination and coup attempts. And he was an improvement over the previous dictator Batista.

    Yes, political persecution was common, LGBQT rights denied, and in the early part of the government, he let Che execute hundreds if not thousands of Cubans mostly Batista supporters. Yet its hard to ignore the legacy he left Cuba — previously in the Batista regime, Cuba lag behind most Caribbean nations in socio-economical factors, now its a leader.


  17. Weird term, “Marxist land grab” , to describe a city keeping a suburb within their borders. Now if they were annexing a suburb, maybe but I’d need to know if private property was being confiscated to redistribute to the poor; I don’t see this here. Part of the plan is the rather benign trend towards higher density. Suburbs and Exurbs are unsustainable — they cost more in infrastructure then they give back in taxes. Cities have started to realize this and are changing urban planning and zoning.

    Now the nefarious side of the article cites private corporations who are waiting to take advantage of higher density zoning to build on existing lots. This isn’t marxism rather its capitalism waiting for relaxed gov’t regulations to build more housing — a libertarian response to the need for affordable housing. Now the obvious danger is corporate friendly planning but that’s not marxism but corporatism — the basic ideology of both parties.


  18. The woke article you cited is amusing. Its basically an argument from definition and essentially makes up most of what he says is “wokeness”. In fact the only people who use the term “woke” anymore are those who wish to mock or condemn a certain opinion; that is its a simple wake to cancel an opinion without an appeal to logic and evidence.

    He approves of Crenshaw and Cotton’s plan which is to establish a snitch line in which subordinates can report their commanding officers for being too “woke” (ie say something they don’t like) The irony here is the author spend half his article discussing and condemning commisars in the Red Army who’s job was to snitch on their commanding officer to the Communist party if he didn’t toe the party line. His solution isn’t much different — have junior officers snitch on their commanding officer if he doesn’t toe the Republican line. This “solution” to a problem (wokeness) which doesn’t exist is far more dangerous than anything woke — the Republicans are encouraging an undermining of armed forces hierarchy; a great way to reduce its effectiveness.


  19. ——


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 )

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.