Tag Archives: The New York Times

What Has Happened To Many Unaccompanied Minors Crossing The Border

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about an investigation by the Labor Department’s Office of Inspector General into violations of child labor laws involving unaccompanied minor children who have crossed the southern border into America.

The article reports:

It’s the latest development in a scandal involving the Labor Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the White House.

The New York Times first broke the story in April, when it showed documents proving the administration was quickly releasing unaccompanied migrant children into the country by the thousands. Many of those children ended up working grueling jobs, often for long hours and in dangerous conditions where they worked with chemicals and industrial equipment.

The probe comes amid rising cases of illegal child labor, Bloomberg reported:

Agency officials said in July that over the past 10 months alone, the DOL’s wage division has concluded 765 cases involving 4,474 children employed in violation of federal child labor laws. Overall, the department reported that it’s seen a 69% increase child labor violations from 2018 and 2022.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) slammed the Biden administration in June for its failure to address the widespread crisis.

“This administration has let tens of thousands of children be sold into slavery,” Hawley said. “They are doing nothing about it.”

How many times have you heard Democrats say that they were doing something ‘for the children”? Closing the southern border would be one thing that would definitely protect many children.

The article notes:

Five former HHS employees said they were pushed out of the agency after they raised concerns about children’s safety.

The Times report also implicated former domestic policy adviser Susan Rice. Rice and her team reportedly failed to act, even as administration staffers called for stricter vetting of the sponsors migrant children were placed with to prevent human trafficking. A week after the Times report, the White House announced that Rice would step down.

Has anyone in the mainstream media reported this?

Thank God For Whistleblowers

Posted on by

On Sunday, Breitbart posted an article about the case against Hunter Biden.

The article reports:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) planned to let Hunter Biden off the hook without charges until two whistleblowers came forward to expose political interference in the investigation, despite the claims of Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The New York Times exposed the inside dealings of Hunter Biden’s attorneys with senior officials at DOJ, who had constrained U.S. Attorney for Delaware David Weiss even as Garland was testifying to Congress that Weiss had full authority to act in the case.

The New York Times reported:

Earlier this year, The Times found, Mr. Weiss appeared willing to forgo any prosecution of Mr. Biden at all, and his office came close to agreeing to end the investigation without requiring a guilty plea on any charges. But the correspondence reveals that his position, relayed through his staff, changed in the spring, around the time a pair of I.R.S. officials on the case accused the Justice Department of hamstringing the investigation. Mr. Weiss suddenly demanded that Mr. Biden plead guilty to committing tax offenses.

…As the testimony from the I.R.S. agents took hold, Mr. Biden’s legal team felt the ground shift beneath them. The U.S. attorney’s office suddenly went quiet.

The article concludes:

The whistleblowers, IRS Criminal Supervisory Special Agent Gary A. Shapley Jr. and IRS Special Agent Joseph Ziegler, told the House of Representatives that prosecutors would not let them pursue Hunter Biden’s tax crimes, and had sometimes tipped off the president’s son about impending searches or interviews.

The result was a “sweetheart” plea deal that would have prevented Hunter Biden from being investigated further — until federal judge Maryellen Noreika, a Donald Trump appointee, balked.

Earlier this month, Garland named Weiss a Special Counsel in the case, raising suspicions that his real purpose was to continue the cover-up. Charges were withdrawn from Noreika — ostensibly to be pursued elsewhere, but possibly to avoid her jurisdiction.

Does anyone really believe that Hunter Biden is being treated the same way any American would be who committed the crimes he is accused of?

One Vote Makes A Difference

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about the importance of one vote.

The article reports:

A new database created by the Public Interest Legal Foundation shows that one single vote has altered the outcome of hundreds of elections.

First, the fraud.

The Heritage Foundation has a unique Election  Fraud Database that provides a sampling of proven election crimes from across the country. So far, the Heritage database has found over 1,400 cases of proven election fraud , and new cases are constantly being added. You can search by state or type of election crime.

The documented cases include people voting for a deceased relative, voting in multiple states in the same election, casting fraudulent absentee ballots, and even foreign nationals casting ballots. There are many ways a person can engage in wrongdoing in connection with an election, hoping to affect its outcome. If you spend time perusing the data, it’s hard to argue credibly that fraud hasn’t had a role in American political history.

Remember, the Heritage database only includes cases that went to completed adjudication, such as a criminal conviction or finding of civil liability. It doesn’t document instances of fraud that were never reported by election officials to law enforcement or that were never pursued by prosecutors.

Part of the problem is that too many prosecutors don’t want to prosecute election fraud . There are numerous reasons why.

We saw this when we both worked in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice . With few exceptions, the attorneys we worked with were openly hostile toward prosecuting election fraud. Even raising the issue of election crimes was considered controversial and evidence of “discriminatory” conduct, because they falsely claimed any such prosecution is “voter suppression.” After all, The New York Times tells its loyal readers in the civil service that election fraud is a myth. Biased advocacy organizations that our colleagues admired, such as the Brennan Center, also told them that voter fraud  is a myth .

The article concludes:

The Public Interest Legal Foundation ’s Tied Election Database catalogs 589 elections that have ended in ties in the U.S. The vast majority of these elections were within the last 20 years, although this is by no means a complete or comprehensive list. This database just scratches the surface.

These tied elections illustrate that one vote, legal or illegal, can determine the winner of a race.

No one wants an illegal vote to stop the true will of the people from being heard on Election Day. We should all care whenever an election crime happens. It dilutes every single legal vote. And sometimes it can determine the winner of an election.

One illegal vote cast is too many. States must get serious about prosecuting election crimes. Otherwise, there is no deterrence to stop people from committing them.

This is a solvable problem. All we need is elected officials with the will to solve it.

Tying The Hands Of President Trump’s Legal Team

Posted on by

Based on everything I am seeing, I am convinced that the threat President Trump represents to the Washington establishment must be monumental. The political establishment has thrown everything but the kitchen sink at him since he came down the escalator and announced that he was running for President. I will admit that I did not take him seriously as a candidate. I was also not sold on his ability to make necessary changes to our government. I was wrong. We need to bring him back to finish what he started–understanding that he now has a much better understanding of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.

On Saturday, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article detailing the deep state’s latest effort to stop President Trump from becoming President again. I am posting a lot from the article because much of it is legalese that I do not fully understand.

The article reports:

One of the ways you can immediately detect federal Lawfare deployment is to look at how media articles are written when they outline court filings without direct citation for review.  The Hill began SEE HERE. The New York Times is similar, SEE HERE.

