7 thoughts on “News/Politics 11-16-21

  1. After watching closing arguments yesterday, I’d say be prepared for the BLM/Antifa riots that will follow his acquittal on most, if not all charges.

    “7 Unreal Moments from the Rittenhouse Prosecutor’s Closing Argument”


    “After Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder read through nearly 40 pages of jury instructions on Monday, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger began the prosecution’s closing argument in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.

    Stretching on for more than two hours, Binger’s closing argument meandered through a selectively chosen set of facts that defied logic, ignored reality, and seemed at times unbelievable.

    1. At one point in his argument, Binger sounded like a CNN reporter when he characterized the violent rioters that were laying siege to Kenosha as a “crowd full of heroes.” As Townhall’s Julio Rosas covered in August 2020, the BLM and Antifa rioters who razed Kenosha were anything but heroes. ”

    “Compare Binger’s description with the reality of what Julio captured on video and reported — including the burning of an American flag, shouts of “death to America,” and attempts to breach a fence around the courthouse in which the trial is now taking place:”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Heroes?


    They weren’t murdered, they were killed while attacking someone, as the defense videos showed over and over again. Rittenhouse only fired on those attacking him, and the one who pointed a gun at him.

    But if you bought what our garbage media was selling for the last year, I can see why you’d be so horribly misinformed.


    Liked by 1 person

  3. “Biden’s Moribund Vaccine Mandate

    SCOTUS will concur with the 5th Circuit that this arbitrary edict is fatally flawed.”


    “The Biden administration will inevitably ask the Supreme Court to review last Friday’s decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to halt its vaccine mandate. The effort is likely to be futile, however. Writing for the appeals court, Judge Kurt Engelhardt confidently predicted that the mandate’s challengers “are likely to succeed on the merits” under judicial review. Engelhardt took particular exception to the attempt to impose the mandate through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), pointing out that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and the nondelegation doctrine preclude OSHA from making such “sweeping pronouncements on matters of public health affecting every member of society in the profoundest of ways.”

    The decision also declared the mandate “fatally flawed on its own terms,” emphasizing that it purports to “save employees with 99 or more coworkers from a ‘grave danger’ in the workplace, while making no attempt to shield employees with 98 or fewer coworkers from the very same threat.” This seriously undermined the administration’s claim that the purpose of the mandate is a response to a genuine national emergency: “The underinclusive nature of the Mandate implies that the Mandate’s true purpose is not to enhance workplace safety, but instead to ramp up vaccine uptake by any means necessary.” This created questions concerning OSHA’s use of the emergency temporary standard (ETS):

    As the name suggests, emergency temporary standards “are an ‘unusual response’ to ‘exceptional circumstances.’” Thus, courts have uniformly observed that OSHA’s authority to establish emergency temporary standards under § 655(c) “is an ‘extraordinary power’ that is to be ‘delicately exercised’ in only certain ‘limited situations.’” But the Mandate at issue here … is a one-size fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly “grave danger” the Mandate purports to address.

    The appeals court goes on to point out that President Biden and OSHA have both undermined the legitimacy of the mandate by contradicting their own prior positions concerning the need to impose such a measure. Judge Engelhardt quotes Biden’s answer to a question posed to him on December 4 of last year concerning whether vaccines should be mandatory: “No, I don’t think [they] should be mandatory. I wouldn’t demand it be mandatory…” The judge also quotes a D.C. Circuit Brief filed by OSHA in May of 2020: “Based on substantial evidence … an ETS is not necessary both because there are existing OSHA and non-OSHA standards that address COVID-19 and because an ETS would actually be counterproductive.”

