February 3, 2023 by the real Aj News/Politics 2-3-23 What’s interesting in the news today? Open ThreadShare this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading... Related
These clowns lie constantly.
Remember last week they were telling us that no one was gonna ban gas stoves, and that was just another right wing conspiracy?
This one has evolved in record time from conspiracy theory to truth.
Now they say they won’t ban them, just change the standards to make them more expensive to make and use, in the name of energy savings. wink, wink….
“Biden Admin Announces New Crackdown On Gas Stoves”
“The Department of Energy revealed a proposed rule Wednesday that would set a new “energy conservation standard” for gas stoves and electric cooking equipment, according to an announcement.
The DOE’s proposed rule-making would create energy efficiency standards for newly manufactured gas stoves, but wouldn’t cap consumers’ usage of them, according to the rule. In January, a commissioner at the Consumer Product Safety Commission told Bloomberg that the Biden administration was considering a nationwide ban on gas stoves, citing a December 2022 study claiming the stoves account for roughly 12.7% of childhood asthma cases in the U.S. “
They’re emboldened because they know the US govt will do nothing.
Biden has been overridden already.
As always, MSDNC is shillin’ for the man.
Cope harder Nancy.
Yes, I’m openly mocking this clown.
But muh narrative…..
Journalists clearly think too highly of themselves. The public disagrees.
I’m sure it’s coming….
Yep. Any minute now….
Actual Journalism Ahead….
“The press versus the president, part four”
This is what fake news looks like, the NY Times.
“Revealing the New York Times’ Deceitful Russiagate Coverage”
““You’ve been given a great gift, George,” the angel Clarence tells George Bailey in “It’s A Wonderful Life.” “A chance to see what the world would be like without you.”
Readers of the New York Times have been given a similar gift this week – a chance to see how the paper they revere deceives them. Where the Christmas classic showed the difference one person can make through the contrasting fates of two towns, Bedford Falls and Pottersville, Times readers can see how far their paper has fallen by comparing two recent articles.
The first is a survey of the Trump Russia collusion scandal the Times published on Jan. 26. While ostensibly focusing on the relationship between former Attorney General William P. Barr and the man he appointed to investigate Russiagate wrongdoing, John Durham, its real aim is to rewrite the history of Russiagate to justify the actions taken while minimizing the problems that occurred. This long article is written with such seeming authority that readers who consider the Times the “paper of record” will easily dismiss Russiagate critics as part of the right-wing echo chamber.
The second is a devastating critique of the paper’s years-long Trump-Russia coverage, published on Jan. 30 in the prestigious Columbia Journalism Review. Written by Jeff Gerth, a former Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter for the Times, this four-part series, “The press versus the president,” describes in rich detail how the Times (and the many mainstream news outlets that follow its lead) deliberately misled its readers for years. “At its root,” he writes, “was an undeclared war between an entrenched media, and a new kind of disruptive presidency, with its own hyperbolic version of the truth.”
Just as the fallen, corrupt state of Pottersville is brought into sharp relief by its comparison with Bedford Falls, the deeply deceptive nature of the Times article is exposed by reading CJR’s analysis. I won’t delve into all of Gerth’s deeply reported insights, but four significant differences between his article and the Times’ stand out.
As Gerth details, reams of evidence show that the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory was cooked up by Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the summer of 2016. That July, for example, CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on reports of a “proposal from one of her [Hillary Clinton’s] foreign-policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.” Although Gerth does not reveal why Clinton personally embraced this strategy, it is likely she feared the fallout from the release of damaging emails from her personal server or those stolen from the Democratic National Committee and wanted to turn the fallout of that story back on her opponent.
Whatever the motivation, in the final months of the campaign, Clinton’s team, which included the Washington, D.C., opposition research firm Fusion GPS, vigorously spread the smear. Gerth reports:
Hundreds of emails were exchanged between Fusion employees and reporters for such outlets as ABC, the Wall Street Journal, Yahoo, the Washington Post, Slate, Reuters, and the Times during the last months of the campaign; they involved sharing of ‘raw’ Trump-related information and hints to contact government and campaign officials to bolster the information’s credibility, according to a federal prosecutor’s court filings in 2022.