Notice both national publications talk about a DOJ court filing, presumably made under seal, that limits President Trump’s defense access to materials and documents used in the case against him.  Notice the media do not say how they gained insight into the details of the sealed filing itself; nor do they provide any source context for how their reporting is structured.  Nothing like, “according to sources with familiar with the matter” or anything similar. Just nothing; no attribution at all.

That media context is a BIG red flag indicating the need to ‘create a narrative’ is more important than the actual substance of the evidence material underpinning it.

Notice that the media seems to have access that is being denied to President Trump’s defense. Are we supposed to think that is fair?

The article also notes:

Both stories hit on the issue of the DOJ filing a (presumably sealed) motion with the Florida court, to place limits, rules and restrictions on evidence against President Trump, that limits his ability to review it, talk about it and/or provide context for it.  THIS IS A LAWFARE MOVE.  This is what happens in the prosecutorial star-chambers where they hide information in order to create the appearance of something nefarious, where nothing nefarious exists.

When we see this legal approach, we can be assured the case that uses the evidence is built upon fraud and pretense.  Do not be afraid to tell your family, friends and others about this dynamic.  President Trump is being accused of the crime of violating 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, a violation of the espionage act, and the DOJ is requesting that President Trump must not permitted to defend himself by discussing the evidence against him.

The DOJ wants to limit public knowledge of the material evidence, not because it would harm national security – but rather because the nature of the evidence itself would highlight to the nation how fraudulent the targeting is.  This is the guaranteed DOJ motive, that’s why everything is under seal and even the media will not talk about how they are gaining their leak knowledge.  This is LAWFARE narrative engineering at its apex deployment.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. We are definitely descending into a banana republic scenario here.

When Will Washington Politicians Decide To Honor The Constitution?

Posted on by

The Biden administration has done an end run around the U.S. Constitution since coming into office. Executive orders have decimated our energy independence, and various agencies have interfered is things as minute as the appliances we cook on. We have long passed the point where our laws are made by legislators–they are now made by regulatory agencies that are unelected and unaccountable. Now the President is discussing ignoring the role of Congress as ‘keepers of the purse’ and threatening to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to raise the debt ceiling without the consent of Congress.

On Tuesday, NewsMax reported:

President Joe Biden confirmed that he is floating the idea of utilizing the 14th Amendment to work around congressional gridlock on raising the debt ceiling, The Hill reported.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Biden invoked legal scholar Laurence Tribe’s recent editorial in The New York Times, where he backed the theory, which claims the president can unilaterally raise the limit under certain circumstances.

“I have been considering the 14th Amendment, and the man I have enormous respect for, Larry Tribe … thinks that it would be legitimate,” Biden said, citing the article.

The article concludes:

But House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., scoffed at the idea outside the Capitol on Tuesday.

“Really think about this,” McCarthy said. “If you’re the leader … and you’re going to go to the 14th amendment to look at something like that — I would think you’re kind of a failure of working with people across sides of the aisle or working with your own party to get something done.”

The Republican-controlled House has proposed its Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023 to solve the debt crisis. Alternatively, the Democratic-led Senate released an economic report condemning the proposal.

Republicans are seeking to make significant inroads to slash government spending in their proposal — a move that Democrats said should take a backseat to pass a “clean” debt ceiling measure.

The un-Republicans in the House before the 2022 mid-terms worked with the Democrats to pass a spending bill that would effectively tie the hands of the Congress that was elected in 2022. Technically this may have been legal, but it was definitely not the right thing to do. Now the Republicans in the House are trying to undo the damage those un-Republicans did. The American people want spending cuts. If the Republicans don’t deliver them, they don’t deserve to be re-elected next year.

 

A Different Perspective On Tucker Carlson’s Departure From Fox

Posted on by

In 2022, Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News ranked No. 2 in total viewers (3.3 million) (The Five was the most watched). (article here) Now Tucker Carlson is among the unemployed. So what happened?

On Monday, The American Thinker posted an article with a very unique perspective on the removal of Tucker Carlson from Fox News.

The article notes:

However, Tucker Carlson’s program had been on life support since December 18, 2018. That is when “progressive” Democrats cancelled most of its sponsors.

On December 13, 2018, Tucker Carlson did a segment on the effects of massive, uncontrolled, and often illegal immigration from poor countries. Tucker showed videos of caravans of illegal immigrants coming to our borders, and of the piles of garbage they left behind. Tucker explained how this was hurting America in many ways. He criticized political leaders of both parties and business elites for ignoring the problem.

…Everything Tucker Carlson said was true, undisputed, and reasonable. It had all been said many times by many political leaders and economic experts. In 2016, candidate Donald Trump won widespread, mainstream support by promising to fix these problems. Trump promised a border wall and strict enforcement of immigration laws. Tucker Carlson was correct to remind his viewers of how the leaders of both parties were ignoring this critical issue.

However, the Left used Tucker’s December 13, 2018 program to begin an orchestrated campaign to eliminate Tucker Carlson’s program, and possibly the entire Fox News network, from cable television.

The following is an important lesson for conservatives:

For the next two days, various “progressives” made phone calls and sent letters and emails to every company and ad agency that bought ads on the Tucker Carlson program.   

For the next week, the mainstream media reported non-stop that there was national outrage over Tucker’s remarks.  They reported that advertisers and ad agencies were angry and embarrassed by what Tucker Carlson had said.

Within days, at least 26 mainstream corporate sponsors publicly announced that they would no longer sponsor the Tucker Carlson program.

…When these sponsors left, Tucker Carlson had only “second tier” sponsors paying much lower rates. They included My Pillow, Relief Factor, and Granite Stone pots and pans. The Tucker Carlson program may have had a superstar, prime-time audience. But it had the income of something like a 1970s late-night TV show sponsored by Veg-O-Matic and Ginsu Knives.

The article concludes:

On May 12, 2022, the New York Times and government-funded NPR falsely claimed that Tucker Carlson created “the most racist show in the history of cable news”.

Periodic attacks like these guaranteed that mainstream corporations would never return to Tucker Carlson. 

Now that the Tucker Carlson program is gone from Fox News, Democrats are emboldened.  I am sure that they are now ready to take down other hosts, or even the whole network.  The Murdoch family and Fox News do not seem eager for a fight.  I suspect they will soon do whatever Democrats demand as the price for ending the attacks, and getting corporate sponsors to return.