    At length, the 5th Circuit points out what should be a blindingly obvious practical dilemma associated with the vaccine mandate — it is far too unwieldy to implement efficiently. As the decision phrases it, “The Mandate is staggeringly overbroad, applying to 2 out of 3 private-sector employees in America in workplaces as diverse as the country itself.” Nor was it lost on Judge Engelhardt that the hare-brained scheme to implement the mandate using OSHA was hastily cobbled together by staffers. As Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley points out, the decision includes a footnote indicating that White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain was foolish enough to advertise it as an end run around the Constitution:

    Klain acknowledged that the use of OSHA was a “work around” in light of the constitutional barriers preventing President Biden from ordering a national mandate directly.… The Fifth Circuit decision could now lead to a showdown in the Supreme Court where Klain’s tweet could be again highlighted. This is a challenge that alleges that the OSHA rule was a thinly disguised attempt to circumvent the Constitution. Klain then rushed to remove even that thin veneer by heralding the “work around” of the constitutional limitations. It is an “admission against interest” that is likely to be repeated in litigation in a variety of cases.

    This blunder will raise eyebrows at the Supreme Court when the Biden administration appeals the 5th Circuit ruling. Even the Court’s most liberal justices will take a dim view of such contempt for the Constitution.”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. For many of us, it already is.

    “The end of COVID-19 will be in our minds, not our headlines”


    “I’ve been doing a lot of traveling lately, and here is what I’ve observed about America’s current response to COVID-19: It’s all over the map.

    On the streets of New York, I saw people riding bicycles with masks on, and was asked to show a vaccine card before sitting down in a restaurant. At the famous arch in St. Louis, I saw people posing for photos side by side, no masks anywhere. In a Connecticut library speech, people were seated in clusters, socially distanced, masks up. At an Ohio event, every seat was full, side by side, distance not a factor.

    I’ve been in hotels where clerks are still behind glass, and in restaurants where the waiters lean in unmasked to take your order. There are workplaces that are complying with the Biden administration’s mandate that everyone be vaccinated, and there are workplaces that are challenging it. Many large offices warn no shot, no job; some small offices say come in, we’ll take our chances.

    In other words, COVID-19 practices, policies and attitudes all depend on where you go, what you do and who you do it with. There is no overriding national approach. No one size fits all. And there isn’t likely to be one again.

    So the question is, as Captain America once asked his fellow Avengers:

    “Are we done here?”

    Comfortable with coronavirus
    At what point is the COVID-19 plague over? At what point does the crisis morph into just another-thing-we-have-to-deal-with — like the flu, drunken drivers, food poisoning or the risk of robbery?

    This question has been postulated by various media outlets lately. Of the many I’ve read, the quote that stands out comes from an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University who, when asked by the Washington Post when the pandemic would end, said: “It doesn’t end. We just stop caring.”

    “Acceptable losses.” I wrote last year that ultimately that phrase would determine the duration of this pandemic. It still holds today. What are we willing to chance? What are we willing to lose?

    Most people seem to have made up their minds. Many are no longer hiding. They are going to malls, going to churches. I just bought tickets for the Rolling Stones concert at Ford Field and there weren’t many left — and that place holds over 60,000 people! Last year, the idea of a rock concert that size would have been unthinkable.

    But people can read. The numbers are out there. The fact is, the chances of dying of COVID-19 were always extremely small for most segments of the population. The chances of dying of COVID-19 now, if fully vaccinated, are extremely small for ALL segments of the population. A study from the Kaiser Family Foundation in July showed that — despite the handwringing over “breakthrough cases” — the mortality rate among fully vaccinated people was “effectively zero (0.00%) in all but two reporting states, Arkansas and Michigan where they were 0.01%.”

    How much smaller does it get?

    Return to normal? We may already be there
    So, statistically anyhow, the vaccinated potion of the American adult public — which is 70%, according to the White House, not even counting those who have natural immunity from having had the virus — would appear to be gripping the doorknob of a return to normal life.”


