17 thoughts on “News/Politics 1-6-22

  1. They think that because it’s true.

    The other 50% are the morons who support it and voted for him.

    Allegedly…..

    “Nearly 50% Of Americans Think The FBI Is Biden’s ‘Personal Gestapo’”

    https://dailycaller.com/2022/01/04/fbi-christopher-wray-joe-biden-poll/

    “Nearly half of likely American voters say they believe the FBI is acting as President Joe Biden’s “personal gestapo,” according to a new poll.

    Americans’ approval of the FBI has declined over the past two years, with many voters believing the agency acts on behalf of Biden, according to the results of a Rasmussen Reports national survey. Just 46% of likely voters say they have a favorable impression of the FBI, down from 60% in May 2020.

    Republicans were more likely to disapprove of the agency, with 57% saying they have an unfavorable opinion of the FBI while 63% of Democrats said they have a favorable impression of the agency.

    Moreover, when asked whether they agreed with a statement made by Roger Stone, former political adviser to former President Donald Trump, that “there is a group of politicized thugs at the top of the FBI” that are acting “as Joe Biden’s personal Gestapo,” 46% of all likely voters say they agree.

    Republicans were much more likely to agree with the characterization, with 64% saying the FBI acts as Biden’s “personal gestapo” compared to only 30% of Democrats.

    Voters’ approval of Biden correlated strongly with approval of the FBI, with 86% of voters who “strongly approve” of Biden’s job performance having a favorable opinion of the FBI, according to the poll. Among voters who say they “strongly disapprove” of Biden’s tenure as president, just 19% say they view the FBI favorably.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It’s probably for the best……

    “Joe Biden Has Spent Over 25 Percent of his Presidency on Vacation.

    The President of the United States has been AWOL as the country continues through crisis upon crisis.”

    https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/01/04/joe-biden-has-spent-over-25-percent-of-his-presidency-on-vacation/

    “oe Biden has spent 95 of his 348 days President on vacation, mostly in Delaware. That equates to a quarter of the Biden regime’s first year in office, at the time of writing, being spent doing anything other than being President during one of the most crisis-ridden times in modern human history.

    Biden went back to Delaware just two and a half weeks after being sworn into office. His trips back and forth to his home state for “personal time” have been celebrated by the far-left media. They congratulate the 79-year-old for chasing his dogs around but at least he’s not playing golf.

    By October 2021, Biden had sought refuge in Delaware at least 25 times. Only on one vacation did he take time away from relaxing to do his job, when he visited Dover Air Force Base for the homecoming of the 11 service members killed in a suicide bomb attack in Kabul, Afghanistan. The service members were murdered in the terror attack during Biden’s failed exit from Afghanistan and Biden was mostly noted for repeatedly checking his watch that day, for when he could leave.

    Biden choosing to vacation during the fall of Kabul is just one example of the many times the President has disappeared during a major international crisis.

    Other examples include his choice to vacation instead of visiting the southern border amidst the largest organized crime, human smuggling and trafficking in modern history. The Biden regime has overseen a more than 110 percent increase apprehensions of unaccompanied minors along the US southern border with Mexico.

    Not only is Biden failing to take personal time to visit the southern border, but he’s also ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to stop arresting the tsunami of human smugglers that his inaction has created.”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Jonah is hacktastic.

    The internet is forever.

    I guess the clown didn’t realize the R he wanted to join his fellow liberals in bashing hadn’t even taken office yet. He’s a joke, and a jerk.

    ———

    Like

  4. Triple vaxxed Whoppi seems confused as to how she caught Covid.

    The vaccines don’t work as advertised dear.

    ———-

    ———

    Like

  5. GrandPa’s mad, and his media mouthpieces want you to know it’s all your fault.

    ———-

    ———

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Go ahead. No one watches CNN and MSNBC anyway….

    No other network would waste their time. And still, no one cares.

    ———-

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Dems and their media mouthpieces caught the vapors.

    Again.

    “The liberal fantasy of the Capitol coup

    Just like after 9/11, America’s elites have weaponized their trauma”

    https://unherd.com/2022/01/the-liberal-fantasy-of-the-capitol-coup/

    “When, after 9/11, the neocons agitated for regime change in the Middle East, they believed that history was on their side: so they conjured up the existential threat of weapons of mass destruction, just in case history had other ideas. More than a decade later, this tactic has found favour with a wholly different tribe: America’s liberal establishment.