Conservatives who love and admire Tucker Carlson are angry.  They are eager to boycott Fox News and turn to other conservative networks like Newsmax.  However, Comcast and Direct TV already proved that they can drop networks like Newsmax at any time.  Even if conservative networks like Newsmax keep their cable access, how long can they survive if they only have “second tier” sponsors like My Pillow and Relief Factor?

News shouldn’t be biased, but it is. Conservatives need to support efforts to keep media outlets alive that at least try to report facts without liberal bias. It is very obvious that any voice they may have in the mainstream media is being systematically erased.

A Sad Day In America

Posted on by

On Saturday, Legal Insurrection reported the following:

There have been reports swirgling the last couple of days that Donald Trump will be charged and arrested next week by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office on charges relating to payments to Stormy Daniels. The exact nature of the charges and the basis is not known yet, but based on prior leaks to the media, it appears that Bragg has come up with a novel theory that an otherwise lawful payment become criminal if it is accounted for incorrectly, a so-called falsifying business records offense. Even the NY Times noted this is highly unusual:

In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.

In this case, that second crime could be a violation of New York State election law. While hush money is not inherently illegal, the prosecutors could argue that the $130,000 payout effectively became an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign, under the theory that because the money silenced Ms. Daniels, it benefited his candidacy.

Combining the criminal charge with a violation of state election law would be a novel legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against the former president, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor.

Alvin Bragg is a deeply destructive D.A elected with the help of a Soro-funded polical PAC:

The article concludes:

The charges, if not more substantial than described so far, are a fraudulent abuse of power aimed at manipulating the politicial process as we enter a presidential election cycle. Make no mistake, this has happened before and cost Republicans politically, including the fraudulent prosecution of then Senator Ted Stevens, which was overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct but not before Stevens resigned setting in motion events that gave Democrats the votes they needed to pass Obamacare.

The abuse of prosecutorial power by Democrats will, to paraphrase Chuch Schumer’s attack on the Supreme Court, unleash the whirlwind. We just don’t know in which direction it will hit. I think there are several things going on here, including Democrats hope for violence that will allow a J6 crackdown on Trump supporters more far reaching than the prosecution of people for “parading” because they peacefully attended a protest where other committed violence. I also think that keeping the Trump prosecution (with more to come) front and center as he (likely) leads the Republican primaries is a political strategy – it’s no wonder the charges are coming now.

Meanwhile there seem to be no consequences for the Biden crime family and their drug-addicted son.

My Head Is Spinning!

Posted on by

The Covid pandemic has brought us a lot of information and a lot of censorship of information. Oddly enough, a lot of the information that was censored is now being reported as true. Currently the difference between a conspiracy theory and a major news story is a few months.

On Tuesday, Issues & Insights reported the following:

This disinformation business sure has gotten complicated lately.

In the past few days, a key federal agency concluded that COVID was likely the result of a Chinese lab leak. A prestigious medical journal reported that natural immunity is better than vaccines against COVID. Another that mask mandates were worthless. And President Joe Biden’s advanced age is now, according to Biden, a legitimate issue.

All of these claims had been labeled as “disinformation” by the mainstream press, by “independent” fact-checkers, by social media platforms. Anyone who espoused them was attacked as a crazy anti-vaxxer, QAnon racist, Russian stooge who deserved to be de-platformed, demonetized, and discredited.

Take the lab-leak story. The Energy Department, “citing new intelligence,” changed its view on the origins of COVID-19 and now thinks it did, in fact, escape from a lab in Wuhan, China.

The article notes how the lab leak theory was treated in the past:

A-list journalist Anne Applebaum once compared Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., to a Soviet propagandist for suggesting that COVID came from a lab. A New York Times reporter said the lab-leak theory had “racist roots.” The editor in chief of Scientific American called it a “conspiracy theory.” CNN said it was “like something out of a comic book.”

Politifact, one of the supposed independent guardians against disinformation, said that any such claim was “inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire!” Facebook banned posts mentioning the lab-leak theory.

The article concludes:

One of the articles that Google is right now targeting is our Feb. 23 editorial applauding Congress for investigating COVID vaccines (Congress To Probe COVID Vaccines — And It’s About Time).

Apparently, merely calling for a congressional investigation “promotes harmful health claims or relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative scientific consensus,” according to Google’s thought police.

So, let’s review.

The stuff labeled as dangerous disinformation keeps turning out to be true. The supposed guardians of credible information turn out to be some of the biggest peddlers of actual disinformation. And groups that are supposedly targeting disinformation are really just out to defund conservatives.  

In all this confusion, one thing is perfectly clear. If you want to know what will be labeled as disinformation tomorrow, just look at whatever is on the left’s agenda today.

The mainstream media is simply pointing out the need for Americans to find alternative sources for their news.

Misplaced Blame From The Mainstream Media

Posted on by

The Democrats have reached the point where if President Biden trips going up the stairs on Air Force One, it’s President Trump’s fault. He obviously made the steps too high. We are seeing this dynamic at work in the aftermath of the train disaster in Ohio. Not only has the Biden administration been slow to respond, some Democrats and media are blaming President Trump for the crash. The fact that up until January, the Democrats for two years controlled Congress and the Presidency does not seem to play into their thought process. Anyway, The Washington Examiner posted an article on Saturday that provides clarification on what is being said.

The article reports:

Facts are stubborn things. So, the best way for Democrats to push a good partisan narrative is to ignore them entirely.

That’s what many on the Left are doing right now in the aftermath of a disastrous train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. They’re attempting to pin the blame for the ensuing chemical disaster on former President Donald Trump and “deregulation” more broadly, arguing that the Trump administration repealed an Obama-era safety rule that could’ve prevented this tragic accident.

…Progressive voices ranging from Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and the White House to the popular “Pod Save America” hosts and huge liberal social media pages such as Occupy Democrats have made this accusation or insinuation.

…There’s just one problem: It’s complete nonsense. We can debate the pros and cons of that regulation, but it has nothing to do with the current controversy. As a simple matter of fact, it would not have applied to the train that derailed in East Palestine.

You don’t have to take my word for it; take it from the New York Times, hardly a pro-Trump or anti-regulation source.

This is the major quote from the article:

“Since the Feb. 3 derailment in Ohio, some lawmakers and activists have pointed to a 2015 safety regulation adopted by the Obama administration as an example of the changes that they say are needed to make railroads safer. … But after lobbying by the railroad industry, the Trump administration repealed the rule in 2018,” the New York Times reports . Yet it goes on to admit that: “Had the rule remained in effect, it would not have applied to the Norfolk Southern train that derailed in East Palestine.”

