DEI favors some groups over others, be it because of either social pressure or Corporate lending practices (Blackrock).
Zuckerberg is cleaning house, and eliminating the “inclusive” culture that Sheryl Sanberg brought in. Inclusive meaning hiring certain groups based on gender or race.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg reportedly trash-talked his former top lieutenant Sheryl Sandberg during his visit to Mar-a-Lago, blaming her for implementing controversial DEI initiatives at Facebook that “encouraged employees’ self-expression in the workplace.”
Zuckerberg, who has drawn criticism for cozying up to the new administration, made the comment during a sit-down with President-elect Donald Trump’s advisers at his Florida retreat shortly after the Republican’s historic election victory in November, according to the New York Times.
The discussions on Nov. 27 — which included Stephen Miller, who will take over as White House deputy chief of staff — covered a range of hot-button topics such as the administration’s expected crackdown on immigration, and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, the Times reported.
Miller told Zuckerberg that the billionaire mogul had “an opportunity to help reform America, but it would be on Trump’s terms,” according to the Times.
Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) said during an interview on Sunday that then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) did not allow Republicans to be briefed on the terrorist threats facing the United States last year because he did not want the information to leak and damage Vice President Kamala Harris during the elections.
Britt made the remarks during an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” when asked about the subject that Republicans repeatedly brought up to Schumer last year. The topic comes two weeks after a terrorist killed more than a dozen people in New Orleans on New Year’s Day.
Britt said that she was extremely concerned about the potential for future terrorist attacks in the U.S.
“When you rewind to where this came from, in my opinion, this is a direct result of Biden’s failed policies across the world,” she said. “When you look at the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, we know that that created a vacuum. It created a vacuum that allowed ISIS-K to continue to flourish.”
“Our conversations surrounding that and our request of Senator Schumer was, make sure that we understand this, so that we can do everything that we need to,” she continued. “This is also right after Director Wray said that he saw blinking lights everywhere he turned.”
In a major sign of where things are headed in the coming months, Facebook/Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has announced that the company is dropping its current DEI policies.
People are interpreting this as an indication of how things are changing now that a second Trump administration is about to take power and that is probably correct.
Meta, Amazon ditch DEI programs as tech giants move away from ‘woke’ agenda
Meta and Amazon reportedly killed their DEI programs in recent days – moves that come as both Big Tech giants attempt to cozy up to President-elect Donald Trump.
On Friday, Meta – the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and Threads – said it will no longer take the controversial Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies into consideration before hiring, training and picking suppliers, Axios reported.
According to a memo sent by Janelle Gale, vice president of human resources, she said the company is pivoting away from DEI because the “legal and policy landscape surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the United States is changing.”
A Meta spokesperson reached by The Post confirmed the memo, which was first obtained by Axios.
Meta’s about-face came just days after CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that his company would scrap censoring free speech on its popular social media platforms.
Both Zuckerberg and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos have recently met with Trump as part of an ongoing thaw in once-frosty relations between the Republican and the tech industry.
Zuckerberg appears to be serious about this and has even removed the tampons from the men’s rooms.
I heard Adam Corolla talk about this last week. He lives there and knows what is going on. He’s not afraid to tell the truth either because he can’t be canceled.
Now this….
By now, we all know the left’s twisted environmental policies and DEI agenda are destroying the country from the inside out. But nowhere is that more evident these days than in California, where the state is literally burning to the ground thanks to both failed movements.
IT’S THE HOMELESS AND ILLEGALS WHO LIVE IN THE HILLS DOING DRUGS THAT START THE FIRES, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE
It’s plain as day that the left’s fire “management” is a colossal disaster. Los Angeles is literally ablaze and burning to the ground as we speak. But did you know there’s a deep, dark secret—one that’s the worst-kept secret among firefighters? They know all about it but are forbidden to speak up, fearing it’ll clash with the left’s plans. The truth is, many of these fires are caused by careless homeless people, and firefighters are fully aware of it. But according to local news outlets, they’re not allowed to admit it on air.
There have been 15,000 acres, 1,000 structures destroyed. Nobody knows how many people are killed or missing. And how do we characterize this? Everybody’s talking about the Santa Ana winds, climate change—I mean everybody, the people in power.
But it was preventable. And once it started, this fire, it could have been assuaged. You could have had it lessened, that the severity didn’t have to be as catastrophic. So, I would characterize it as a DEI–Green New Deal hydrogen bomb. It’s something out of “Dante’s Inferno.”
And what I mean by that is, it’s a systems breakdown, a civilizational collapse. When you look at the people in charge, [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom flew in, to sort of do these performance-art stunts, but he has systematically ensured that water out of the Sacramento River and the watershed of Northern California would go out to the sea, rather than into the aqueduct, so Los Angeles didn’t have sufficient amounts of water.
He bragged not very long ago that he blew up four dams on the Klamath River. They provided 80,000 homes with clean hydroelectric power. They offered recreation, flood control, irrigation. He blew them up.
California’s fire management, whether we look at the Paradise Fire or the Aspen Fire near where I’m speaking, it destroyed 60 million trees. We have no timber industry in California. [Newsom’s] dismantled it.
We don’t clean the forest. We don’t let loggers come in and have a viable livelihood by harvesting trees. It’s sort of considered natural to let these things burn or to at least create the conditions in which they will inevitably be burned.
It’s almost as if we don’t like humans. We worry about grubs and worms and birds and the ecosystem.
The second breakdown was the mayor, Karen Bass, was in Africa. You tell me why the mayor of the third-largest city in the United States at fire season, when she had been warned and warned for days on end that the Santa Ana winds were up to 100 miles an hour in the evening, and there was a danger of fire, and she goes off to Africa for the inauguration of the president of Ghana.
With all due respect, Mayor, but who cares? You have an obligation to the 6 million people of greater Los Angeles. And then we have the fire chief. I don’t really care that she’s LGBTQ, I don’t care [about] any of that. All I do care is her emphases. She’s been bragging for the last two years that her goal was to make sure [the Fire Department] was diverse and inclusive.
That can be good if it’s competent. But when you announce that 70% of your hiring will not be meritocratic, but will be based on diversity, equity, inclusion, then you’re not putting the interest of your constituents first.
There were not even enough, there wasn’t enough water pressure in Pacific Palisades. Pacific Palisades is not where I live. It’s one of the wealthiest, most exclusive neighborhoods in the United States. If they don’t have water, then no one’s going to get water, believe me.
There’s not enough insurance. There were famous actors that didn’t have insurance. Why? Because industry is overregulated, it’s fraught with people who make fraudulent claims, and the insurance industry knows that California is hostile to it, but more importantly that it will never clean up its forest or take preventive, time-tried, ancient protocols to lessen the dangers of fire.
And so put it all together, whether it’s a deliberate policy to not store water, not preserve water. Last year was one of the wettest years that we’ve had. We’ve had three out of the last four years have been very wet. We had a huge snowpack. We had rivers that were running in 19th-century fashion, but out to the sea to save the delta smelt.
So, it was a total systems collapse from the idea of not spending money on irrigation, storage, water, fire prevention, force management, a viable insurance industry, a DEI hierarchy. You put it all together and it’s something like a DEI-Green New Deal hydrogen bomb.
Gavin Newsom was fiddling, as he’s almost Nero Newsom. And this has been something that is just unimaginable, this system’s breakdown.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass are seen here Nov. 16, 2023, at a joint press conference. (Sarah Reingewirtz/ Media News Group/Los Angeles Daily News via Getty Images)
And to finish, what we’re seeing in California is a state with 40 million people. And yet the people who run it feel that it should return to a 19th-century pastoral condition. They are decivilizing the state, and deindustrializing the state, and defarming the state, but they’re not telling the 40 million people that their lifestyles will have to revert back to the 19th century when you had no protection from fire, you didn’t have enough water in California, you didn’t have enough power, you didn’t pump oil.
So, we are deliberately making these decisions not to develop energy, not to develop a timber industry, not to protect the insurance industry, not to protect houses and property.
And we’re doing it in almost a purely nihilistic fashion. And Karen Bass should resign. She came to the airport, back from Africa. She had nothing to say. She was confronted at the airport: “Why were you in Africa? Why did you cut the fire department?”
They cut the fire department by almost $18 million. They gave fire protective equipment to Ukraine’s first responders, and she had nothing to say. She had nothing to say because she couldn’t say anything.
I don’t want to be too pessimistic or bleak tonight, but this is one of the most alarming symptoms of a society gone mad, and if this continues, and if this were to spread to other states, we would become a Third World country if we’re not in parts already.
In retrospect, maybe the military should have spent a little less time worrying about “white supremacists” and paid more attention to black Muslims. As you’ve no doubt heard by now, an Army veteran, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, who happened to be a black Muslim, slaughtered 14 New Year’s revelers in New Orleans last week.
For the past four years, the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security and President Biden have warned about the looming threat of white supremacy amid constant references to Jan. 6 — but not to BLM, in which police officers actually died. Apart from getting more girls and transgenders into the military, it seems like rooting out “white supremacists” has become the military’s full-time job. (Proposed new U.S. Marines’ slogan: “We’re looking for a few good men … who think they’re women.”)
Biden, repeatedly: “According to the intelligence community, terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today. Not ISIS, not al-Qaida — white supremacists.”
To deal with the crisis, the greatest fighting force in the world scoured the social media accounts of its white troops, in search of “ties to white supremacists or violent extremists.” Considering the vast amounts of truthful information censored from social media under Biden — e.g., about COVID, masking, social distancing, Biden’s senile dementia, Hunter Biden’s laptop — I’d love to see what the military considered evidence of “ties to white supremacists.”
In perhaps the most unexpected, shocking revelation to come out of the devastating Los Angeles wildfires, it turns out their Fire Chief is an “LGBTQ+” woman who is obsessed with DEI. Who could have possibly guessed that?
Of course, I’m being sarcastic given who’s in charge. For context, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is currently on a taxpayer-funded trip to Ghana while her city burns. So yeah, her priorities are clearly in line. Crap, there goes that sarcasm again.
Anyway, meet Los Angeles Fire Chief Kristin Crowley. She has been lauded by the press as the “first female and openly gay person” to ever hold the role. What was one of her first initiatives after being appointed? She started a diversity, equity, and inclusion program focused on recruiting more women and gay firefighters.
Reflecting back on 2024 and looking forward to a future with less misinformation and more facts, Just Facts has summarized 50 false or misleading claims spread by journalists, commentators, and so-called fact checkers during the past year.
Each of these examples quotes a specific media outlet or individual, but nearly all of these fictions were propagated by multiple outlets and people, and many of them were broadcast by dozens.
1: Inflation
Margaret Brennan and John Dickerson of CBS News claimed that “the president of the United States has nothing to do with the price of bacon,” “or eggs,” “or gas,” “or any of it.”
In fact, presidents impact the prices of virtually everything through federal deficits that spur inflation, regulations that prohibit the use of cost-effective production methods and resources, price and wage controls, trade deals, tariffs, and more.