    Except the Covid scolds and mandate pushers won’t relent.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. “Why I’m Not Vaccinated”


    “I am not vaccinated. In a sane society, a personal decision like this would not warrant a column, or even an explanation. But we do not live in a sane society. As a healthy 36-year-old woman, COVID-19 does not pose a statistically meaningful threat to my life. I have a 99.97 percent chance of survival. Why would I get a vaccine for a virus that I do not fear and that isn’t a threat to my life—particularly when there is an element of risk from the vaccines?

    Despite this completely rational and data-driven viewpoint, the Biden White House recently broke its previous promise and issued federal mandates that will be applied to about 100 million Americans—two-thirds of all workers. For companies with 100 workers or more, employees must be vaccinated for COVID-19 or subjected to weekly testing starting on January 4, 2022. Health care workers at facilities that receive federal funding are also required to get the vaccine. The Pentagon has issued a vaccine mandate for service members, as well.

    In September, when the mandates were first announced, Biden said the guiding principle was to “protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers” and “reduce the spread of COVID-19 by increasing the share of the workforce that is vaccinated in businesses all across America.” But the vaccines clearly haven’t accomplished that goal to-date, so what exactly is the point of mandating vaccines that have thus far failed to stop the spread? Furthermore, what is the point of only testing the unvaccinated, when it is now clear that the vaccinated are also still spreading COVID? And why is natural immunity being completely ignored and denied any relevance whatsoever when over 100 research studies have affirmed its effectiveness? That seems at least a little strange.

    HBO’s Bill Maher recently railed against the COVID-related hysteria that has taken over the nation. Maher pointed to a Gallup poll that found 41 percent of Democrats believed the unvaccinated have an over-50 percent risk of hospitalization, but, per Gallup, it’s actually “0.89 percent.” This then raises the obvious question: Is the Biden administration governing by paranoia or based on the actual underlying facts?

    During a July CNN town hall, Biden told the American people, “you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” This declaration came after a group of fully vaccinated Texas Democratic state legislators turned a visit to Washington, D.C. into a super-spreader event. Shortly after, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky admitted, “unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus.” In August, Walensky told CNN that the vaccines “continue to work well with Delta with regard to severe illness and death, but what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”

    Her comments were in response to a study that examined an outbreak that began on July 3 in Provincetown, Massachusetts, involving 469 cases. Seventy-five percent of the cases in that outbreak occurred in fully vaccinated people, and there was no significant difference found in viral loads between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. A recent study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal came to a similar conclusion, finding that vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the Delta variant as unvaccinated people within their households.

    British Prime Minister Boris Johnson actually pointed this out himself when he recently said the vaccine “doesn’t protect you against catching the disease and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on.” Anecdotally, Americans have also witnessed an ever-growing list of high-profile fully vaccinated people who have contracted COVID—White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki being one of them. In the Senate alone, fully vaccinated Senators Lindsey Graham, John Hickenlooper, Angus King and Roger Wicker all have contracted COVID. Celebrities like Chris Rock and Khloe Kardashian have also gotten breakthrough cases.

    To its mild credit, Big Pharma warned us in advance. Pfizer’s chairman told Lester Holt of “Dateline” last December that he wasn’t sure if the vaccine would stop transmission. Moderna’s chief medical officer told Axios last November, “I think we need to be careful, as we get vaccinated, not to over-interpret the results.” He went on to say, “When we start the deployment of this vaccine, we will not have sufficient concrete data to prove that this vaccine reduces transmission.” It’s unclear why some now seem so surprised that the vaccines haven’t stopped the spread.

    What’s more, is it possible that our myopic approach is outright counterproductive? Dr. Robert Redfield, former CDC director and now a senior advisor to Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, said that 40 percent of the recent COVID deaths in the state of Maryland were among the fully vaccinated. It’s tough to know exactly what to make of that, but it surely isn’t encouraging, at minimum.