The New York Times’s source for this is Jennifer Homendy, a Democrat and head of the National Transportation Safety Board.

Please follow the link above to read the rest of the article. It is quite possible that some regulations need to be looked at in an effort to prevent another ecological disaster like the one that occurred in Ohio, but no regulations impacting the train involved have been changed.

Powered By Unicorns

Posted on by

On Friday, Front Page Magazine posted an article about the future of green energy. There are a lot of things that the people who are trying to turn all of America’s power ‘green’ are either ignoring or unaware of.

The article quotes an article from The New York Times posted on Thursday:

PJM Interconnection, which operates the nation’s largest regional grid, stretching from Illinois to New Jersey, has been so inundated by connection requests that last year it announced a freeze on new applications until 2026, so that it can work through a backlog of thousands of proposals, mostly for renewable energy.

It now takes roughly four years, on average, for developers to get approval, double the time it took a decade ago.

And when companies finally get their projects reviewed, they often face another hurdle: the local grid is at capacity, and they are required to spend much more than they planned for new transmission lines and other upgrades.

Many give up. Fewer than one-fifth of solar and wind proposals actually make it through the so-called interconnection queue, according to research from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

So we can create all of the solar and wind energy we want, but if we have no way to distribute it, it is useless.

 

Looking Behind The Numbers

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Breitbart posted an article about some of the recent employment numbers.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden’s administration is growing the United States labor market by adding millions of foreign workers for employers to hire, leaving jobless Americans on the sidelines.

Data published in the New York Times shows that the Biden administration is aiding employers by adding millions of foreign workers to the labor force — ensuring wages stay stagnant — even as native-born Americans struggle to get back into jobs since the Chinese coronavirus pandemic.

“The foreign-born workforce grew much more quickly than the U.S.-born workforce, Labor Department figures show,” the Times reports:

“When the unemployment rate goes down, you would normally expect wage inflation to go up, but that’s not what’s happening,” said Torsten Slok, chief economist at Apollo Global Management. “So there must be something else moving in the labor force, and there is a very likely explanation here that immigrants are coming in and taking jobs.” [Emphasis added]

But despite the resurgence in the foreign-born labor force — about four-fifths of it are people legally allowed to work in the United States, by one calculation — there are bottlenecks. [Emphasis added]

The article includes the following charts:

The article notes:

By focusing on adding foreign workers to the labor market, the Biden administration is ignoring efforts to get native-born Americans back into the workforce. The administration’s foreign competition addition to the labor force adds tremendous weight for the nation’s working and lower-middle class looking to find high-paying jobs with decent benefits packages.

The is the place where the uni-party is revealed. The Democrats want future voters; the country club Republican (the Chamber of Commerce party) want cheap labor for their corporate allies. No one is looking out for the middle class right now. The influx of foreign workers, both legal and illegal, creates downward pressure on wages. Corporations are out to make a profit, and many of those corporations have forgotten their scruples. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is destroying the middle class. Remember, a strong middle class is necessary for the survival and growth of our republic.

 

Why Is It Still Up There?

Posted on by

How long do you think an American spy balloon would last over the mainland of China? China has had one sitting over the middle of America for a couple of days now.

On Friday, PJ Media reported:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has given the Biden administration’s response to President Xi Jinping and China for their brazenly illegal act of sending a balloon over U.S. territory to spy on the United States.

How do we know it’s a spy balloon? We don’t have to know. We can, should, and must assume that’s what it’s doing.

Blinken, along with his advisors Wynken and Nod, has come up with a brilliant riposte to this Chinese transgression. The United States will deny China the pleasure and honor of hosting the U.S. secretary of state this week as planned.

It’s the well-practiced “comfy chair” response to China. Unfortunately, it’s not likely to impress President Xi. In fact, Xi couldn’t care less if Blinken comes to Beijing or not. He must be watching the diplomatic byplay with amusement.

Blinken and one of his deputies spoke with the Chinese Embassy on Wednesday night, and on Friday morning, he told China’s top foreign policy official, Wang Yi, that the balloon’s course was a violation of sovereignty and “unacceptable,” according to a State Department official.

Oh, dear! Did ya hear that Xi-man? It’s “unacceptable” to fly your aircraft over U.S. territory.

The New York Times reported:

Beijing had sought to defuse tensions with Washington on Friday over the balloon, expressing its regret over the incident, and saying the balloon was for civilian research and had “deviated far from its planned course.”

The explanation from the Chinese Foreign Ministry came after Pentagon officials said on Thursday that they had detected a balloon, “most certainly launched by the People’s Republic of China,” over Montana, which is home to about 150 intercontinental ballistic missile silos.

The article at PJ Media notes:

The experts at The Drive’s The War Zone disagree that there’s no added benefit to floating a balloon above U.S. military installations: “The idea that a terrestrial aerial platform in close proximity and floating for long periods above major military installations and other sensitive locales is not significantly more of a threat than what can be collected by satellites in orbit is a debatable claim.”

Don’t shoot it down–find a way to make a small hole in the balloon so that it floats gently to the ground, and then reverse engineer whatever electronics it is carrying.

 

Just When You Thought The New York Times Couldn’t Fall Any Lower…

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Blaze posted an article about a New York Times guest opinion column posted on Sunday.

The Blaze reports:

A New York Times guest opinion column published on Sunday claimed that mating with “shorter people” is a “step toward a greener planet” since smaller individuals are “inherent conservationists.”

The essay by writer Mara Altman, titled “There Has Never Been a Better Time to Be Short,” argued that people of shorter stature live longer and are “better” for the planet because they use fewer resources.

“The short are also inherent conservationists, which is more crucial than ever in this world of eight billion,” the article stated.

Altman’s essay referenced a study by Thomas Samaras, “the Godfather of Shrink Think,” which found that if Americans were 10% shorter, it would “save 87 million tons of food per year (not to mention trillions of gallons of water, quadrillions of B.T.U.s of energy and millions of tons of trash).”

“Short people don’t just save resources, but as resources become scarcer because of the earth’s growing population and global warming, they may also be best suited for long-term survival (and not just because more of us will be able to jam into spaceships when we are forced off this planet we wrecked),” the essay continued.

The article at The Blaze concludes:

The article referenced lecturer and artist Arne Hendriks, who “uses performance and exhibitions to encourage people to embrace fewer inches.” According to Altman’s piece, Hendriks does not allow his children to consume dairy and limits sugar to keep them from getting tall.