2: “Bloodbath”
Reporting on the first assassination attempt against Donald Trump, George Stephanopoulos and Martha Raddatz of ABC News claimed that Trump “contributed” to “violent rhetoric” because he said “it’s going to be a bloodbath” if “I don’t get elected.”
In fact, Trump didn’t use the term “bloodbath” as a call to violence but to describe the effects of Biden’s policies, especially on the auto industry.
3: Crime Trends
PolitiFact reported that “the violent crime rate today is near a 50-year low.”
In fact, that claim is derived from FBI data, which is based on voluntary reports of crimes by state and local law enforcement agencies and “excludes” crimes like “sexual assault,” “simple assault,” “attempted robberies,” and “crimes not reported to law enforcement.”
The DOJ’s National Crime Victimization Survey—which is widely considered to be the “gold standard” for measuring crime trends—showed a 37% increase in violent crime from 2020 to 2023. Moreover, the latest rate of murder—which is the best-measured and worst violent crime—was 36% higher in 2023 than in 2014.
4: Jobs
The New York Times reported that “President Biden is presiding over a job-creation boom that would have gotten almost any of his predecessors re-elected in the postwar era.”
In fact, all real job growth under Biden went to immigrants, while jobs held by people born in the USA barely recovered from Covid lockdowns, are drastically below their pre-Covid trajectory, and flatlined over the past year:
The recent terrorist attack (14 dead, 35 injured) in New Orleans by a homegrown former soldier, Shamsud Din Jabbar, who had “become radicalized” by ISIS has called America’s attention to the threat of Islamic extremism in the USA. Has the enemy without become a serious enemy within? And if so, what can be done to protect ourselves from further atrocities?
We previously contended with the murderous events of 9/11 (2001), with downed planes and 3,000 dead; the Washington sniper and his pal (10 killed in 2002), who liked to pick off people at gas stations; the Fort Hood massacre (2009) of our soldiers (13 killed) by a radicalized army psychiatrist; the Tsarnaev brothers setting off explosions at the Boston marathon (3 killed, over 280 injured, and 12 amputations in 2013); the San Bernardino mass slaying (2015, 14 killed and 22 seriously injured) of Christmas partygoers who worked on behalf of the developmentally disabled; and the Chattanooga shooter (2015, 4 dead), who attacked an army recruiting center. In addition, there was the Islamic attempted hit in Texas on Pam Geller (2015), who had the audacity to have an art show with drawings of Mohammed, which for certain Islamics was worse than not being halal. But the murderers who intended to shoot up the entire gathering were themselves finished off by alert locals.
The above events were against the overseas backdrop of Islamic terrorist attacks on Americans at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 of our beloved servicemen, in 1996. In 1983, 241 U.S. soldiers were killed in suicide attacks in Beirut, Lebanon. And many other nations throughout the world suffered similarly.
Is there any question that Islamic terrorism is a threat to worldwide security? Is there any question that increasing the number of Islamic immigrants increases the threat of murder and mayhem in our society? Between 1979 and April 2024, 66,872 Islamist attacks were recorded worldwide. These attacks caused the deaths of at least 249,941 people. In the 21-year 1979–2000, there were 2,194 attacks and only 6,817 deaths, but in the less than 11 years from 2013 to April 2024, there were 56,413 attacks and 204,937 deaths.
….
A distinctive of these large, un-American campus demonstrations was the presence of tents occupied by many students. Tents have not been a mainstay of previous campus demonstrations going back to the civil rights demonstrations (which, by the way, were demonstrating for civil rights and not against white people). This writer believes that the tents were symbolic of identity with Arab people. The attempt to portray the demonstrations in their ethnic/religious dimension is not only averse to the “melting pot” ideal of American life, but an attempt to elevate the desert-life, nomadic existence of many parts of the Arab world into a place of honor it does not hold in Western civilization. Many students were wearing keffiyehs (head scarves common in the Arab world). The tents and the Muslim attire of students demonstrating introduced a wanton hatred of Western mores, religions, and cultural commitments that went far beyond protesting the Middle East conflict between Israel and some of her Arab neighbors.
By including tents, keffiyehs, and female head coverings, demonstrators also revealed themselves to be anti-Western and anti-American. These dimensions of demonstrator hostility are both novel and dreadful.
There is a clear consensus among the global elite that overpopulation is the primary cause of the most important problems that our world is facing today. Many of them are completely convinced that humans are literally a “plague” upon the Earth and that extreme measures are required to prevent us from destroying the entire planet. To the elite, everything from global warming to our growing economic problems can be directly traced back to a lack of population control. They warn that if nothing is done about our exploding population, humanity will be facing a future full of poverty, war and suffering on a filthy, desolate planet. They complain that it “costs too much” to keep elderly patients that are terminally ill alive, and they eagerly promote “family planning” in developing nations as a way to combat population growth. Of course just about anything that reduces the human population in any way is a positive thing for those that believe in this philosophy.
This very twisted philosophy is being promoted in our movies, in our television shows, in our music, in countless books, on many of our most prominent websites, and it is being taught at top colleges and universities all over the world. The people who are promoting this philosophy have very, very deep pockets, and they are actually convinced that they are helping to “save the world” by controlling the growth of the human population. In fact, many of them truly believe that they are engaged in a “life or death” struggle for the fate of the planet.
From the time of Charles Darwin all the way to today, we have been relentlessly warned about what would happen if something was not done to reduce population growth.
Of course, the dire consequences that we were warned about have never actually come to fruition.
But that hasn’t stopped the elite from continuing to issue even more warnings.
The following are 47 shocking population control quotes from the global elite that will make you want to lose your lunch…
As always, the globalists are wrong. They want eath to be their playground and to get rid of others (Margaret Sanger is the mother of abortion and eugenics against blacks)
The Diversity Hoax was exposed as far back as 1999, but it’s a monster that grows exponentially in America’s institutions.
Sciences
Professor Efimov, a prominent biomedical engineer at Northwestern University, grew up “in a small Siberian town built by GULAG prisoners to produce military grade plutonium and space satellites.” He asserts that “campaigns within the American higher education system to push diversity, equity and inclusion philosophies and policies in STEM are frighteningly similar to ones he once worked under in the communist country.”
As Thomas Sowell pointed out in 2001, “Sometimes it seems as if ‘diversity’ is going to replace ‘the’ as the most often used word in the English language. Yet the place where this word has become a holy grail—academia—shows less tolerance for genuine diversity of viewpoints than any other American institution.”
Diversity in academia is so overwhelming the conservatives have developed a scorecard to assist “students, taxpayers and legislators to determine how embedded diversity, equity and inclusion principles and practices are at a given institution.”
Image by Andrea Widburg using Grok AI.
Military
Michael R. Shevock gives an overview of the Coast Guard Academy’s (CGA) DEI initiatives. Shevock asserts that “Stalin and Mao would laughingly recognize this demand for intellectual conformity, and it is evil.” In fact, “[m]andating that faculty candidates provide in advance a declaration of mental obedience absolutely guarantees we’ll be hiring liars.” Ultimately, “…the worst thing about the Coast Guard’s position on DEI is how it does not allow for discussion or examination.”
It is now coming out into the popular realm that the historicity of Mohammed may be a total fabrication. Not merely a distortion, but a total fabrication. Robert Spencer has written a polemic questioning the whole historicity of Islam’s founder. And not just Robert Spencer, but Dr. Jay Smith.
As Dr. Jay Smith points out, in the 19th and 20th centuries, Christianity was subjected to higher criticism, in which much of its basic history was questioned. Though the academic assaults were brutal, in the end, Christianity held up, as one by one, its critics were shown wrong. For ex: The historicity of Pontius Pilate was doubted until 1961, when the Pilate Stone was discovered in Caesarea, Israel.
Not so with Islam.
When Western academics finally started applying higher criticism to Islam, unlike Christianity, Islam quickly folded like a deck of cheap cards. The Muslims cannot handle this.
The late Dr. Patricia Crone established the impossibility of Mecca being the ancient major city that Islam says it was.
Modern Mecca is completely missing from all maps, inscriptions, trade notes, graffiti, official documents and church records for the period up to the middle of the 8th Century… — Did Mecca Exist At The Time Of Muhammad?
And not just Dr. Crone, but Dan Gibson has discovered the same problem.
The Quran does not even mention Mecca, but rather uses the term Bekkah.
Early mosques pointed to Petra — a city hundreds of miles north — not to Mecca.
The Quran describes Mecca with olive trees, which cannot grow in Mecca, but can grow in Petra.
This is not a minor issue. No one doubts that Jerusalem existed during the times of the prophets and Jesus. If Mecca did not exist as a city in the 7th century, the whole story of Islam collapses.
The original record of Mohammed was MHMD (ancient Arabic left out the vowels). This could mean “anointed one;” and as Dr. Smith points out, would be a title, not a name, and could actually be a reference to Jesus, not Mohammed.
[T]he Abbasids, who came to power in 749 AD pretty much destroyed all the records of the “hated” Umayyads, and with it any references to an evolving prophet named Muhammad. What we can say is that the Muhammad we know today is not the MHMD of the 7th century Jesus Christ, nor the MHMD of History, nor the Muhammad of the Umayyads, but was a creation of the Abbasids, post 750 AD. It was that Muhammad whom they then placed in a city called Mecca, who they say received a book called the Qur’an, and who then became the model and paradigm for every Muslim everywhere and for every place and time. – MHMD [09] Muhammad was JESUS’ TITLE, then the Abbasids made him a PROPHET? (In the video description.
It turns out that originally the Arabs may have been following a dissident form of Christianity (Nestorianism).
A war among different Arab rulers led to the Abbasid dynasty taking over, which then erased Jesus altogether from the records and replaced him with a Mohammed created out of whole cloth. But on inspection, that whole story falls apart.
Even the Kaaba (the cube) seems to have been moved from Petra to Mecca. The Muslim practice of walking around the Kaaba seems to have been copied from the story of the Jews circling the city of Jericho. In fact, Islam is a plagiarized copy of Judaism and Christianity, not merely in text, but in practice. And a poor copy at that.
Our academics were quick to jump on the anti-Christian bandwagon when higher criticism was first applied. They were not so quick to admit their mistakes when evidence surfaced that Christianity held up. However, academia is quite silent as the enormous body of evidence is piling up against Islam. And this evidence is of a qualitative character worse.
The Bible was initially criticized for lack of evidence. Only slowly did the evidence for the Bible come in. Islam, however, fails — not due to lack of evidence — but due to contradicting evidence.
For ex: How could Mohammed have visited Al Aqsa mosque in his lifetime, when there were no mosques in Jerusalem during his lifetime? Jesus visited the temple in the Bible, but no one doubts the temple existed during Jesus’ lifetime. How could the Quran mention olives trees when they don’t grow in Mecca?
Ancient geography, ancient grammar, ancient languages, and the archaeological records destroy Islam.
Our major institutions know this, and quietly keep silent. Why?
Because of fear.
Patricia Crone was threatened. She had to move to America. Because so many of our universities take money from Arab plutocracies, they are loathe to make an issue of this. In other words, academia is bought off. Even the BBC had to pull its documentary criticizing Islam’s origin story off the air — after Muslims complained. One has to find it on the internet, now.