    Just like the neocons before them, they are bewitched by the prospect of war with an enemy they believe poses a threat to their way of life. The only difference is that this deadly menace doesn’t live in some far-off land, but right at home. They might even live next door.

    As The New York Times put it in an editorial last week, “the Republic faces an existential threat from a movement that is openly contemptuous of democracy and has shown that it is willing to use violence to achieve its ends”. And there is only one way to survive this threat: to “mobilise at every level”. The NYT was, of course, referring to the attack on the Capitol last January: “Jan. 6 is not in the past,” we’re warned. “It is every day”.

    It is hard to exaggerate the feverish excitement with which many progressives responded to the Capitol riot. While the spectacle of hundreds of Trump supporters smashing their way into one of the sacrosanct sites of American democracy generated widespread condemnation, for many progressives the dominant emotional register was one of apocalyptic disgust — and arousal.

    Here, finally, was irrefutable proof that they had been right all along: that Trump’s hateful rhetoric would finally become a hateful reality. Here, finally, was a war that could give their lives meaning. There were now Right-wing insurrectionists among them, and they would need to be fought. It was almost as if, on some deep level, they had wanted the Capitol siege to happen.

    Every group that spoils for war needs a wound or trauma to mobilise around. For the neocons and the liberal hawks who supported them, it was the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. That wound would take a lifetime to heal; but it was also massively generative, filling a spiritual void at the heart of American life at the End of History.

    In the half-decade prior to 9/11 one of the biggest political stories in America centred on President Clinton’s marital infidelity with a 22-year-old intern. Was a blowjob really an act that existed outside of the realm of “sexual relations”, as Clinton had sought to claim? And should his receiving them in the Oval Office warrant his resignation? In America, the period leading up to 9/11 was, in other words, one of monumental banality and puerility.

    The instant the second plane hit the south tower of the World Trade Centre on 9/11 that period came to an abrupt end. America had entered, in Martin Amis’s expression, “the Age of Vanished Normalcy”: idle talk about illicit blowjobs would no longer cut it. This was a time of war, a clash of civilisations. Such was the level of danger that we could no longer wait for threats to gather, but would need to pre-emptively act to stop them from emerging.

    It was all very dramatic and clarifying, as Christopher Hitchens acknowledged from the very start: “I am not particularly a war lover, and on the occasions when I have seen warfare as a travelling writer, I have tended to shudder. But here was a direct, unmistakable confrontation between everything I loved and everything I hated.” Hitchens, who confided that he felt “exhilarated” at the prospect of this confrontation, would soon go on to insist that it was a matter of moral principle for the US to topple the Saddam Hussein regime. He was less rousing and persuasive on whether it was the prudent thing to do, but prudence was never Hitchens’s metier.

    The storming of the Capitol was to elite liberals what the destruction of the World Trade Center was to the neocons: a bracing vindication that they had been right all along, and a pretext for engaging in a battle that would give their lives a greater meaning and a chance to prove their virtue. What could be more exhilarating than taking on the historic forces of white supremacy now threatening to destroy the republic? And what could be more virtuous?

    None of this is to deny the vast ideological differences between the neocons and modern progressives, the most salient of which is that the latter would never support an American-led occupation of a Muslim-majority country. Nor is it to make a false moral equivalence between the events of 9/11, where more than 3,000 civilians were murdered in carefully coordinated attacks, and the events of January 6, where the only person who was shot and killed was one of the rioters.

    Yet the parallels between these two political tribes are striking. So keen were the neocons to invade Iraq that they had to drastically inflate the threat-level of the Saddam Hussein regime. They did so by arguing that the threat was “existential”: that if Saddam were to remain in power, he would not only continue to amass WMDs, but would likely use them to attack America. It later transpired that this argument was based on unreliable evidence: no major stockpiles of WMD were ever found and Saddam’s relationship with al Qaeda was overblown. But such was the war fever that had gripped the neocons that they were apt to ignore any evidence that contradicted their conviction.