“The future I envision is different: I want my children’s children to know the value of short. I want them to call themselves ‘short drinks of water’ with ‘legs for minutes.’ While one yells, ‘I’m the shortest,’ I hope the other will bend his knees to gain an advantage, shouting, ‘No, I’m the shortest!'” the article concluded.

Twitter users relentlessly mocked the article for attributing height to climate change.

In response to the op-ed, Babylon Bee owner Seth Dillon tweeted, “Someone short and single is writing op-eds for The New York Times.”

Former Virginia Rep. Scott Taylor posted on Twitter, “Very heightist of you, @nytimes.”

Did the writer consider the environmental cost of lowering everyone’s kitchen cabinets so that the new generation of short people could reach them?

This Is Not A Good Idea

Posted on by

On Tuesday, One America News reported that Maryland had voted to legalize recreational marijuana and possession up to 1.5oz for people 21+.

The article notes:

It will also create a path to expunge or re-sentence convictions. In MD, police are ~3x more likely to arrest Black people for marijuana despite equal use among white people.

The article includes the following tweet:

ChudsOfTikTok@ChudsOfTikTok
Missouri voted to decriminalize & have recreational sales of marijuana at a 6% sales tax!! Legalize, Tax, Regulate! Congrats Maryland & Missouri!

Image

This is NOT good news. In October 2018, I posted an article based on a New York Times story of a man who was addicted to marijuana. Please follow the link to read the entire article. This is not a harmless drug.

The article at rightwinggranny notes:

On October 6, Neal Pollack posted an opinion piece in The New York Times. The title of the opinion piece is, “I’m Just a Middle-Aged House Dad Addicted to Pot.”

The opinion piece details the author’s journey from using marijuana regularly in his 20’s to the realization that he was hooked on the drug.

Here are some highlights from the article:

I started smoking regularly in the ’90s, when I was in my mid-20s. Pot made everything better — food, music, sex, cleaning — and it made nothing worse. I got depressed less often. I laughed all the time.

But I also lost my temper for no reason. Did I yell at strangers in public? Probably. I barely remember, because I was stoned. But I do remember that once, high as a promotional blimp, I got into a bar fight with a former friend and broke his tooth with a beer bottle.

Back when my writing career was booming, I got invited a couple of times to do readings in Amsterdam, a bad gig for a pot addict. Once, after ingesting a couple of THC pills, I dumped a pitcher of water over my head and insulted the Iraqi representative to National Poetry Day Amsterdam. Another time, I pulled down my pants and flashed a crowd of several hundred. If I had any boundaries, weed erased them thoroughly. The boom ended fast.

…In early November (2017), I had the chance to fulfill my lifelong dream of attending a Dodgers World Series game. I spent way too much money on a ticket that turned out to be fake. So high that I couldn’t remember where I’d parked, I started screaming outside the stadium. If I’d been sober, I would have just called the vendor and gotten a refund. That’s what I ended up doing, eventually. But not before security guards surrounded me.

I looked into a car mirror and saw an old man, sobbing over a baseball game. That was the moment I accepted that I had a problem. Three weeks later, I quit.

The author goes on to say that he believes marijuana should be legal. I disagree.

In January 2019 Imprimis reported:

Most of all, advocates have told you that marijuana is not just safe for people with psychiatric problems like depression, but that it is a potential treatment for those patients. On its website, the cannabis delivery service Eaze offers the “Best Marijuana Strains and Products for Treating Anxiety.” “How Does Cannabis Help Depression?” is the topic of an article on Leafly, the largest cannabis website. But a mountain of peer-reviewed research in top medical journals shows that marijuana can cause or worsen severe mental illness, especially psychosis, the medical term for a break from reality. Teenagers who smoke marijuana regularly are about three times as likely to develop schizophrenia, the most devastating psychotic disorder.

After an exhaustive review, the National Academy of Medicine found in 2017 that “cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses; the higher the use, the greater the risk.” Also that “regular cannabis use is likely to increase the risk for developing social anxiety disorder.”

Legalizing marijuana for any reason will not solve problems–it will only cause more problems.

Where Are The Mainstream Media Reports On This?

Posted on by

On Friday, Breitbart posted an article about the attack on Gen. Don Bolduc who is running for the U.S. Senate in New Hampshire.

The article reports:

The establishment media have ignored the physical attack against Republican New Hampshire candidate Gen. Don Bolduc.

The three top establishment newspapers, the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, all failed to report the physical attack on Gen. Bolduc that occurred moments before Wednesday’s debate with Democrat Maggie Hassan (D-NH).

…On Wednesday, police arrested 37-year-old Joseph Hart of Greenville, Rhode Island, for criminal trespass and disorderly conduct after he took a swing at Gen. Bolduc.

…The attack is still under investigation by police.

Kate Constantini, Bolduc for Senate spokeswoman, told Breitbart News Wednesday night there is no space for political violence. “As the General said on stage tonight, it’s time to lower the temperature of the political discourse in this country,” she stated.

Yet the establishment media have remained silent about the attack and Bolduc’s call for peaceful discourse, instead preferring to report on the attack against Paul Pelosi, which was carried out by an illegal alien.

The article concludes:

The establishment media’s bias was also on display during Wednesday’s debate. The WMUR ABC debate moderators failed to mention the attack before or during the debate.

Conversely, the moderators asked the candidates about the rise in violence against politicians, referencing the January 6 and attack against Paul Pelosi, failing to mention an attack that occurred just minutes before the debate against the Republican candidate.

I guess some violence is more important than others. If you rely on the mainstream media for your news, you are probably uninformed.

I Approve Of Something The Biden Administration Did!

Posted on by

The Biden administration did something really smart. I don’t know exactly who is responsible, but I am grateful. On Sunday, Hot Air posted the story. I need to say up front that this is one of those articles I do not totally understand, but what I read sounds really good.

The article reports:

I am pretty sure that I have never praised the Biden Administration. I mean, why would I?

Well, I may have found a reason, believe it or not. It seems that the Biden Administration has struck a huge blow against the Chinese tech industry, and it wasn’t even by accident. They did something right, and never let it be said that I am more unfair to liberals than my job naturally requires.