The story of Mohammed, if he even existed at all, is an Arabic version of King Arthur, greatly removed from whatever actually happened.
Was there a real King Arthur? Possibly, but not the medieval knight of legend, but rather a sixth-century Scottish tribal chief who died in battle. A failure. Was there a Mohammed? Likely not, not unless some otherwise forgotten cult leader was merged into Abbasid fabrications, but further removed from truth than King Arthur is.
At the start, I said that Hollywood was a major enabling contributor to historical fiction. It appears now that academia is as well.
Several of America’s biggest brands backpedaled on their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies and programs in 2024 amid intense public scrutiny and fierce consumer backlash.
The Biden-Harris administration has led a massive push for increased DEI initiatives in the government, including President Joe Biden signing an executive order in June 2021 that established “a government-wide initiative to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” in the federal workforce. Some major companies have begun scaling back on DEI practices this year amid growing backlash, including Walmart, Boeing, Lowe’s and Ford Motors.
“American corporations realized that DEI was a loser for them in terms of doing business,” Mike Gonzalez, the Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “American people began to register their disapproval with DEI and began to see through it pretty much after 2020.”
Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, began scaling back on some of its DEI-related policies in November, including announcing it would not renew a five-year commitment for a racial equity center and would withdraw from the Human Rights Campaign’s equality index measuring workplace “inclusion.” The retailer will also stop using the terms “LatinX” and “DEI” in official communications, according to The Independent.
Walmart is not the only company that has recently rolled back its DEI policies — In August, major home improvement chain Lowe’s decided to dial back on some of its DEI initiatives. Robby Starbuck, a conservative activist who has been a vocal critic of various companies’ DEI practices, said in a post on X that he had messaged Lowe’s executives ahead of the company’s decision to roll back some of the DEI policies, saying that he had planned to “expose their woke policies.” (RELATED: Costco Embraces DEI As Other Companies Move In Opposite Direction)
Ford Motors announced in August it would scale back its diversity policies, including vowing to stop participating in “external culture surveys.” Automakers such as Ford have faced challenges in the electric vehicle (EV) market amid lackluster consumer demand. Ford reported a $1.3 billion loss on its EV line in the first quarter. The automaker announced in August that it was canceling plans to build a three-row electric SUV and also pushed back its plans to release an electric pickup truck model until 2027.
story
DEI ruins everything it touches except the wallets of the bureaucrats who administer it. Get woke, go broke, every damn time
But 2025 will not be an easy year for dissenters and critics of the government, as this is increasingly being criminalized in Germany thanks to recently passed laws and acts that aim to suppress free speech.
The former head Germany’s Constitution Protection Authority (Bundesverfassungsschutz), Thomas Haldenwang (CDU Party), suggested last February when presenting measures to fight right-wing extremism, that human thoughts and speech patterns need to be under surveillance and become the business of the government: “It’s also about shifting verbal and mental boundaries. We have to be careful that thought and language patterns don’t become embedded in our language.”
In a nutshell, the German government aims to regulate human thoughts.
Here’s the key line: Hanson went on to say that Democrats define masculine men as those who “cede authority” to women, before ripping into both Emhoff and Walz’s problematic pasts. “So if you want to impregnate your nanny and arrange for her to have a child and then buy her a house and then cover it up for years, that’s what a sensitive man does. Or if you want to lie about your military record serially, that’s OK too because you’re a sensitive male. So one of the elements of sensitive masculinity is that while you may sin and those are traits of the toxic masculinity and you’re trying to overcome them,”
Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Victor Davis Hanson on his podcast Thursday broke down what he said was Democrats’ “idea” of how “real masculine men” are expected to behave, and that includes what he said was their destruction of traditional masculinity.
Prior to President-elect Donald Trump’s victory in November, The New York Times released an article profiling the faces of Democrats’ “new masculinity.” The first was Doug Emhoff , who is husband to Vice President Kamala Harris. The second was Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who, last year, was Harris’ running mate.
On “The Victor Davis Hanson Show,” the senior fellow discussed how Democrats have rejected “traditional key men,” saying Emhoff and Walz have become key role models for women on the left.
“As I understand the subtext is on the left, that they are rejecting traditional key man masculinity on the right. So they don’t like the Dana White, the Joe Rogan, the Mixed Martial Arts, all of that group,” Hanson said. “But apparently they have an idea of a more sensitive, caring masculinity that when you look at these real men, they look endomorphic. Endomorphic is not a slur, Jack. It just means a body type where they’re invertebrate.”
“My point is Emhoff and Waltz, then they must have pushed these buttons, and I guess the buttons are partly they are helpers to powerful women like Kamala Harris or his, remember Waltz’s wife, kind of nutty? I think they took her off the trail,” Hanson said. “She’d get out and scream and yell. You got the impression that his leftward tilt, he ran as a congressional person, as a rural Clinton Democrat. And then he, this spouse kind of pushed him.”
In September, Emhoff sat down with former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki for an interview, where she was seen asking the second gentleman about reshaping the “perception of masculinity.” Emhoff told the MSNBC host that he had always aimed to “do the right thing” and “support women” when asked about his role in the cultural movement.
Hanson went on to say that Democrats define masculine men as those who “cede authority” to women, before ripping into both Emhoff and Walz’s problematic pasts.
“I guess one of the subtext is that real masculine men cede authority or decision making to the female spouses because they’re confident in their masculinity, and they don’t have to have props like guns and cars. That’s part of it. The other thing must be that you have to, real masculine men are entitled to certain sins because they’re not in your face,” Hanson said.
“So if you want to impregnate your nanny and arrange for her to have a child and then buy her a house and then cover it up for years, that’s what a sensitive man does. Or if you want to lie about your military record serially, that’s OK too because you’re a sensitive male. So one of the elements of sensitive masculinity is that while you may sin and those are traits of the toxic masculinity and you’re trying to overcome them,” Hanson added. “I guess what I’m saying is that they don’t sin.”
During their time on the campaign trail, both Emhoff and Walz came under fire over allegations involving their pasts.
Be a man. Even liberal women like masculine men, regardless of what is said. They broke for Trump as Walz and the rest of the dems were a bunch of pussies.
More than 769 athletes have collapsed on the field during a game from March 2021 to March 2022.
The shocking statistic was revealed by One America News Network (OAN), which also found the average age of the athletes who suffered cardiac arrest is just 23 years old.
An updated report by Good Sciencing, a team of investigators, news editors, journalists and “truth seekers,” has detailed 890 cardiac arrests and other serious issues among athletes, including 579 deaths, following COVID-19 shots.
With cases like these becoming impossible to ignore, even a mainstream media sports channel in Australia speculated that the health issues could be linked to COVID-19 shots, and one of the hosts acknowledged that multiple players have suffered from heart issues and Bell’s palsy following COVID-19 booster shots.
More than 769 athletes have collapsed on the field during a game from March 2021 to March 2022. The shocking statistic was revealed by One America News Network (OAN), which also found the average age of the athletes who suffered cardiac arrest is just 23 years old.
The unprecedented surge in cardiac arrest and other heart issues among elite athletes coincides with the rollout of COVID-19 jabs.
The Miami Open made headlines in early April after 15 players — all of whom had reportedly received COVID-19 injections — dropped out.
Among them were favorites Paula Badosa and Jannik Sinner. Badosa left the court in tears after becoming unwell, and Sinner’s opponent said he saw him “bend over” on the court, noting “it was very strange.”
I’m getting sick and F*****g tired of bashing men. It’s a cheap shot by the liberals, feminists, SJW, and pussies who don’t get their way or can’t do something that men can do. Tearing someone down to build yourself up is a crap way to make yourself feel better. It has not made the world any better either, stop it, now.
We need more masculinity. We’d have better kids, a better economy, less woke crap, and a better selection for the ladies to choose from. The world needs strong men who do the right thing and make the world better.
I have a dumbass cousin who got butt hurt that Trump said some stuff about girls when he was younger. I’ve got news for you, girls let rich and powerful men get away with more than they do with beta men or guys without money. It’s called hypergamy. Stop being a dumbass and realize that girls control most of what guys get in a civilized situation. She supported Biden who destroyed the country and a lot of the world.
The popular mandate of President-elect Donald Trump is an affirmation of traditional masculinity.
The war on men, orchestrated by the extreme left, has suffered a serious setback with his election. Mr. Trump was told that he’d have to soften his message to appeal to women voters. He didn’t, and it doesn’t seem to have hurt him.
This year, Mr. Trump carried a majority of White women, as Republican presidential candidates have since 2004. Overall, Vice President Kamala Harris did worse among women than President Biden in 2020 or Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The image that symbolized Mr. Trump’s spirit came after he was wounded at the rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, when he got to his feet, pumped his fist and shouted, “Fight! Fight!” If it had been Ms. Harris, she would have fainted, and, when revived, returned to the lectern to blather about “What can be, unburned by what has been.”
Democrats tried to counter Mr. Trump’s charisma with a new model of masculinity: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who put tampon dispensers in the boys’ rooms of schools, and second gentleman Doug Emhoff, who put his career on hold to dutifully campaign for his wife.
Given a choice between Ms. Harris (who could barely articulate a coherent thought) and the Marxist Mr. Magoo on the one hand and Mr. Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance, a Marine Corps veteran, on the other, men went for the Republican ticket by a landslide. Men have taken a beating at the hands of feminists and “woke” culture for too long.
In “Why Can’t We Hate Men?” – a 2018 opinion piece in The New York Times – Suzanna Danuta Walters, director of the Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, declared that the essence of masculinity is sexual violence and economic exploitation.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who calls himself a feminist, says American voters had two opportunities to elect a woman president and failed both times, as if gender were the only issue in the 2016 and 2024 elections.
Such attitudes aren’t confined to the directors of women’s studies programs and socialist politicians desperate to retain power.
A study on changing attitudes toward men found that in 1970, 65% believed “men are basically kind and considerate,” compared with 44% in 2005. “Men’s egos require that they put women down” was a sentiment shared by 58% of respondents in 2005, next to 41% in 1970.
These toxic stereotypes have been cultivated by the media, academia and Hollywood – to the detriment of both sexes.
Who needs men? Among others, children do.
Fatherless families are responsible for 90% of homeless and runaway children, 85% of institutionalized youth, 71% of high school dropouts and most minors who suffer from drug or alcohol addiction.
Where are the role models for the 43% of boys who are raised by single mothers? Boys need men to instill masculine virtues.
Women need them, too. The traditional role of men as protectors of women and children isn’t outmoded, just neglected.
When men do man up, society tries to crush them.
When Daniel Penny saved passengers on a subway car from a deranged homeless man who had a long history of violence (including punching an old woman in the face), the state of New York charged the Marine veteran with criminally negligent homicide. A jury of five men and seven women acquitted him.
Unfortunately, there was no Daniel Penny on a New York subway car on Dec. 22, when a sleeping woman was burned to death. An illegal immigrant from Guatemala has been charged with first-degree murder and arson in that attack.