    Today’s liberals are similarly flushed with ideological fervour, believing that they are in a cosmic struggle of Manichean proportions: they are the elect, the chosen ones, and they believe that their responsibility to purge all traces of white supremacy and hateful extremism is a grave one. Indeed, such is their keenness to root out white supremacy that they are apt to find it everywhere, even where it patently doesn’t exist. They are equally apt to inflate its threat where it does exist, like comparing the storming of the Capitol on January 6 to the terror attacks of 9/11.”

    Like

  8. Follow the science!

    Unless it disagrees with our narrative…..

    “The Price of Dissent

    A Reuters data scientist questioned the Black Lives Matter narrative—so the company fired him.”

    https://www.city-journal.org/black-lives-matter-reuters-and-the-price-of-dissent?skip=1

    “Zac Kriegman had the ideal résumé for the professional-managerial class: a bachelors in economics from Michigan and a J.D. from Harvard and years of experience with high-tech startups, a white-shoe law firm, and an econometrics research consultancy. He then spent six years at Thomson Reuters Corporation, the international media conglomerate, spearheading the company’s efforts on artificial intelligence, machine learning, and advanced software engineering. By the beginning of 2020, Kriegman had assumed the title of Director of Data Science and was leading a team tasked with implementing deep learning throughout the organization.

    But within a few months, this would all collapse. A chain of events—beginning with the death of George Floyd and culminating with a statistical analysis of Black Lives Matter’s claims—would turn the 44-year-old data scientist’s life upside-down. By June 2020, as riots raged across the country, Kriegman would be locked out of Reuters’s servers, denounced by his colleagues, and fired by email. Kriegman had committed an unpardonable offense: he directly criticized the Black Lives Matter movement in the company’s internal communications forum, debunked Reuters’s own biased reporting, and violated a corporate taboo. Driven by what he called a “moral obligation” to speak out, Kriegman refused to celebrate unquestioningly the BLM narrative and his company’s “diversity and inclusion” programming; to the contrary, he argued that Reuters was exhibiting significant left-wing bias in the newsroom and that the ongoing BLM protests, riots, and calls to “defund the police” would wreak havoc on minority communities. Week after week, Kriegman felt increasingly disillusioned by the Thomson Reuters line. Finally, on the first Tuesday in May 2021, he posted a long, data-intensive critique of BLM’s and his company’s hypocrisy. He was sent to Human Resources and Diversity & Inclusion for the chance to reform his thoughts.

    He refused—so they fired him.

    Ispoke with Kriegman just before Thanksgiving via Zoom. He dialed in from a small, cluttered room in his Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts home, where he lives with his wife and three children. He described his feeling of alienation, then frustration, then moral outrage, as he watched his Reuters colleagues’ behavior following the death of George Floyd. He described the company as a “blue bubble,” where “people were constantly celebrating Black Lives Matter, where it was assumed that everyone was on board.”

    Like many corporations in the United States in 2020, Reuters went through a quiet revolution in human resources and “diversity and inclusion.” The company launched a series of lectures and training programs, ranging from a study of Kimberlé Crenshaw’s intersectionality theory to an interactive panel called “Let’s Talk About Race” to a keynote presentation on “unlocking the power of diversity.” In honor of Floyd, the company asked employees to participate in a “21-Day Racial Equity Habit-Building Challenge,” which promoted race-based reparations payments, academic articles on critical race theory, and instructions on “how to be a better white person.”

    Some of the materials were patronizing and outright racist. One resource told Reuters employees that their “black colleagues” are “confused and scared,” barely able to show up to work, and feel pressured to “take the personal trauma we all know to be true and tuck it away to protect white people,” who cannot understand anything beyond their own whiteness. The proper etiquette, according to a subsequent lesson, is for white employees to let themselves get “called out” by their minority colleagues and then respond with automatic contrition: “I believe you”; “I recognize that I have work to do”; “I apologize, I’m going to do better.” The ultimate solution is for whites to admit complicity in systemic racism and repent for their collective guilt. “White people built this system. White people control this system,” reads a module from self-described “wypipologist” Michael Harriot. “It is white people who have tacitly agreed to perpetuate white supremacy throughout America’s history. It is you who must confront your racist friends, coworkers, and relatives. You have to cure your country of this disease. The sickness is not ours.”