…So here we go, and yes, it is painful to praise Biden, even a little bit. Worse, I have to rely on The New York Times for part of the story, completing my humiliation:

This is the important part of the article:

There are two important aspects of the China/Taiwan tension that are both related to technology:

    • China has become a technology superpower due to America’s reliance on its manufacturing prowess. Almost everything we think of as high-tech has a lot of Chinese manufacturing and components in the end product. Those DJI drones doing the heavy lifting in Ukraine? Chinese.
    • Taiwan is a much more important technology superpower. Almost every high-end microprocessor (the highest up the value chain) is reliant on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) is made by TSMC. They blow everybody else away in making chips, including former leader Intel. Over half of the chips in the products you use are manufactured by TSMC.

China doesn’t only want Taiwan territory; if they ran Taiwan they would control many of the most important parts of the tech industry. They aren’t a design or software powerhouse, but the world would still rely on them for high-tech products. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons China remains hesitant to invade Taiwan is the implied strategy of the Taiwanese government to threaten the destruction of TSMC facilities were they to be invaded. This is the so-called “silicon shield.”

The article concludes:

To the extent that I can, which is not much, I have verified this. And that means that it is of medium reliability. Certainly, ASML leaving is a big blow, and the extent of the Biden Administration sanctions is dramatic, the thread itself is more than plausible.

I admit to being shocked that the Biden Administration has chosen this path. It is bold, aggressive, and likely to hurt China badly both economically and militarily. I would have to assume that they have war-gamed the consequences extensively because such a move would not be taken either lightly or without serious consideration.

In this case, unlike the Russia sanctions, the Administration had plenty of time to evaluate the costs and benefits. Without access to the information and analysis they have, I can’t say with certainty that this was precisely the right policy, but it certainly moves us in the direction of achieving the goal of slowing China’s ability to threaten our interests in the Pacific.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally!

Laying The Foundation

Posted on by

In evaluating President Biden’s speech last night, there are a few things to consider when trying to put the speech in context.

Consider the impact of Saul Alinsky on the Democrat party since the 1990’s. If you are not familiar with Saul Alinsky, he was a Chicago community activist who worked through in the Industrial Areas Foundation in Chicago. He was an inspiration for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and, I am sure, a number of other Democrats). In 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals as a guide for political activism and mobilization of politically unrepresented communities. One of the guiding principles in his book was Rule 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Another, Rule 4, states, “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Both of these principles were illustrated last night.

The New York Times posted the transcript of President Biden’s speech.

The President stated:

But as I stand here tonight, equality and democracy are under assault. We do ourselves no favor to pretend otherwise.

So, tonight, I’ve come to this place where it all began to speak as plainly as I can to the nation about the threats we face, about the power we have in our own hands to meet these threats and about the incredible future that lies in front of us, if only we choose it.

We must never forget, we, the people, are the true heirs of the American experiment that began more than two centuries ago.

First of all–we are a representative republic–we are not a democracy. Secondly, equality is not under assault except by those pushing Critical Race Theory, reparations, etc.

The President stated:

Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal. Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic.

Now, I want to be very clear, very clear up front. Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know, because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.

But there’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country.

Rule 13 in action–pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

The President continued:

And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election, and they’re working right now as I speak in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.

Note the term ‘election deniers.’ That term is used as a pre-emptive attack against any evidence that may come out about election fraud. Remember that the man who just unconstitutionally granted student loan forgiveness is complaining that the MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. Also note that he is only attacking the MAGA Republicans. The ‘Club’ Republicans are his friends.

The President continues:

MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards, backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love. They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fanned the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.

Obviously these accusations are false, but there will be people who will believe them. I don’t believe it was the Republicans who bailed out the rioters of the summer of 2020.

The President stated:

But while the threat to American democracy is real, I want to say as clearly as we can, we are not powerless in the face of these threats. We are not bystanders in this ongoing attack on democracy. There are far more Americans, far more Americans from every background and belief, who reject the extreme MAGA ideology than those that accept it. And folks, it’s within our power, it’s in our hands, yours and mine, to stop the assault on American democracy.

Unfortunately, this is the rhetoric that will be used to justify the limiting of free speech and the attack on political conservatives. Since these people are a threat to American democracy (it’s a republic!), they need to be taken out. We have already seen swatting attacks on Marjorie Taylor Greene and Steve Bannon and a planned assassination of Judge Kavanaugh. This rhetoric will encourage more of that.

The President stated:

MAGA Republicans have made their choice. They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live, not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies. But together, together, we can choose a different path. We can choose a better path forward to the future, a future of possibility, a future to build a dream and hope, and we’re on that path moving ahead.

Please follow the link above if you want to read the entire speech. Frankly I see the speech as the building of a platform from which to attack any American who does not fall in lockstep with President Biden and those who are controlling him. The attack on MAGA Republicans will only be the beginning. We are heading into a dangerous time.

Is The U. S. Constitution Actually A Good Thing?

Posted on by

On Monday Breitbart posted an article about a New York Times opinion piece posted on Friday. I am not linking to The New York Times piece because it is behind the paywall.

Breitbart reports:

The “broken” and “famously undemocratic” U.S. Constitution “stands in the way” of “real” freedom and democracy, according to a New York Times op-ed by two Ivy League law professors.

The pair issued a call to “radically alter the basic rules of the game” by no longer requiring us to “justify our politics by the Constitution.”

A Friday New York Times essay, titled “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” and penned by law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale, claims when liberals “lose in the Supreme Court” they often blame justices for misreading the Constitution, yet in reality, “struggling over the Constitution has proved a dead end.”

“The real need is not to reclaim the Constitution, as many would have it, but instead to reclaim America from constitutionalism,” the authors assert, as they attack the “some centuries-old text.”

The article shares the solution proposed by the professors:

Accusing “constitutionalism” of “leaving democracy hostage to constraints that are harder to change than the rest of the legal order,” the essay argues the way to seek “real freedom” will be a “new way of fighting within American democracy” with a “more open politics of altering our fundamental law,” suggesting that the Constitution be made “more amendable” than it currently is.

“One way to get to this more democratic world is to pack the Union with new states,” the authors write. “Doing so would allow Americans to then use the formal amendment process to alter the basic rules of [politics] and break the false deadlock that the Constitution imposes through the Electoral College and Senate on the country, in which substantial majorities are foiled on issue after issue.”

However, the authors state, Congress could “openly defy” the Constitution to “get to a more democratic order,” with the basic structure of government being “decided by the present electorate, as opposed to one from some foggy past.”

“A politics of the American future like this would make clear our ability to engage in the constant reinvention of our society under our own power, without the illusion that the past stands in the way,” they conclude.

The piece comes as many on the left continue to attack the epic founding governmental document.