Women and children pay the price for the absence of male providers and protectors in the home and on the streets. The rise of crime, especially crimes targeting women, parallels the decline of masculinity. In 1993, women were 41% of violent-crime victims. Today, they’re 48%.
That’s why the election of Donald Trump is as important to the culture as it is for the economy. Men take responsibility, whether it’s by fighting crime, guarding our borders or meeting foreign threats.
Strong men are confident enough not to be intimidated by competent women. Witness Mr. Trump’s nominations of Pam Bondi for attorney general and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem for secretary of homeland security.
For the past four years, we’ve been misled by an increasingly feeble old man who hid in the White House or on the beach in Delaware. On Jan. 20, there will be a man of the house again.
How stupid was 2024? Let’s start with the art world, which over the centuries has given humanity so many beautiful, timeless masterpieces. This year, the biggest story involving art, by far, was that a cryptocurrency businessman paid $6.2 million at a Sotheby’s auction for . . . A banana. Which he ate. ”It’s much better than other bananas,” he told the press. And that was not the stupidest thing that happened in 2024. It might not even crack the top ten. Because this was also a year when: —The Olympics awarded medals for breakdancing. —Fully grown adults got into fights in Target stores over Stanley brand drinking cups, which are part of the national obsession with hydration that causes many Americans to carry large-capacity beverage containers at all times, as if they’re setting off on a trek across the Sahara instead of going to Trader Joe’s. —Despite multiple instances of property damage, injury and even death, expectant couples continued to insist on revealing the genders of their unborn children by blowing things up, instead of simply telling people. —The number of people who identify as “influencers” continued to grow exponentially, which means that unless we find a cure, within ten years everybody on the planet will be trying to make a living by influencing everybody else. —Hundreds of millions of Americans set all their clocks ahead in March, then set them all back in November, without having the faintest idea why. (Granted, Americans do this every year; we’re just pointing out that it’s stupid.) But what made 2024 truly special, in terms of sustained idiocy, was that it was an election year. This meant that day after day, month after month, the average American voter was subjected to a relentless gushing spew of campaign messaging created by political professionals who—no matter what side they’re on—all share one unshakeable core belief, which is that the average American voter has the intellectual capacity of a potted fern. It was a brutal, depressing slog, and it felt as though it would never end. In fact it may still be going on in California, a state that apparently tabulates its ballots on a defective Etch-a-Sketch. For most of us, though, the elections, and this insane year, are finally over. But before we move on to whatever (God help us) lies ahead, let’s ingest our anti-nausea medication and take one last cringing look back at the events of 2024, starting with… JANUARY …when the nation finds itself trapped in a 1970s slasher movie, the kind in which some teenagers — played by the major political parties—are in a creepy house, being pursued by a terrifying entity, played by a rerun of the 2020 presidential election. The only sane thing for the teenagers to do is get the hell out of there, but instead they pause by the dark, scary-looking doorway leading down to the basement, and despite the fact that the theater audience—played by the American public—is shouting “DON’T GO DOWN THERE! JUST LEAVE THE HOUSE YOU IDIOTS!”, the teenagers decide to go down into the basement, only to find “OH GOD NOOOOOO…” And so, thanks to our political system—under which the nominees for the most powerful office in the world are chosen by approximately 73 people in approximately four rural states while the vast majority of Americans are still taking down their Christmas decorations—we once again find ourselves facing a choice between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Both candidates carry baggage. Trump is wanted on criminal charges in something like 23 states and, if elected, could become the first president to govern from a secret hideout. His speeches are sounding increasingly unhinged, which is no small feat since he did not sound particularly hinged in the first place. For his part, President Biden keeps saying words that do not appear in any known human language and gives the impression that any day now he’s going to shuffle into a state dinner wearing only a bathrobe. But not necessarily his bathrobe. In other words, we have one candidate who lost the last election but claims he won it, and another candidate who won the last election but might not remember what year that was. America, the choice is yours!
Meanwhile the nation is facing a number of serious problems. Foremost among them is the situation on the border with Mexico, which at one time was a legally separate nation from the United States but is now basically functioning as a vestibule. This has resulted in a tense confrontation between the federal government and Texas, which is alarming because, in the words of one military analyst, “Texas has way more guns.” In government news, the Pentagon is harshly criticized for taking more than three days to notify the White House that Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III had been hospitalized. This prompts the administration to check up on the rest of the cabinet, only to discover that at least four other secretaries are missing, and the Secretary of Commerce apparently died three years ago. Abroad, fighting continues to rage in both Ukraine and Gaza, although these conflicts are no longer getting a ton of attention in the U.S. media because of all the news being generated by Taylor Swift. In a troubling aviation incident, an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 flying at 16,000 feet suddenly develops a refrigerator-sized hole in the fuselage when an improperly attached panel blows off, terrifying passengers who have reason to wonder whether the airline crew, instead of making a big deal about the position of everybody’s tray table, should maybe be checking to see if the plane has been correctly bolted together. As a safety precaution, the Federal Aviation Administration grounds all Max 9s and advises passengers on other Boeing aircraft to “avoid sitting near windows.” For its part, Boeing states that “at least the plane didn’t lose a really important part, like one of the whaddycallits, wings.” Here’s a rare shot of a Boeing 737 in flight with all the parts still attached. Here’s a rare shot of a Boeing 737 in flight with all the parts still attached. Jeremy Dwyer-Lindgren/Special to USA TODAY Speaking of big corporations making questionable products, in…
Nothing New Under The Sun: Leftist ideologues learn from communist theory and practice and constantly adapt various failed concepts to present reality, in order to achieve their radical goals of dismantling Western tradition.
Communist countries had special educational accommodations for those they considered “underprivileged,” based on class and ideological fealty. These accommodations included the so-called “workers’ faculty,” where “proletarian” students received accelerated college degrees while meeting much lower standards than the general population. Intelligent and talented children from families that suffered persecution by the regime were frequently denied college admission.
Furthermore, universities offered sizable acceptance quotas for the offspring of the so-called “active fighters against fascism and capitalism,” a/k/a communist nomenklatura, whose admission took precedence over that of regular students. The preferential quota students were secretly dubbed “paratroopers,” in reference to being “dropped” at universities from above, as though by parachutes, instead of passing the rigorous entrance examinations.
Needless to say, such practices engendered cynicism, hostility, and an exacerbated sense of unfairness. The government’s excuse, was, of course, correcting past “injustices” and providing opportunities for the “working class.” This was accomplished by creating new, much more severe forms of discrimination, exclusion, and injustice.
Leftist ideologues aspire to transform America into some feel-good socialist utopia, despite the horrendous track record of socialism. They learn from communist theory and practice and constantly adapt various failed concepts to present reality, in order to achieve their radical goals of dismantling Western tradition. They try to “divide and conquer” by producing ever-changing categories of social “victimhood.” The class quotas and discriminatory practices of communist universities were reimagined as DEI policies in the West.
Over the past 30 years, I have had the distinct pleasure and honor of teaching and supervising numerous brilliant students and interns, who happened to be of extremely diverse backgrounds. Invariably, the best predictor of their success was their work ethic, values, and character—not the ethnic or social category they belonged to.
In addition to the legal and moral problems presented by DEI discrimination, such policies take a grave psychological toll. Those who are labeled “DEI hires” often resent being treated as insufficiently capable. They wish to be judged based on individual merits, not on some unearned collective virtue. On the other hand, those excluded from the newly privileged “victim” groups, as designated by intersectionality ideologues, suffer the psychological damages of racial and social discrimination despite their hard work and skills.
Trying to enforce utopian perfection can only lead to misery and violence. Churchill aptly defined socialism as “the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,” whose “inherent virtue” was the “equal sharing of miseries.” As Alan Kors, a distinguished professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania remarked, “No cause, ever, in the history of all mankind, has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans than socialism with power.” And furthermore,
Socialism, wherever it actually had the means to plan a society, to pursue efficaciously its vision of the abolition of private property, economic inequality, and the allocation of capital and goods by free markets, culminated in the crushing of individual, economic, religious, associational, and political liberty…. We know that voluntary exchange among individuals held morally responsible under the rule of law creates both prosperity and an unparalleled diversity of human choices.
Human nature is flawed, and so are governments. Even the best societies in the history of mankind are not impervious to evil practices. Yet such systems strive to correct their errors, since they are based on universally humane values. Western democracies today have achieved remarkable success in providing abundant opportunities for upward mobility. The blueprint of the American founding does not need to be re-drawn—it simply needs to be observed. President Lincoln immortally described America as “the last best hope on Earth.” It is up to us to preserve it.The Communist Precursors of DEI
The Communist Precursors of DEINothing New Under The Sun: Leftist ideologues learn from communist theory and practice and constantly adapt various failed concepts to present reality, in order to achieve their radical goals of dismantling Western tradition.
Never in U.S. history has a president-elect been welcomed as the real president before his January 20 inauguration. And never has the incumbent president so willingly surrendered his last two months in office and all but abdicated—to the relief of his nation and the rest of the world.
One reason so many are welcoming Trump’s return is the universally desperate hope that his election spelled an end to a collective madness at home and its ripples abroad during the last four years. And why not?
Nations overseas had never quite witnessed anything like the lethal August 2021 American flight from Afghanistan. That utter humiliation and impotence of the U.S. military likely signaled to Russia there would be no consequences if it invaded Ukraine—and it did; to Iran that it could now unleash Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel—and it did; and to China that it could daily threaten Taiwan and send a spy balloon across the United States with impunity—and it did.
The result was the current global chaos perhaps not seen since the late 1930s when a confused United States was similarly a bystander to the rise of bellicose regimes and wars. The Biden administration shrugged that the Red Sea, the Black Sea, the South China Sea, the Straits of Hormuz, and the Eastern Mediterranean Sea all became dangerous to the U.S. Navy and unsafe to world shipping.
A disparate group of nuclear and near-nuclear powers—Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran—are either at war with Western allies or threatening war with them. Their confidence was predicated on the assumption that the U.S. after 2020 was engaged in a Maoist-like cultural revolution that warred on its own security, energy, military, universities, and social unity—and would continue with a second Biden term.
The Biden-era cultural revolution has done great damage to the United States. The U.S. border was systematically and deliberately destroyed to allow some 10-12 million illegal entrants to pour into the U.S. without legality or background checks. Never has an outgoing administration spitefully sold taxpayer-purchased border wall material for pennies on the dollar—rather than see it used for the purposes for which it was purchased.
Never had the U.S. experienced such an immigrant surge. And never had more than 50 million, and over 15 percent of the resident American population been foreign-born.
Why did Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas erase the border? What madness and hate drove them to dismantle federal immigration law? Was it sheer nihilism? Or a desperate but calculated effort to alter American demography for political purposes?
For four years, the public, elected officials, and pundits have all warned that Joe Biden was dangerously cognitively challenged and indeed completely unfit to fulfill the duties of the presidency.