Despite this – and much more evidence cited by Gerth and others that has long been in the public record – the Jan. 26 Times article seizes on Brennan’s 2016 language to tell readers that there was “a purported plan by Mrs. Clinton to attack Mr. Trump by linking him to Russia’s hacking and releasing in 2016 of Democratic emails.” It also tells readers that Durham sought “to pursue the theory that the Clinton campaign conspired to frame Mr. Trump,” without ever informing readers that this “theory” is now an established fact. Such carefully crafted language is a strategy the Times uses time and again to seemingly address inconvenient facts while minimizing them.”
This link has all 4 parts of the story. It’s a great look into our broken, biased media, and the lies they spread.
What’s wrong with this picture?
“Man Pleads Guilty to Threatening GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene
“I’m gonna have to show you, to your face, right up front, what violence truly is, and I don’t think you’re gonna like it.… I can pay someone 500 bucks to take a baseball bat and crack your skull. …You are going to get @#$%^&* physically hurt.”
“A man in New York pleaded guilty to leaving threatening voicemails for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene this week.
According to the DOJ, Joseph F. Morelli admitted to the details:
As part of his guilty plea, Morelli admitted to that on March 3, 2022, he placed a telephone call to the Washington, D.C. office of a member of the U.S. House Representatives that said in part, ““I’m gonna have to take your life into my own hands… I’m gonna hurt you. Physically, I’m gonna harm you.”
A second voicemail message on March 3, 2022, said in part, “I’m gonna have to show you, to your face, right up front, what violence truly is, and I don’t think you’re gonna like it.… I can pay someone 500 bucks to take a baseball bat and crack your skull. …You are going to get f**king physically hurt.”
A third voicemail message on March 3, 2022, included, “you’re gonna cause people to get hurt, so I’m gonna have to hurt you physically. … I’m gonna make sure that, even if they lock me up, someone’s gonna get you ’cause I’ll pay them to.”
Business Insider reports, “Morelli is under house arrest until his sentencing on June 1. He faces up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.”
It’s also interesting that many articles leave out the name and party of the member that was threatened. Would they do the same if it was a Democratic Congresswoman?”
They destroy everything they touch.
And people wonder why there’s a recruitment problem.
“Nearly 70 Percent of Military Personnel Have Witnessed “Growing Politicization” of Armed Forces, New Poll Reveals
Similar numbers of military personnel are “concerned” about this development, and 80 percent report that their trust of the military has decreased “a great deal” or “some” because of policy changes allowing unrestricted service by transgender individuals in the military.”
“A new poll released Monday by the Heritage Foundation “of active U.S. military members reveals that 68 percent have witnessed some or a significant level of politicization in the military, and 65 percent of those polled say that it is a concern.” When asked “to what extent would politicization of the military impact your decision to encourage your children to join the military, 68 percent said it would to at least some degree.
When asked to what degree certain events had decreased their “trust in the military,” service members’ top three concerns were “changing of policy to allow unrestricted service by transgender individuals in the military” (80% reported decreased trust in the military by “a great deal” or “some”); “the withdrawal from Afghanistan” (71%); and “focus on climate change as a top national security threat” (70%).
An annual poll conducted by the Reagan Institute has revealed a sharp decline in Americans’ confidence in the military, with Americans’ expressing a 70 percent approval rate for the military in 2017, which has dropped dramatically to 48 percent in November 2022. “No other public institution asked about — including the Supreme Court, Congress, the presidency, the news media or law enforcement — has seen such a sharp decline in public trust over this time,” the poll noted. Interestingly, the number one reason for the drop in the public’s confidence in the military is “[m]ilitary leadership becoming overly politicized,” with “62 percent saying it decreased their trust.”