Just for the record, we are not a democracy, we are a representative republic.

Why don’t we just put all of the people who want to get rid of the Constitution on a fairly large island and let them govern it using their ideas? We could take bets on how long it would take to reenact Lord of the Flies.

I Guess The Truth No Longer Matters In Reporting

Posted on by

On Monday, Breitbart reported that Pulitzer Prize Board would not be rescinding its Pulitzer Prizes given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for its reporting on the Russia hoax. Evidently the fact that the awards were given for articles that later proved to be false did not enter into the decision.

The article notes:

These inquiries prompted the Pulitzer Board to commission two independent reviews of the work submitted by those organizations to our National Reporting competition,” the board continued before announcing the establishment media outlets will keep their prizes.

“The separate reviews converged in their conclusions: that no passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes,” the board claimed.

In total, 20 articles were challenged with formal complaints. All 20 were ruled factual by the Pulitzer Prize Board. The questioned articles include the following titles:

    • FBI was to pay author of Trump dossier (WaPo)
    • Trump reveals secret intelligence to Russians (WaPo)
    • Trump crafted son’s statement on Russian contact (WaPo)
    • Trump’s Son Heard of Link To Moscow Before Meeting  (NYT)
    • Emails Disclose Trump Son’s Glee At Russian Offer (NYT)
    • Unlikely Source Propelled Russian Meddling Inquiry (NYT)
    • Undisclosed On Forms, Kushner Met 2 Russians (NYT)

Despite claims by Democrats and establishment media reports that former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, those claims were found to be baseless. In March of 2019, the Mueller report found no evidence Donald Trump colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

So if I report that there is a tyrannosaurus rex in my backyard and it’s Trump’s fault, and I win a Pulitzer Prize for my report, I don’t have to give back the Prize when it turns out the report is false? Wow. Journalism has taken some interesting turns lately.

 

Actions Have Consequences

Posted on by

The Biden administration’s policies have had some very interesting results. On the surface, seeing these results should have caused a rethinking of the policy involved, but it hasn’t. History will tell us whether the destruction of the American economy and the end of American energy independence was truly accidental.

On Tuesday, The Conservative Treehouse reported the following:

(Via New York Times) – The ruble cemented its unlikely status as the world’s best-performing currency, rising to new multiyear highs this week. Since collapsing in the weeks after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which triggered sweeping international sanctions aimed at crippling the Russian economy, the ruble has come roaring back.

On Tuesday, it traded at its strongest level against the U.S. dollar since June 2015. It has gained about 35 percent so far this year, beating every major currency, and has more than doubled from its post-invasion low.

[…] Higher earnings from oil and gas exports, which have surged as prices rise and demand in Asia makes up for cutbacks in Europe, have kept the ruble elevated. At the same time, Russian imports have fallen sharply, partly the result of many foreign companies pulling out of Russia, which also support the ruble. (read more)

Oddly enough, had America continued the energy policies of the Trump administration, the overall cost of oil and gas would be less, but the American economy would be stronger and the Russian ruble would be weaker. The results of the Biden administration’s energy policies and the actions of the Biden administration regarding sanctions on Russia have had exactly the opposite effect of what was needed. Historians will debate whether this was accidental or intentional. We have officially reached the place where the difference between a conspiracy theory and a news story is about four months.

Remote Learning Is An Oxymoron

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about the impact the closing down of our schools during Covid had on our children.

The article reports:

Remote learning had an even worse effect on U.S. students’ education than was previously known, new research shows.

K-12 students who attended school from home in the 2020-2021 school year lost 50 percent of their typical math curriculum learning, according to a Harvard study first reported by the New York Times. Even students who went back to school in fall 2020 lost 20 percent of their typical math curriculum learning due to pandemic disruptions in the spring. The learning disparities were the worst for poor, black, and Latino students, a gap that one of the study’s authors called “the largest increase in educational inequity in a generation.”

The schools were closed by the Teachers’ Unions. Many teachers were afraid of catching Covid from their students (a largely unfounded fear, but understandable at the beginning of the Covid crisis), and many teachers simply enjoyed teaching remotely from wherever they chose to be.  After scientists realized that children were neither major spreaders of the virus and generally not at high risk from complications from the virus, the schools should have reopened, but not all of them did.

The article notes:

“It’s pretty clear that remote school was not good for learning,” Emily Oster, a Brown University economist and the coauthor of a similar study, told the Times. Oster was one of the first to sound the alarm about the danger of school closures. In October 2020, she wrote a piece for the Atlantic, “Schools Aren’t Superspreaders,” which argued the risk of COVID spread in schools was overblown.

Children are at low risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19. In-school transmission is also “extremely rare,” according to a 2021 study by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

“In places where schools reopened that summer and fall, the spread of COVID was not noticeably worse than in places where schools remained closed,” the Times‘s David Leonhardt wrote on Thursday. “Schools also reopened in parts of Europe without seeming to spark outbreaks.”

The article concludes:

Students who suffered the greatest learning losses were often in districts that succumbed to powerful teachers’ unions and Democratic officials who fought to keep schools closed. Schools in the poorest areas on average stayed remote five weeks longer than affluent areas.

As late as March this year, Chicago Public Schools, in coordination with its teachers’ union, was implementing at-home learning periods for classes after COVID exposures. Additionally, any school could flip to remote learning provided at least 30 percent of teachers were absent for at least two days or at least 40 percent of students were told to quarantine by the city’s health department.

Let’s hope that the damage done to the ‘children of Covid’ can be undone by the time they reach high school.

One Perspective On Fake News

Posted on by

‘Fake news’ was the expression used by Democrats whenever someone outside the mainstream media reported something that was true (that might damage the Democrat image). Now, as The New York Times admits that the Hunter Biden laptop was real, many Americans are beginning to wonder exactly who is disseminating fake news. On Saturday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted his evaluation of our current media situation.

The article reminds us of the history of the laptop and reporting on it:

Some observers consider the New York Times’ belated admission that Hunter Biden’s laptop was genuine to be a big deal. I don’t. For one thing, the Times hasn’t acknowledged, and won’t report on, the specific information on the laptop that told the story of Joe Biden’s corruption.

Moreover, there was never any doubt about the genuineness of the laptop and the data it contained. The owner of the repair shop had a receipt with Hunter Biden’s signature on it, the laptop contained a large number of self-validating videos and photos of Hunter in various compromising situations, and the authenticity of emails on the laptop was confirmed by the presence of the same emails in other accounts. The idea that the laptop was “Russian disinformation” was a desperate and absurd invention intended to fool those who paid no attention, and those who wanted to be fooled.