A long-suffering nation winced as Biden slurred his words, spoke in unintelligible sound bites, stood frozen and mute, screamed at and libeled half the country, tripped, fell, wandered aimlessly, became bewildered, and more or less proved a global embarrassment. All knew Biden was not able to run the country; yet none knew exactly who was actually in charge of America in his stead. The Obamas? Leftists like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, the Squad, Jill Biden, and the Biden staff?
Our allies worried that the usually resilient American president was now all but demented. Our enemies enjoyed these leaderless years of opportunity. And the left serially misled the public that the decrepit Biden, whom they feared in private was senile, was “dynamic,” “energic,” and “fit as a fiddle.”
Never has a president so deserved to be removed by the 25th Amendment or through impeachment and conviction. And never has even his inner circle finally but silently agreed as they left office, the very enablers who had done their political best to mask his dementia for four long years.
Rarely have the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, the Department of Justice, and the Pentagon become weaponized and so flagrantly and with impunity broken the law, abandoned their mission statements, and served political agendas rather than the American people. Not since the J. Edgar Hoover era has the FBI hierarchy serially lied under oath, stonewalled Congress, forged a court affidavit, or partnered with the media to suppress the news. Has the FBI ever raided an ex-president’s home, spied on parents at school board meetings, monitored Catholics, or tried to terrify and harass pro-life activists?
Never has the justice system, from local to state to national jurisdictions, so systematically and coordinately, sought to bankrupt, render inert, and jail an ex-president and current presidential candidate.
Never has a presidential family so brazenly profited by selling its influence to foreign interests. Never has it used the powers of the FBI and DOJ to cover up its crimes and to ensure the family filial bagman would be for years exempted by the DOJ and later pardoned by the president himself, the father of the family miscreant and privy to the family syndicate’s illegal activities.
Seldom has a president and his administration sought to fuel a veritable cultural revolution to change the fabric of the nation by institutionalizing a third, transexual gender, violating civil rights law, and systematically admitting, hiring, and promoting Americans on the basis of their race and gender.
Never since the Civil War era had local and state insurrectionist governments established 600 nullification zones, in which they vowed to break federal law and consider it null and void within their jurisdictions. Never have rioters looted, burned, killed, assaulted, and occupied large swaths of cities for over 120 days, and largely with impunity.
Never had the U.S. Treasury borrowed so much money so quickly and owed $37 in national debt—and been so intent on borrowing continuously nearly $2 trillion a year in annual deficits.
Never has a political party sought to systematically violate long-standing traditions, customs, and often the law itself to destroy a political opponent: hiring a foreign national to spread smears among the media and bureaucracies, impeaching a president twice, trying an ex-president in the Senate, seeking to remove a presidential candidate from 16 state ballots, using five different judicial jurisdictions to try an ex-president, and serially so defaming a candidate and ex-president as a dictator, fascist, and Nazi to create a climate that encouraged two near-miss assassination attempts on him.
In sum, for the last four years, the world has watched aghast as the United States lost its collective mind and became a radical Jacobin revolutionary society.
So why is there not a sense of almost ecstatic relief, not just among conservatives but even among Democrats, that the years of darkness and madness are ending?
The global public believes that the United States will again become lawful, have a secure border, return as a beacon of free-market economics, protect its allies, deter its enemies, win over its neutrals, return to the rule of law, restore the professionalism and prestige of its government agencies, check predatory nations abroad with a new deterrent military, and prepare to lead the world in energy production, exploration of space, and scientific and technology development.
Summed up, the welcomed counterrevolution is one of restoration—to dream again that nothing is impossible, and the dreary age of stasis, envy, cynicism, and nihilism is ending, replaced again by a world without limits. No one knows quite what is ahead, but all know that it is at least better already than the current nightmare.
The season finale of Star Trek: Lower Decks delivered its series finale this week, and in doing so, addressed one of the most controversial issues in the Star Trek franchise. The issue in question revolves around Star Trek: Discovery, which has now been officially removed from the prime timeline canon, much to the relief of many fans, who are sick of wokeness in the storied franchise.
Discovery was infamous among Star Trek fandom for altering the appearance of Klingons and injecting identity politics into the universe.
Giant Freakin Robot reports that: “In the show’s finale, a group of Klingon ships encounters a phenomenon that transforms things into alternate-reality versions of themselves. When a Klingon ship hits one of those transformation rays, it transforms into a big, ugly Discovery-style Klingon ship. Then one of the crewmembers transforms into a Discovery-style Klingon.
“This couldn’t have happened if those weird Discovery Klingons had ever existed in the prime Star Trek timeline. It means that Discovery and its Klingons, just like the J.J. Abrams Star Trek movies, happened in an alternate universe. One that has nothing to do with the rest of Star Trek.”
Fans across the internet rejoiced at the revelation.
Fan site That Park Place put it thusly: “Star Trek: Discovery debuted with high expectations, but over its run, it faced significant backlash from segments of the fanbase. Criticisms ranged from drastic changes in the portrayal of iconic species, such as the Klingons, to deviations from established timelines and character arcs. The early seasons set the series in the past, but inconsistencies soon emerged, leading to widespread dissatisfaction,” explaining further, “There’s a rift surrounded by a Schrödinger possibility field that remaps matter into alternate-reality versions from the multiverse. This event transforms the main timeline Klingons into those seen in Discovery, clearly delineating between the two universes. Consequently, while Lower Decks remains canon and part of the prime timeline, Discovery is relegated to an alternate reality, mitigating its previous inconsistencies.”
A lot of people gave up on Star Trek when they went woke, kind of like Star Wars.
Let’s stay true to the original story and heroes. Cut the woke crap.
At least we don’t have to include any of the Discovery rubbish in future series if they can make one that is watchable. We’ll always have Captain Kirk, the Borg, the real Klingon’s and Romulans to watch if not.
I didn’t think they could get worse, yet here we are. They are Marxist indoctrination centers for kids that have stopped teaching them useful skills other than to be social justice warriors.
Our CriticalRace.org project doesn’t get as much coverage at this Legal Insurrection website as our Equal Protection Project (EqualProtect.org), but it’s been chugging away documenting the spread of CRT and its offshoots, like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, since February 2021. Over 150 media outlets have linked to and cited the CRT databases, and over 600,000 users have performed almost 8 million actions.
While others have moved on from CRT to other hot topics, we have continued to update and databases and research, firmly believing that just because the media spotlight has shifted, the importance of fighting the racialization of education remains critical.We also have moved into content creation and analyis using the databases as a source, including how the largest universities in states that have ordered the elimination of DEI have rebranded rather than eliminated the DEI agenda, and how DEI is active in the schools of the Southeast Conference. Expect more reports and analysis in 2025, plus a Parents Guide that is ready to be revealed soon.Our latest analytical report focuses on Poison Ivies: DEI and the Downfall of the Ivy League [full embed at bottom of post].
The Equal Protection Project, founded and led by Cornell professor William Jacobson, has released a deep-dive report on the prevalence of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) training at Ivy League universities.
In his comprehensive report, “Poison Ivies: DEI and the Downfall of the Ivy League,” Jacobson examines programs the eight Ivy League institutions use and require for students.
“The review of Ivy League practices by our CriticalRace.org project reflects substantial efforts by Ivy League schools to purport to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action, while maintaining work-arounds and DEI practices that continue the obsession with racial identities,” Jacobson told Fox News Digital.
In his report, Jacobson shows how Ivy League institutions are sidestepping the June 29, 2023, ruling by the Supreme Court that says race cannot be used in admission decision-making at universities.
“Ivy League universities pretend not to take race into consideration but then provide essay question opportunities for students to talk about their race,” he said.
“The Supreme Court affirmative action ruling took place in the context of university admissions, but it’s clear that the court’s opinion at its core was an Equal Protection Clause ruling that applies in other university contexts.”
In his report, Jacobson found that out of the eight Ivy League universities:
Four require DEI training in student orientation programs (Columbia, Harvard, Princeton and Yale).Six require faculty or staff DEI training in some capacity (Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Penn, Princeton and Yale).All eight have DEI offices at the institutional and/or department level.Five have a strategic plan devoted to DEI or anti-racism (Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth and Yale).All eight have DEI or CRT (critical race theory) topics in classes and curricula.All eight have bias reporting systems.
Jacobson said he found that while the universities “pretend” not to consider race, in practice, they often do….
“It’s hard to believe that in environments in which DEI is the dominant ideology, taking on a quasi-religious fervor, that race does not enter into admissions decisions in fact, even if there is window-dressing to provide possible legal cover.”
* * *
The Equal Protection Project focuses on challenging race-based discrimination. The organization has challenged over 100 scholarships and programs discriminating against White and Asian students at universities across the country.
“To fully achieve the nondiscrimination standards of the Supreme Court ruling, the race-obsessed cultures at the Ivy League schools need to change,” Jacobson said. “It will be a long process. The Supreme Court ruling was just the first step.”
If you’ve read this blog for a while, you know I disdain both reverse racism as well as the Marxist indoctrination at Universities. Here, you have both. As you read the list, you can see that it’s against things that make people better, smarter, wealthier, and don’t break the law. I think you can see the pattern here.
Racism is the intentional mistreatment of someone on the basis of their race – at least in the normal world. But in academia, racism is anything producing disparities, according to Professor Ibram Kendi.
What follows is a long list of people, places, actions, and other things declared racist this year by higher ed, though a few came from K-12. If something needs “anti-racist” action or “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” it follows it must be racist, or else it would not need correction.
Academic disciplines: Chemistry Classics Evolutionary biology Engineering Immunology Math STEM in general Twenty different departments at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Actions: Accusing a black student of plagiarism Banning DEI Being Asian but romantically interested in white people Course evaluations Criticizing a black female reporter Criticizing plagiarism Marriage/being married Mentioning a black female congresswoman has fake eyelashes Murder Not pronouncing Kamala Harris’ name right Not voting for Kamala Harris Opioid crisis Opposing DEI Opposing oil and gas restrictions to fight climate change Pollution Questioning Kamala Harris’ racial identity Romance “Traditional grading” Voter registration Voting for Trump White people running in shorts White people rapping
Beliefs: Being pro-life/pointing out high abortion rates for black women Christianity Colorblindness Nostalgia
Career fields: Counseling Ecological farming Education Dentistry Disaster response Geology Law enforcement Medicine Ocean sciences Nursing Surgical oncology
Entertainment/culture: Dolly Parton’s free book program Dressing as a Native American at a Kansas City Chiefs game Liking Taylor Swift Michaelangelo’s “Creation of Adam” Paintings of British countryside Porcelain Telling a Japanese professor about a good sushi restaurant
Food: Fried chicken Milk
People: Ben Shapiro Conservatives Donald Trump Duke University sports fans Nikki Haley Rapper Tom MacDonald Vivek Ramaswamy White people
Places: Coeur D’Alene, Idaho Columbia University Greenhouses Israel Lake Merritt, California parking lot Northern Idaho Pennsylvania public universities Sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms Swimming pools Thousands of streets that use allegedly offensive terms University of Michigan
It happens every year around December, a predictable flurry of pseudo-psychology articles from low-IQ progressives expounding on the negatives of Christmas. On top of that, there’s been a pipeline of anti-Christmas films coming out of Hollywood the past decade, including some real woke bombs depicting Santa as a corporatist, a racist and a woman hater.