What service members are witnessing is reflected in Army documents recently obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. These documents show that the Army trains its personnel on “pronoun usage . . . and a serviceman who wants ‘to discuss his newly confirmed pregnancy.’” The training also notes that “[a]nyone may encounter individuals in barracks, bathrooms, or shower facilities with physical characteristics of the opposite sex,” but transgender soldiers aren’t “required or expected to modify or adjust their behavior based on the fact that they do not ‘match’ other Soldiers.”
The WSJ Editorial Board concludes, “[t]his type of re-education was accelerated by President Biden’s 2021 executive order directing agencies to ‘increase the availability and use of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility training.’ It’s a form of political indoctrination intended to impose woke values on the . . . U.S. military.”
The Heritage Foundation poll results contradict Congressional testimony by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Mark A. Milley, who testified in June 2022 in a heated exchange before the House Armed Services Committee, and seemed to contradict each other. When pressed by Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) about a course at West Point that discussed Critical Race Theory and a seminar on “Understanding Whiteness and White Rage,” Secretary Austin responded “We do not teach critical race theory. We don’t embrace critical race theory,” and explained that even discussing it was “a spurious conversation.” But Chairman Milley, in later testimony, explained that West Point “is a university” and “I want to understand white rage and I’m white, and I want to understand it,” seemingly in defense of the West Point course and seminar discussed.
Legal Insurrection’s own deep-dive into critical race theory teachings at CriticalRace.Org seems to support the poll results, showing deeply political content being taught at every military service academy, including the Coast Guard Academy, Merchant Marine Academy, and Massachusetts Maritime Academy.
For example, at the Air Force Academy, mandatory diversity training included a video on the subject of Black Lives Matter and “involved eliminating the words ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ in an effort to coach inclusion language usage as part of the diversity and inclusion training.” Additionally, the Air Force Academy provides a “Cadet Wing Diversity and Inclusion Program,” where graduates are given a purple rope to wear across their left shoulder “symbolizing their position as a diversity representative” so that they can “advise students on diversity.”
At the Naval Academy, my alma mater, “the academy’s ‘Midshipman Diversity Team’ is ‘developing a midshipman-led, comprehensive plan to identify midshipman-level shortfalls within our Naval Academy family with the goal of proposing a plan to resolve these issues of privilege, bias, and racial injustice.’” Additionally, the academy’s “Center for Teaching and Learning has several faculty resources including PowerPoint Presentations on topics such as . . . ‘How to Create an Anti-Racist Classroom: Developing and Implementing an Anti-Racist Pedagogy,’ Video Presentations on ‘Teaching Race,’ and books such as ‘How to Be an Anti-Racist’ by Ibram X. Kendi,” despite Chief of Naval Operations Michael Gilday deleting that book from his recommended reading list after major backlash.
The other service academies are similar, which underscores the results of the Heritage Foundation poll discussed at the beginning of this post.”
Of course they did. It’s their MO.
“NIH quashed study because it wouldn’t show what they wanted.”
“Back in March 2021, when the vaccines were still fairly new and there was much research to be done on what they could accomplish, Dr. Fauci announced a study intended to find out how effective the vaccines actually were at preventing infection and retransmission of the COVID virus.
The study was called PreventCOVIDU–the U referring to the study cohort who would be students at colleges and universities.
It sounded pretty good, all in all. After all, the data on how well the vaccines would prevent the spread of the virus didn’t exist. Even the vaccine makers made no real claims that they would prevent the spread of the disease, although plenty of public health officials and politicians were making wildly unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims that the vaccine would stop the virus dead in the water.
That, in fact, was the underlying basis for forcing the vaccines on people: failing to take the jab put others at risk. A pretty weak argument, given the assertions at the time that the vaccine would prevent infections. The vaccinated needed protection from the unvaccinated? How weird is that?
Still, doing actual research on the question would be a step in the right direction, so the idea of doing the study made a lot of sense.
Here is how it was described:
Thousands of college students participating in a new trial called PreventCOVIDUopens in a new tab or window will help determine how well COVID-19 vaccines diminish risk of transmitting the infection, officials said Friday.
That the vaccines are highly effective at preventing symptomatic illness is well established.