    Even though there is some evidence that therapeutics like monoclonal antibodies can cut hospitalization and deaths up to 85 percent, the treatment is rarely discussed. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis has established monoclonal antibody sites throughout the state, but he was originally criticized for doing so. At the Miami monoclonal antibody site, more than 60 percent of the patients receiving monoclonal antibodies are themselves fully vaccinated. If the goal is saving lives, shouldn’t we embrace an all-of-the-above approach like DeSantis has done in Florida?

    The vaccine helps protect the vaccinated from dying, but it does not protect the vaccinated from either getting or spreading COVID. In other words, it seems clear to many of us that the vaccine is a personal health benefit, not a public health benefit. Therefore, whether to get vaccinated is a profoundly personal decision, not a public health decision. And not everyone is high-risk. There is a more than a thousand-fold difference in the risk of mortality between the old and young. The decision I am making as a healthy 36-year-old is different than the one Joe Biden should make as a 78-year-old. And low-risk Millennials like me comprise the largest generation in the broader U.S. labor force.”

    Liked by 1 person


    Because what they are shoving on kids is gross.

    “Annals Of Media Gaslighting: Gender Queer Edition”


    “Last week, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial provided us with yet another real time example of the difference between reality and the way the mainstream media construes reality. If you watched any of the trial proceedings, you would know that what happened there, and what many in the media said happened there, were not the same thing. I don’t believe the media are consciously lying, though perhaps I’m being charitable. I believe that most journalists are so sold out to their own narrow and biased way of seeing the world that they cannot imagine that they could be wrong about anything.

    This week it was Rittenhouse. Last week, and in the previous weeks, it has been the refusal of the MSM to deal with the reality of race radicalism being mainstreamed in public schools. Today I want to talk about the lies that the NPR show 1A told in an effort to shield from scrutiny and criticism a book that has been targeted by some angry parents, who want to know what the hell it is doing on the shelves of their kids’ school library.

    The book is Gender Queer, a graphic memoir by a woman who is now … well, I don’t know. Genderqueer. It’s about her transition away from what she was born into whatever she identifies as now. 1A recently spent time talking to the author, Maia Kobabe, and deploring the bigots who attempt to get the book removed from schools.

    On the web page for the interview, 1A displays several pages from Gender Queer. Take a look at them; they’re relatively innocent. I mean, a conservative like me doesn’t think there’s a place for any of this in a school library, but I can imagine someone who is more moderate looking at the examples in the 1A story and thinking that conservatives are making a big deal about nothing. Which, of course, is what NPR wants you to think.

    You know which images from Gender Queer 1A did not show its listeners? These (I’ve altered the first one, for obvious reasons):”


    (I’ll spare you the images, but they are at the link for those who want to see them)


    “You get the idea. If NPR’s 1A had been interested in actually informing its viewers about the controversy, it would have shown one or two of these images along with the more sedate ones. But this is not about informing listeners; this is about manufacturing consent to progressive radicalization. In other words, this is propaganda.

    Let me be clear: I don’t object at all to Kobabe and these other authors coming on the program to give their side to the story. What I greatly object to is the de facto lying by NPR about the nature of the controversy involving that particular book. The governor of South Carolina has ordered an investigation to find out how that pornographic book made it onto high school library shelves there. If you depend on NPR to tell you why the book offends people, you would not understand the controversy at all.

    This is how NPR rolls these days. As longtime readers know, I have long been a booster of NPR, even though it has been generally opposed to my own politics and cultural sensibilities. I used to appreciate its reporting, and I almost always found interesting things to listen to on the network. But since the Trump years, the Great Awokening swept through NPR, and now it seems that every other story talks about identity politics in one form or another. If you spent an afternoon listening to NPR and playing a drinking game in which you slammed a shot every time the network referred to race, gender, sexuality or immigration, you would be passed out before teatime.

    I wonder, though, how many people who listen to and financially support NPR realize how inaccurate the picture of the world NPR’s journalism can be.”


  7. Scarborough and his fake news show get a shout out in court….

    For lying…..



    Liked by 2 people

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.