It’s been going on so long that in the early 2000s conservatives dubbed the annual practice the “War on Christmas”. However, at that time people on the political right assumed the vitriol was aimed at Christianity in general. What many didn’t realize is that the hatred wasn’t only about religious differences.
Around 70% of atheists identify as Democrats according to surveys, with 15% identifying as Republican and another 15% having no party affiliation. It makes sense that the majority of Christmas critics are on the political left and that their distaste of the holiday season is driven by their anti-Christian views.
After all, the political left is so obsessed with destroying Christianity that they continue to repeat the false narrative that Christmas is a “pagan holiday” and that all the traditions are stolen and repurposed. This claim is debunked every year and yet every year they keep trying to bring it back.
The pagan celebration of “Yule” often associated with Christmas by ignorant academics has always been a completely separate tradition with separate practices. As Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe, pagan groups would meld elements of their previous traditions with newly introduced Christian holidays. Every serious study of Yule admits the distinct separation between the pagan celebration and Christmas.
The Christmas tree is also a purely Christian idea, based on the stories surrounding Saint Boniface. Boniface sought to convert the pagan tribes of Germany in 725 AD and chopped down what was known as “Odin’s Sacred Oak”, a tree used by the pagans as a site for human sacrifice. A small fir tree grew in its place and was dubbed the “Tree of Christ”.
By extension Santa Claus is often wrongly associated with pagan characters; he is in fact based on the very real Saint Nicholas, a monk who traveled the known world around 280 AD, giving away his wealth and helping children in need. His good deeds became legendary and by the Renaissance he was the most popular saint in Europe. His feast day was celebrated on the day of his death (December 6th), and it was common practice to buy large gifts or get married around this time every year.
The name “Santa Claus” comes from the Dutch, who first brought the celebration of Nicholas over to the American colonies in the 1700s. They called him “Sinter Klaas”, short for Saint Nicholas. And, if you look at some of the very old fresco paintings of Saint Nicholas you’ll find he looks rather similar to the modern day folk character version of Santa Claus.
When the claims of pagan co-option failed to yield any results, leftists turned to more woke methods to undermine the Christmas holiday. Going beyond religion, progressives have even sought to take down Santa Claus.
You would think a guy that goes around giving away his wealth and helping the poor would immediately appeal to socialist leftists who claim to be the guardians of the underclass, but that’s not really the case. They say the biggest problem is that Santa is “white” and that he represents the western world’s habit of making white people the “default”. I would argue that this is a smokescreen for other problems the leftists don’t want to fully admit to, but let’s start with race…
Black Santa Claus
The leftist trend in recent years has been to hijack Santa Claus and make him non-white (as they have tried to do with almost every other icon of the west). They pushed hard to make “Black Santa” a thing over the past few years and it’s not working out for them.
This is not to say that black people can’t dress up as Santa Claus; they can do as they please. However, the idea of taking a centuries old western figure based on a real person and then co-opting their image and pretending like this doesn’t matter – Isn’t this the evil practice of cultural appropriation that leftists accuse white people of doing all the time?
Let’s be clear, the default of western culture IS white. White people created it and built it and so most of our celebrated figures are going to be white people also. Leftists are never going to successfully sell Black Santa as a cultural norm, just as it would be impossible to steal African folk heroes and turn them white.
Santa Takes Credit Away From Parents?
Another common argument I hear against the idea of Santa Claus is that parents are pressured to purchase gifts for their children on Christmas while telling them that those toys are coming from a fantasy figure (and a white fantasy figure, too! Oh, the horror!). Progressives want their children to give THEM credit for the money spend on gifts, not a magical white guy in a red suit.
Not surprisingly, these people have missed the point of gift giving on Christmas, though it is funny to see leftists essentially arguing in favor of meritocracy and individual recognition.
I see the idea of Santa Claus as very useful, not only as a way to bring a little wonder into the tradition for children, but also as a way to keep adult egos in check. Giving Santa credit for a gift is a valuable exercise in humility that every parent needs. The gift should not be about you, it’s about the happiness that the gift inspires.
Gift giving is not a trade for adoration, but that’s exactly how narcissists see it. And since the political left is absolutely infected with narcissism these days it’s not surprising that they hate Santa Claus for taking attention away from them at Christmastime.
Santa Has A Naughty List, But What If You’re A Moral Relativist?
Keep in mind that a lot of progressive academics that write criticisms of the holidays don’t have any kids. They are childless cat ladies and beta males with no experience in creating and caring for a family. Their opinions are worthless when it comes to child rearing (and most other things). That said, this doesn’t seem to stop them from giving advice on the trappings of teaching kids the value of morality and the consequences of their actions.
It might be a fading tradition but for the longest time parents have told children to be on their best behavior around Christmas because if they don’t they could end up on Santa’s naughty list and get coal in their stockings. Leftists argue that this punishment and rewards system should not be a part of Christmas.
Firstly, people without kids don’t understand that when the youngsters are on a school break for two weeks straight and everyone is stuck together in close quarters in a house in winter there is a need sometimes for extra policing. You use whatever tools are at your disposal because reasoning with children only works half the time. Their brains aren’t fully formed yet (like woke activists), and they tend to act out wildly based on impulse and emotion.
I really don’t think that lefties are particularly upset by the idea of Santa having a naughty list (I’ve never met a well adjusted parent that went beyond the threat and didn’t have presents for their sons and daughters on Christmas). I think they are upset by the idea of moral compass and discipline. They seem to think that children simply raise themselves and that the parents never need to do anything to mold them into proper adults.
This is exactly why our society is in a death spiral today; because progressives have convinced so many parents to stop parenting.
Santa (Like Christ) Represents Individual And Voluntary Charity
Leftists are socialists (or communists) – It’s the foundation of almost all their beliefs, and the root of socialism is the sacrifice of the individual for the sake of the collective. Meaning, the government in the name of the majority must intervene in the affairs of individuals in order to force them to serve the interests of the group.
In other words, leftists believe that the environment determines everything and people will not do good for society unless they are extorted into it by the system. In a way they fulfill their own prophecy by making it almost impossible through the legal environment to do good for others unless you have permission from the authorities.
Over the years I have noticed that one highly destructive side effect of socialism is the exponential decline in personal charity. If the government handles everything, why should the average person take action to help others? Why even care? And if you do still care, it doesn’t matter because the system will punish you for acting on your own accord.
There’s a reason why socialist and communist regimes are mostly atheist and seek to eliminate Christianity through history; the government must become god and they can’t allow any alternatives to exist. When you see progressive governments ban private charity activities or prosecute people who go out on their own to help the homeless, you might be confused and wonder what the motivation could possibly be?
It makes perfect sense when you realize that leftists see voluntary charity as competition with their own god (government). In the past they have even tried to misrepresent Jesus as an early socialist figure, when in fact Jesus promoted individual acts of compassion, not deferring to a government authority.
The underlying impetus for socialism is forced wealth redistribution, but in a world of voluntary charity there is no need for governments to control wealth or property. That is to say, socialists exploit the existence of poverty as an excuse to take control of all personal wealth (and thus control the population). They can’t do that when Christianity, Christmas and symbols like Santa Claus show people there’s a better way.It happens every year around December, a predictable flurry of pseudo-psychology articles from low-IQ progressives expounding on the negatives of Christmas. On top of that, there’s been a pipeline of anti-Christmas films coming out of Hollywood the past decade, including some real woke bombs depicting Santa as a corporatist, a racist and a woman hater.
It’s been going on so long that in the early 2000s conservatives dubbed the annual practice the “War on Christmas”. However, at that time people on the political right assumed the vitriol was aimed at Christianity in general. What many didn’t realize is that the hatred wasn’t only about religious differences.
Around 70% of atheists identify as Democrats according to surveys, with 15% identifying as Republican and another 15% having no party affiliation. It makes sense that the majority of Christmas critics are on the political left and that their distaste of the holiday season is driven by their anti-Christian views.
After all, the political left is so obsessed with destroying Christianity that they continue to repeat the false narrative that Christmas is a “pagan holiday” and that all the traditions are stolen and repurposed. This claim is debunked every year and yet every year they keep trying to bring it back.
The pagan celebration of “Yule” often associated with Christmas by ignorant academics has always been a completely separate tradition with separate practices. As Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe, pagan groups would meld elements of their previous traditions with newly introduced Christian holidays. Every serious study of Yule admits the distinct separation between the pagan celebration and Christmas.
The Christmas tree is also a purely Christian idea, based on the stories surrounding Saint Boniface. Boniface sought to convert the pagan tribes of Germany in 725 AD and chopped down what was known as “Odin’s Sacred Oak”, a tree used by the pagans as a site for human sacrifice. A small fir tree grew in its place and was dubbed the “Tree of Christ”.
By extension Santa Claus is often wrongly associated with pagan characters; he is in fact based on the very real Saint Nicholas, a monk who traveled the known world around 280 AD, giving away his wealth and helping children in need. His good deeds became legendary and by the Renaissance he was the most popular saint in Europe. His feast day was celebrated on the day of his death (December 6th), and it was common practice to buy large gifts or get married around this time every year.
The name “Santa Claus” comes from the Dutch, who first brought the celebration of Nicholas over to the American colonies in the 1700s. They called him “Sinter Klaas”, short for Saint Nicholas. And, if you look at some of the very old fresco paintings of Saint Nicholas you’ll find he looks rather similar to the modern day folk character version of Santa Claus.
When the claims of pagan co-option failed to yield any results, leftists turned to more woke methods to undermine the Christmas holiday. Going beyond religion, progressives have even sought to take down Santa Claus.
You would think a guy that goes around giving away his wealth and helping the poor would immediately appeal to socialist leftists who claim to be the guardians of the underclass, but that’s not really the case. They say the biggest problem is that Santa is “white” and that he represents the western world’s habit of making white people the “default”. I would argue that this is a smokescreen for other problems the leftists don’t want to fully admit to, but let’s start with race…
Black Santa Claus
The leftist trend in recent years has been to hijack Santa Claus and make him non-white (as they have tried to do with almost every other icon of the west). They pushed hard to make “Black Santa” a thing over the past few years and it’s not working out for them.
This is not to say that black people can’t dress up as Santa Claus; they can do as they please. However, the idea of taking a centuries old western figure based on a real person and then co-opting their image and pretending like this doesn’t matter – Isn’t this the evil practice of cultural appropriation that leftists accuse white people of doing all the time?
Let’s be clear, the default of western culture IS white. White people created it and built it and so most of our celebrated figures are going to be white people also. Leftists are never going to successfully sell Black Santa as a cultural norm, just as it would be impossible to steal African folk heroes and turn them white.
Santa Takes Credit Away From Parents?
Another common argument I hear against the idea of Santa Claus is that parents are pressured to purchase gifts for their children on Christmas while telling them that those toys are coming from a fantasy figure (and a white fantasy figure, too! Oh, the horror!). Progressives want their children to give THEM credit for the money spend on gifts, not a magical white guy in a red suit.