The laptop saga was really a continuation of the Russia collusion hoax. As in the larger case of the collusion hoax, those who perpetrated the “Russian disinformation” fraud are unrepentant. The Times now implicitly admits that it was wrong to ignore or impugn the evidence of the laptop, but has it issued any corrections to, or retractions of, its reporting? No. Has it launched an investigation into how it could have been “fooled”? Of course not.

The New York Times was never ‘fooled.’ What they were was part of a campaign to elect Joe Biden.

The article concludes:

The New York Times expresses no regret because it doesn’t regret what it did. The Times isn’t a newspaper, it is a mouthpiece. Its purpose was obvious. It was the same purpose that animated many other news outlets, Twitter, and the 51 lying spies: they were trying to get Joe Biden elected president.

That effort succeeded. Lying about the laptop was just one of many corners they cut to achieve their desired objective, but poll data suggest that it was one of the most important. If voters had realized how demonstrably corrupt Joe Biden is–no one has ever bribed Hunter Biden–polls suggest that Donald Trump would have been re-elected. Liberal news outlets are proud of the fact that they acted together to prevent that awful possibility. If it took some lies to accomplish the mission, so what?

Thus, I attribute little significance to the New York Times’ casual acknowledgement that it blew the Hunter laptop story–really, it blew the 2020 election, if you think the Times is trying to report objectively on the news. But of course no one thinks that. For the Times, Twitter, and countless other liberal institutions, their lies about Joe Biden and Donald Trump accomplished the intended mission. There will be no apologies, no regrets–only, behind the scenes, discreet high fives.

The lies about the laptop achieved their purpose. Anything said now is moot.

Better Late Than Never I Guess

Posted on by

Townhall posted an article on Thursday about a recent article in the New York Times.

The article at Townhall reports:

The New York Times is out with a story today about the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings. Deep down in the text, the story confirms Hunter Biden’s laptop — full of salacious information and photos — is indeed authentic. 

“The Justice Department inquiry into the business dealings of the president’s son has remained active, with a grand jury seeking information about payments from around the world,” the New York Times reports. “People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation. In some of the emails, Mr. Biden displayed a familiarity with FARA, and a desire to avoid triggering it.”

The article at Townhall reminds us:

During the 2020 presidential election, the New York Post first reported on the laptop and its contents. As the oldest newspaper in the country, the New York Post was banned from Twitter for weeks after being accused of spreading “misinformation.”

This is the story that got the New York Post removed from Twitter as the story was described as “Russian disinformation”. The media spin was that the Russians made up the laptop contents to discredit candidate Joe Biden. Very few informed Americans who saw the New York Post story doubted its veracity, but it was suppressed so as not to have a negative impact on the Biden campaign for the presidency. The suppression of pertinent information is just one of many reasons that we have the most corrupt and ineffective President in American history currently residing in the White House.

Accidental Or Intentional ?

Posted on by

The way things are going here, the difference between a conspiracy theory and the news is about six weeks.

On Friday, The Patriot Daily Wire reported that prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine the Biden administration had sought help from China to prevent that invasion. In itself, that is not a problem, but a look at the bigger picture illustrates something that is a problem.

The article reports:

In hopes of securing assistance in deterring a Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration was reduced to providing China with military intelligence that Beijing in turn gave to Russia.

U.S. officials learned in December that China had provided American intelligence on Russian military activity to Moscow, The New York Times reported.

American officials believed that if any world leader could prove capable of convincing Russian President Vladimir Putin to rethink his invasion plans, it was Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Russia and China have strengthened their ties in recent years.

The Biden administration had sought to convince China that its international image would be damaged by a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

In a November meeting with Chinese Ambassador Qin Gang, American officials said the harsh economic sanctions Russia would incur would hurt the Chinese economy as well.

Successive attempts to influence Qin against Russia proved unsuccessful, with Qin asserting that Russia had legitimate security concerns in the region.

American officials also shared intelligence with the Chinese showing the Russian military buildup around Ukraine.

In addition to providing the information to the Kremlin, American officials believe China told Russia that the U.S. was attempting to sow discord between the two nations and pledged not to interfere in Russia’s plans in Ukraine.

We are about to find out how useless NATO and the United Nations really are. Why are we funding these organizations?

 

A Constitutional Republic Will Only Stand As Long As Its Citizens And Voters Are Able To Stay Informed

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Western Journal posted an article about the lack of transparency and misinformation coming out of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the past two years or so.

The article notes:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is being called out for not sharing the vast quantities of data it had been gathering during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some medical experts are speculating that the reason why is the fear the data will be “misinterpreted” and used as justification not to follow the agency’s guidelines regarding vaccination and other matters.

“Tell the truth, present the data,” said Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert and adviser to the Food and Drug Administration, The New York Times reported.

…Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the CDC, told the news outlet the reason much of the data has been withheld is “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.”

Bureaucracy is another reason.

The CDC is weighed down by multiple layers of bureaucracy, including a requirement to first run information to be released through the Department Health and Human Services and the White House.

“The CDC is a political organization as much as it is a public health organization,” said Samuel Scarpino, managing director of pathogen surveillance at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Pandemic Prevention Institute, the Times reported.

“The steps that it takes to get something like this [covid data] released are often well outside of the control of many of the scientists that work at the CDC.”

The article concludes:

In an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal last month, Makary (Dr. Marty Makary, a professor and researcher at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine) contended that another topic the CDC has been reluctant to address is natural immunity.

“For most of last year, many of us called for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release its data on reinfection rates, but the agency refused,” he wrote.

“Finally last week, the CDC released data from New York and California, which demonstrated natural immunity was 2.8 times as effective in preventing hospitalization and 3.3 to 4.7 times as effective in preventing Covid infection compared with vaccination,” he continued.

Makary further noted the National Institutes of Health resisted acknowledging natural immunity.

“Because of the NIH’s inaction, my Johns Hopkins colleagues and I conducted the study. We found that among 295 unvaccinated people who previously had Covid, antibodies were present in 99 percent of them up to nearly two years after infection,” he wrote.

Makary argued the failure of the CDC to release the data sooner meant many who had previously recovered from COVID and had better immunity than those were just vaccinated needlessly lost their jobs.

He concluded that they should be hired back.

There was a political agenda here and a monetary agenda here. The CDC is too closely tied financially to the drug companies. There was more money in vaccines than there ever was in ivermectin!