    Kriegman came to believe that the company’s “blue bubble” had created a significant bias in the company’s news reporting. “Reuters is not having the internal discussions about the facts and the research, and they’re not letting that shape how they present the news to people. I think they’ve adopted a perspective and they’re unwilling to examine that perspective, even internally, and that’s shaping everything that they write,” Kriegman said. Consequently, Reuters adopted a narrative that promotes a naïve, left-wing narrative about Black Lives Matter and fails to provide accurate context—which is particularly egregious because, unlike obviously left-leaning outlets such as the New York Times, Reuters has a reputation as a source of objective news reporting.

    A review of Reuters coverage over the spring and summer of 2020 confirms Kriegman’s interpretation. Though early articles covering the first days of the chaos in Minneapolis were straightforward about the violence—“Protests, looting erupt in Minneapolis over racially charged killing by police,” reads one headline—Reuters’s coverage eventually seemed like it had been processed to add ideology and euphemism. Beginning in the summer and continuing over the course of the year, the newswire’s reporting adopted the BLM narrative in substance and style. The stories framed the unrest as a “a new national reckoning about racial injustice” and described the protests as “mostly peaceful” or “largely peaceful,” despite widespread violence, looting, and crime. “More than 93% of recent demonstrations connected to Black Lives Matter were peaceful,” Reuters insisted, even as rioters caused up to $2 billion in property damage across the country. The company’s news reporters adopted the syntax of BLM activists. A May 8 story opened with the familiar “say their names” recitation, ignoring the fact that the first named individual, for example, had attacked a police officer, who was subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing: “Michael Brown. Eric Garner. Freddie Gray. Their names are seared into Americans’ memories, egregious examples of lethal police violence that stirred protests and prompted big payouts to the victims’ families.” Even as Seattle’s infamous “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” descended into lawlessness and saw the brutal murder of two black teenagers, the newswire’s headlines downplayed the destruction, claiming that the Seattle protests were “diminished but not dismantled.”

    Reuters’s data-based reporting and “fact checks” were also biased, always in favor of the BLM interpretations. One of the wire service’s “special reports” claims that “a growing body of research supports the perception that police unfairly target Black Americans. They are more likely to be stopped, searched and arrested than their white compatriots. They also are more likely to be killed by police.” In the 4,600-word story, Reuters gives only two short paragraphs to a dissenting viewpoint, then quickly dismisses it to advance the argument. In other stories, Reuters claims without evidence that Supreme Court protection of qualified immunity is “rooted in racism,” hosts an exclusively left-leaning panel on criminal-justice reform that uncritically promotes policies such as “defund the police,” and suggests that “hundreds” of unjustified police killings of black men “fail to win victims any redress,” without providing facts to substantiate the claim.”

    ——–

    But, but….. muh fact checks……

    Yeah, garbage.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. The level of idiocy here is astounding.

    Unlike Trump, the Biden admin is OK with giving taxpayer relief money to incarcerated criminals.

    “Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev got $1,400 COVID relief payment”

    https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/boston-marathon-bomber-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-got-1400-covid-relief-payment/BVKRJUHHHVEIFBVS5IM3INNDNI/

    “Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev received a $1,400 COVID relief payment, and now federal prosecutors want that and other cash in his prison account for his victims from the 2013 attack.

    In a filing Wednesday, Nathaniel R. Mendell, acting United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, asked the court for an order authorizing the Bureau of Prisons to turn over to the Clerk of the Court all funds, including any funds subject to administrative hold by BOP, held in the inmate trust account for Tsarnaev.

    The feds want the money “as payment towards his outstanding criminal monetary penalties, including unpaid special assessment and restitution.”

    Tsarnaev was sentenced to death after being convicted in 2015 for the bombings.

    He’s in federal custody at the United States Penitentiary Florence ADMAX penitentiary.

    “As of December 22, 2021, the Defendant has approximately $3,885.06 in his inmate trust account,” say prosecutors.

    According to the document filed Wednesday, “After the Defendant’s sentencing, deposits into the Defendant’s inmate trust account became more frequent.”

    Prosecutors say the deposits include:

    a. The Defendant received a $1,400 COVID relief payment on June 22, 2021.”

    Like

  10. Let me just say…..

    Bwahahaha!

    Poor 🤡

    ——–

    Liked by 1 person

  11. But, but… muh narrative……

    Like

  12. The Liar in Chief.

    ———

    And parroted by a compliant press.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. It’s the worst thing ever!

    Yawn………

    ——-

    Like

  14. ——-

    ——-

    Like

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.