Not surprisingly, these people have missed the point of gift giving on Christmas, though it is funny to see leftists essentially arguing in favor of meritocracy and individual recognition.
I see the idea of Santa Claus as very useful, not only as a way to bring a little wonder into the tradition for children, but also as a way to keep adult egos in check. Giving Santa credit for a gift is a valuable exercise in humility that every parent needs. The gift should not be about you, it’s about the happiness that the gift inspires.
Gift giving is not a trade for adoration, but that’s exactly how narcissists see it. And since the political left is absolutely infected with narcissism these days it’s not surprising that they hate Santa Claus for taking attention away from them at Christmastime.
Santa Has A Naughty List, But What If You’re A Moral Relativist?
Keep in mind that a lot of progressive academics that write criticisms of the holidays don’t have any kids. They are childless cat ladies and beta males with no experience in creating and caring for a family. Their opinions are worthless when it comes to child rearing (and most other things). That said, this doesn’t seem to stop them from giving advice on the trappings of teaching kids the value of morality and the consequences of their actions.
It might be a fading tradition but for the longest time parents have told children to be on their best behavior around Christmas because if they don’t they could end up on Santa’s naughty list and get coal in their stockings. Leftists argue that this punishment and rewards system should not be a part of Christmas.
Firstly, people without kids don’t understand that when the youngsters are on a school break for two weeks straight and everyone is stuck together in close quarters in a house in winter there is a need sometimes for extra policing. You use whatever tools are at your disposal because reasoning with children only works half the time. Their brains aren’t fully formed yet (like woke activists), and they tend to act out wildly based on impulse and emotion.
I really don’t think that lefties are particularly upset by the idea of Santa having a naughty list (I’ve never met a well adjusted parent that went beyond the threat and didn’t have presents for their sons and daughters on Christmas). I think they are upset by the idea of moral compass and discipline. They seem to think that children simply raise themselves and that the parents never need to do anything to mold them into proper adults.
This is exactly why our society is in a death spiral today; because progressives have convinced so many parents to stop parenting.
Santa (Like Christ) Represents Individual And Voluntary Charity
Leftists are socialists (or communists) – It’s the foundation of almost all their beliefs, and the root of socialism is the sacrifice of the individual for the sake of the collective. Meaning, the government in the name of the majority must intervene in the affairs of individuals in order to force them to serve the interests of the group.
In other words, leftists believe that the environment determines everything and people will not do good for society unless they are extorted into it by the system. In a way they fulfill their own prophecy by making it almost impossible through the legal environment to do good for others unless you have permission from the authorities.
Over the years I have noticed that one highly destructive side effect of socialism is the exponential decline in personal charity. If the government handles everything, why should the average person take action to help others? Why even care? And if you do still care, it doesn’t matter because the system will punish you for acting on your own accord.
There’s a reason why socialist and communist regimes are mostly atheist and seek to eliminate Christianity through history; the government must become god and they can’t allow any alternatives to exist. When you see progressive governments ban private charity activities or prosecute people who go out on their own to help the homeless, you might be confused and wonder what the motivation could possibly be?
It makes perfect sense when you realize that leftists see voluntary charity as competition with their own god (government). In the past they have even tried to misrepresent Jesus as an early socialist figure, when in fact Jesus promoted individual acts of compassion, not deferring to a government authority.
The underlying impetus for socialism is forced wealth redistribution, but in a world of voluntary charity there is no need for governments to control wealth or property. That is to say, socialists exploit the existence of poverty as an excuse to take control of all personal wealth (and thus control the population). They can’t do that when Christianity, Christmas and symbols like Santa Claus show people there’s a better way.
Widespread mistrust of the US government, media, and “experts” didn’t go mainstream until President Trump splashed onto the scene. That’s why they hate him so much. He’s the cog in their machine. The disruptor who yanked back the curtain and exposed just enough to jolt the country awake. Thanks mostly to Trump’s America First movement, we now know the truth: many so-called “experts” are just political pawns, there’s one big “uniparty” screwing us all over, and the fake news media is running a giant CIA psyop on the American people.
That’s right—we thought those CIA “mind control” tricks were reserved for foreign hellholes. Turns out, they’re using those same nasty tactics on us.
Ready to have your minds blown? I know what’s going on with the drones, and I will share it with you. But I’m also to give you the secret to seeing through all the nonsense we’ve been peddled for 60+ years.
What I am about to reveal to you is the Rosetta Stone for interpreting every major news event. I will give you the secret to unlocking the mystery. One simple assumption will reveal everything. Are you ready?
“The U.S. government was behind it and is lying to you to cover it up.”
That’s it. That’s all you need to assume, and you will be correct. Think I’m crazy? That it couldn’t possibly be that simple? That it could never be that obvious? Let’s try it out and see how it works.
Who killed JFK? The U.S. government was behind it and is lying to you to cover it up.
How did the cartels manage to get so many drugs into and so much cash out of the U.S.? The U.S. government was behind it and is lying to you to cover it up.
Why were all those women and children at Waco burned to death? The U.S. government was behind it and is lying to you to cover it up.
Who let the 9/11 hijackers into the U.S.? The U.S. government was behind it and is lying to you to cover it up.
Why were there no WMDs in Iraq? The U.S. government was behind it and is lying to you to cover it up.
What caused the housing market collapse and the massive devaluation of the U.S. dollar? The U.S. government was behind it and is lying to you to cover it up.
What happened with all that Russian collusion stuff in 2016? The U.S. government was behind it and is lying to you to cover it up.
Where did COVID originate? The U.S. government was behind it and is lying to you to cover it up.
Why was discussion of Hunter Biden’s laptop banned in 2020? The U.S. government was behind it and is lying to you to cover it up.
Who blew up the NordStream pipeline? The U.S. government was behind it and is lying to you to cover it up.
And finally: what’s going on with all those drones in the Northeast? Say it with me: “The U.S. government is behind it and is lying to you to cover it up.”
Every time there is some major new story that everyone is fixated on, assume that the story exists because your government is trying to manipulate you for its own purposes, and you will be correct at least 9 out of 10 times. Maybe even 99 out of 100.
Follow this simple rule, and you will know what is actually happening before anyone else. You will appear to be clairvoyant. And you will have a superpower that no one in corporate media has: the ability to see the truth.
A bombshell 17,000-page report was just dropped, detailing specific instances where the Biden administration has weaponized the federal government for political gain. The extensive document, compiled by the House Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, outlines claims of misuse of federal agencies to target political opponents, suppress dissent, and influence public opinion. This raises serious questions about the integrity of the federal bureaucracy and the Biden Administration’s four years in office.
During the nearly two-year investigation, exposed a “two-tiered system of government,” with the committee finding several cases of censorship, whistleblower retaliation, and the politicization of federal agencies and top law enforcement.
The report notes that the objective of the committee is to “protect and strengthen the fundamental rights of the American people.” Although its work is not done, the report assures the American people that this was the necessary first step to stop the weaponization of the federal government and to make sure it no longer works against the United States.
Here are the 20 of the most nefarious and diabolical activities revealed by the report.
1. Censorship by Big Tech: The report alleges that the Biden administration pressured companies like Meta (formerly known as Facebook) to censor American speech, with Mark Zuckerberg reportedly admitting to this pressure.
2. Weaponization of Federal Law Enforcement: The subcommittee claims to have found instances where federal law enforcement agencies were used against American citizens, highlighting a pattern of what they describe as government overreach.
3. Collusion with the Intelligence Community: There are allegations of the Biden campaign working with former intelligence officials to discredit the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation, which the report suggests was part of a broader effort to manipulate voter perception.
4. FBI Targeting Parents at School Boards: The report points to an Attorney General memo directing the FBI to investigate threats against school board members, which critics argue was used to target conservative parents speaking out at meetings.
5. Suppression of Conservative Voices: It’s claimed that there was a concerted effort involving government agencies and tech companies to suppress conservative viewpoints, including through the manipulation of content moderation policies.
6. FBI’s Handling of the Mar-a-Lago Raid: The report discusses the FBI’s search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, suggesting political motivations behind the action.
7. FBI Whistleblower Retaliation: The subcommittee heard from FBI whistleblowers who claimed they faced retaliation for exposing perceived biases within the agency, including the suspension of security clearances.
9. Legal Actions Against Pro-Life Activists: Allegations that the DOJ disproportionately targeted pro-life activists under the FACE Act, suggesting a two-tiered justice system.
10. Targeting of Traditional Catholics: An FBI memo from the Richmond field office labeled certain traditional Catholics as potential threats, which was later retracted but highlighted in the report.
11. IRS and DOJ Targeting: The report alleges that these agencies were used to target political opponents, echoing previous claims made during the Obama era regarding IRS scrutiny of conservative groups.
12. Misuse of National Security Tools: There are claims that surveillance powers were misused to spy on political adversaries, linking back to controversies around the 2016 election.
13. Government Influence on Media: Accusations that government officials influenced media narratives, especially around sensitive political topics like the Hunter Biden laptop and the origins of the COVID-19.
14. Operation Choke Point: An alleged Obama-era initiative where federal agencies pressured banks to cut off services to certain sectors, impacting conservative businesses.
15. Influence Over Social Media Algorithms: Assertions that the government had an undue influence on how social media companies prioritized and displayed content, affecting political discourse.
16. Use of Disinformation Campaigns: The report suggests that elements within the government were involved in creating or supporting disinformation to manipulate public opinion, especially in foreign policy contexts.
17. Involvement in Election Integrity: Claims that government agencies played roles in influencing election outcomes through misinformation management and voter suppression tactics.
18. Weaponization of Climate Change Policies: Allegations that environmental policies were used to target industries and individuals not aligned with administration views.
19. Manipulation of Public Health Information: During the COVID-19 response, there are claims of government agencies influencing what information was disseminated by health organizations, possibly to fit political narratives.
20. Protection of Political Allies: The report hints at the administration protecting allies through selective enforcement of laws or lack of investigation into potential wrongdoings.
[The] founding documents of the United States articulate the ideals of the American republic and guarantee to all American citizens fundamental rights and liberties. For too long, however, the American people have faced a two-tiered system of government—one of favorable treatment for the politically-favored class, and one of intimidation and unfairness for the rest of American citizens. Under the Biden-Harris Administration, the contrast between these two tiers has become even more stark.
One of the most alarming parts of the report are emails between DHS/CISA, Stanford University, the Atlantic Council, and Big Tech, in which they colluded to create the “Election Integrity Partnership’s” censorship machine.
An email from Graham Brookie of the Atlantic Council’s DFR Labs read: “We just set up an election integrity partnership at the request of DHS/CISA,” while another— now redacted from Facebook— exposes a phone call with DHS, saying, “DHS cannot openly endorse the portal.”
“We already have partnerships with Facebook, Twitter, and Google, and we would love to chat with you and your team,” Alex Stamos of the Stanford Internet Observatory emailed NextDoor executives.
“Throughout the Biden-Harris administration, multiple federal agencies, including the White House, have engaged in a vast censorship campaign against so-called mis-, dis-, or malinformation,” the report states, noting that the subcommittee revealed the extent of the “censorship-industrial complex,” the report continues.