“But the prevailing question is, when these people get infected, how often is that, if they’re asymptomatic, how much virus do they have in their nose?” said Anthony Fauci, MD, President Biden’s chief medical advisor and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, during a White House briefing. “And do they transmit it to people who are their close contacts?”
The open-label randomized trial, which began on Thursday, will test whether vaccine prevents both infection and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among college students, and will “help inform science-based decisions about mask use and about social distancing post-vaccination,” Fauci added.
The NIH-funded study will include 12,000 college students ages 18 to 26 from more than 20 universities, and is expected to last 5 months, Fauci said. One group of 6,000 students will receive their first dose of the Moderna vaccine immediately. The others will serve as controls and will receive their vaccine 4 months later.
All participants will ultimately receive the usual two doses.
Participants will swab their noses daily for SARS-CoV-2 infection, provide blood samples periodically, and complete surveys through an electronic diary app. They will also be asked to follow their university’s SARS-CoV-2 protocols and get tested twice each week, according to the study’s website.
Actual science. Something other than wild speculation passed off as scientific conclusions.
I was reminded of this by a doctor on Twitter who remembered the announcement of the study and wondered what the results were. After all, the trial was supposed to last 5 months, and the results should have been available long ago, given how pressing the question was.
So she looked for the results, and found only this on the website for the study:”
“Uh, what? Did they end the study without actually getting or releasing any results? Why?
Yes, they did, and their answer to why is hardly convincing. The question wasn’t whether they could get people vaccinated, but whether the vaccines gave the promised results. Ending the study because of “the success of the COVID-19 vaccination program in the US” makes precisely zero sense.
We actually needed to know the answer to the question that was being studied: do the vaccines work to prevent the spread of the disease?
Obviously, they stopped the study because the answer was a resounding NO! And they didn’t like that answer. The best way to not get that answer definitively was to end the study before it could prove it.
This is Fauci’s baby. He announced it from the White House podium. He obviously thought the answer would be yes and that it would bolster his power. When it turned out that the answer was no, he buried it.”
It’s science dang it!
Some of Biden’s bundlers are dirty you say?
That’s shocking. 🙄
“A former lawyer and a major donor to the Democratic Party who also held a fundraiser for President Joe Biden has been indicted on multiple federal charges, including embezzling money from clients.
According to a Justice Department press release, Tom Girardi, 83, was indicted by federal grand juries in two states for allegedly embezzling more than $18 million from clients. The department noted that he was charged in Los Angeles with five counts of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison. Prosecutors said that the charges “were part of an indictment accusing him of embezzling more than $15 million from clients and using the funds to cover his law firm’s payroll and pay his personal expenses,” Fox News reported.
“The case also includes charges against Christopher Kamon, the former chief financial officer of Girardi’s LA-based law firm, Girardi Keese, indicating they ‘devised, participated in, and executed a scheme to defraud victim clients’ until the firm collapsed in late 2020,” Fox News noting further, adding:
In Chicago, meanwhile, Girardi, his son-in-law David Lira, and Kamon were charged with eight counts of wire fraud and four counts of contempt of court. Prosecutors allege the trio stole more than $3 million in settlement funds meant for family members of those who died in a Boeing plane crash off the coast of Indonesia.
Wednesday’s indictments mark the latest chapter in the remarkable downfall of Girardi, who was one of the most prominent attorneys in LA before being disbarred in disgrace in California last year.
For years, Girardi was a fixture in Democratic circles, forging close ties with several powerful party figures at all levels of government. They included presidents, presidential candidates, members of Congress, governors, and even mayors, mostly by providing major cash to their campaigns and via fundraisers.
The indicted former lawyer, his employees, and relatives of his combined gave $7.5 million in contributions to candidates and political action committees for everything from city council races to presidential campaigns, a 2020 analysis by the Los Angeles Times found. The bulk of those funds went to Democratic candidates including Biden, for whom Girardi hosted a glamorous fundraiser in L.A. during the 2020 election cycle.”
Just another thing they lied about.