In another finding from the report revealed that the subcommittee probed alleged cased in which the federal government weaponized the use of law enforcement resources, which led to fraud and abuse of the FBI. Several whistleblowers spoke out and detailed how the agency “brutally retaliated” against them for coming forward.
The bureau suspend the whistleblowers “without pay, preventing them from seeking outside employment, and even purging suspected disloyal employees.”
The investigation also found that the Biden Administration teamed up with 51 former intelligence officials to interfere in the American electoral system just weeks before the 2020 presidential election by signing the statement calling Hunter Biden’s laptop disinformation.
story
Of course they did. It started with Obama covering up all the illegal stuff they did to Trump. This has to stop. I doubt they’ll get the top dogs, but they could put a dent into the machine
I was at an analyst conference and George H. W. Bush was the speaker. The first thing he said was that he hated the press. The second was that the stupidest question he ever got asked was by Lesley Stahl as to why he wasn’t dancing when the Berlin Wall came down.
Now this:
Newscaster Lesley Stahl claims she “doesn’t know what to do” about the embarrassing demise of the legacy media.
She was lamenting to her colleague, Peggy Noonan, that “we are at the point where even the president,” then corrected herself saying, “Elon Musk,” asserted that legacy media is dead. She appeared extremely worried, spilling her deepest concerns, in front of an empathetic audience gathered at the 92nd St. YMCA studio in New York.
It was as if Stahl was having an out-of-body experience, where she failed to factor in herself, in accounting for the reason why audiences were abandoning network news in droves. You know you’re in trouble as an award-winning reporter when the show “Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives,” on the Food Network manages to pull in higher ratings than the 24-hour news coverage, CNN.
“I don’t know how it (media) recovers,” Stahl confessed: “It is sort of… kind of hobbling along.”
There was some editing in her statement: She didn’t require the qualifier of “sort of,” “kind (of)” hobbling along. Sounding like sorority sisters, Stahl then confessed to Noonan, “I’m in a very dark place about it.” The gal-pal team then proceeded to engage in a hug-fest to lift up each other spirits, never hinting at they might be part of the problem.
“We’re talking about something so essential,” Noonan offered in her media overview. “You don’t want to say we’ll see. Or, maybe the world will end. We’ll see.” Wow! Noonan, in a moment of candid reflection, had actually compared something “so essential” as corporate media, and it being thrown on the trash heap of cancelled programing, with the world ending.
Such serious contemplation negates the wider view of just how they got into such a “dark place.” Still, they went along their merry way, as two titans in the media, seemingly oblivious to the fact that their smugness and Trump-bashing served as an integral part of the toxic behavior that fueled the rot in the “legacy media.”
Noonan proved it didn’t matter how nonsensical a joke or outright lie at Trump’s expense was — it was still worth working into the conversation. She made an off-the-cuff quip, shortly after the November election, when President-elect Trump was at the top of news reports in more than 100 countries, saying: “We haven’t been seeing much of Mr. Trump,” and “I’m enjoying that.”
The audience laughed appreciatively. So what if the joke indicated the speaker appeared clueless about an avalanche of news overtaking every newsroom in the nation? You must say this — Stahl and Noonan know their audience, no matter how much it may be shrinking.
Once the laughter stopped, Stahl may have found it productive to engage in some good-old fashioned reporting to figure out what she “could do” to better understand the media’s abysmal ratings. And even more concerning, the loss of public trust. In her 53-year journalism career, she never thought she’d witness her once-premiere news program, “60 Minutes,” becoming increasingly irrelevant in a post-Trump election world. Ratings stayed in the toilet bowl, as one CBS executive noted, as the show pulled in a pitiful five million viewers in mid-November.
It wouldn’t take much digging for Stahl to find out what’s going on in audienceville. She, like her colleagues, would have to get up out of their chairs, leave their network buildings and stop relying on corrupted news sources. (That would include themselves.)
The best — and obvious — place to start would be for Stahl and Noonan to review comments made by viewers watching their unscripted exchange. Reactions from the audience is merely a click away on the accompanying YouTube comment thread: The media titans may have appeared untroubled by their intense partisanship, but viewers were taking a dimmer view.
One viewer identified as “@CharlieWhitmore,” was diligent enough to perform Stahl’s job for her: He reviewed one of her most startling Trump-bashing moments on “60 Minutes.” “I went back and reviewed Leslie’s interview with Trump in October 2020,” he wrote. “Leslie you are the problem…” He referred to Stahl’s pathological tendency, like her colleagues, to disbelieve and discredit (then) President Trump and their refusal to report on the Hunter Biden laptop story. This, in turn, would have opened the door to investigating the “Biden crime family’s behavior,” President Trump claimed, and their influence peddling to negotiate lucrative contracts.
The snippet below speaks volumes about Stahl acting more as a White House spokesperson as opposed to a working journalist.
“He’s in the midst of a scandal,” President Trump said referencing Hunter Biden’s lap top’s incriminating content.
“He’s not,” Stahl interrupted. “He’s not. No.”
Later in the interview, Stahl claimed the Delaware computer contents had been “investigated and discredited.” This attitude of nothing-to-see-here-folks has become an integral part of the legacy media. They never failed in their efforts to come to the defense of the Biden Family along with Democrat operatives’ criminal activities.
“It can’t be verified,” Stahl repeated numerous times of the laptop. She was relying, of course, on her anonymous sources, corrupted intelligence contacts and biased news outlets. Nothing in the interview indicated that Stahl would divert from her political ideology and runaway bias.
“What can’t be verified?” Trump asked.
“The laptop!” Stahl responded as if confirming the obvious.
“The biggest scandal,” Trump continued, ‘was when they spied on my campaign.”
“There’s no real evidence of that,” Stahl said never wavering from her ludicrous and now embarrassingly false version of events. Owning up to this shameful chapter of reporting wasn’t on Stahl’s agenda, nor was correcting her distorted worldview.
Other viewer reactions were equally revealing, and not very sparing in their comments of Stahl and Noonan:
“Madame Stahl, you reap what you sow,” wrote @I.marciago5030, “Just listening to you (makes it) easy to understand why the corporate media (has) lost all credibility.”
“Lesley, thank you for all the good work you put into helping destroy legacy media,” responded another @woodyharrelson2624.
“Lesley Stahl just doesn’t get it. No wonder legacy media is dying,” wrote @Grad1067.
A few of the remarks were dripping in sarcasm including: “Big shout-out to these two ladies for helping Trump get elected. Bravo,” wrote @neildepoy77320
It might prove useful, for Stahl, to juxtapose the “60 Minutes” sparring match between herself and President-elect Trump in the wake of viewing the irrefutable facts. Sadly, Stahl appeared unwilling to take a moment of introspection to understand her personal responsibility — after all, she’s a big-deal journalist — for a media that has become corrupted by its own bias.
Instead, she spent a moment fawning over herself and offered up a different interpretation of the exchange between herself and President Trump. She recounted, without a hint of irony, that she asked the president in October 2020: “Why do you keep pounding on the press?”
Trump, being Trump, offered a pragmatic answer: “I do it and I repeat it because that way fewer people are going to believe you.”
Americans don’t trust public health institutions, the virologist who used to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.
“We have lost public trust, there’s no doubt about it, and it really harms public health in a big way,” Robert Redfield said Wednesday during an event at The Heritage Foundation, adding, “We’ve lost, I think, trust in science.”
The lines between public health institutions and politics became blurred during the pandemic, Kulldorff said.
The National Institutes of Health is a government research agency and “their role is not policy or public health policy,” he said.
Yet, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who directed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for nearly four decades until 2022, became quite involved in health policy while an adviser to two presidents during the pandemic.
NIH “should have focused on doing the studies to find out, for example, about genetic drugs, if they can help against COVID,” Kulldorff said. But instead, he added, Fauci “sort of took over that public health policy, which doesn’t make any sense.”
Schools shouldn’t have been closed and lockdowns shouldn’t have been widespread, Kulldorff said, but the “biggest chunk of the infectious disease research money was controlled by Dr. Fauci, so he took a very active role about the pandemic policy.”
Instead of a health system, Americans “pay for illness,” Redfield said, adding: “As long as you’re sick, the system works. We need to flip the switch … so that we pay for wellness.”
One of the “root causes” of the public health crisis is that doctors are “at the bottom of the treatment pyramid,” Johnson said.
Doctors “should be at the top,” he said, but are being “crushed by the agencies” in a third-party payer system in America.
They come for the free money, housing and food. Biden has shipped them in and shipped them around the US. All the while, Hurricane Helene victims are freezing to death while FEMA does nothing.
In Europe, they suck off of the hind teat of socialism. Free money for being there, except for the legal residents who foot the bill
Germany’s Christian Democrat Union (CDU) candidate for chancellor Friedrich Merz says that Germany cannot accept more Syrians from Syria and that those Syrians who are not integrated should return to Syria.
Notably, Merz is pointing to the sky-high levels of unemployment among many of the country’s Syrian population. The chancellor candidate, during an appearance on ARD, said the “one-third” who “work and are integrated” in Germany can stay, “but the two-thirds do not work, they are overwhelmingly young men, many of them can go back, and many must go back.”
He said that a push to return many of these migrants must occur, saying:
“We must now speak very openly with them and say: You have no place in Germany in the long term… We have long been of the opinion that at least people could have returned to the north a long time ago, and now to other parts of the country as well.”
There are currently 1 million Syrians in the country, and those not working have become a major burden for German taxpayers. According to government data, 210,000 are employed, while 250,000 are currently “looking for work.” Another 150,000 are unemployed.
Following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government, there is a European-wide push to return Syrians to their country; however, the ruling German government has expressed caution about the security situation in the country.
The WEF and global government types know they can break down civilizations, customs, traditions and hundreds of years of history by bringing in illegals to ruin the economies and enact the Cloward-Piven strategy.
They’ve turned out robots instead of critical thinkers. They are restricting school choice, harming millions of kids. Not one accomplishment on behalf of the students since it was created. The NEA and Teachers Unions are going strong and pay themselves well for incompetence though.
The New York Times reported December 4 that math and science test scores for U.S. fourth and eighth graders have been essentially stagnant since 1995. Nor have they have been stagnant near the top — lots of countries outrank us — but rather in the middling middle. American elementary/middle school students perform behind Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, England, Ireland, and Poland.
“’This is alarming,’” opined a Department of Education commissioner.
Yes, it is, but perhaps not just for the reasons the article identifies.
The spin of the article is that scores are down and American kids have lost significant ground as a result of the pandemic. Author Dana Goldstein says the results corroborate “a large body of research showing significant academic declines since the Covid-19 pandemic began.” “Experts are debating potential causes,” reports Goldstein, including maybe the fact that American public schools were shuttered comparatively longer than in other countries.
Let me argue that spin is far too limited and selective.
While the “experts” debate, American kids continue to move through the public-school industry, advanced perhaps more for social promotion than mastery of skills. Eventually, they’ll hit college where freshman year will be spent in math remediation before they can undertake a required general education math or science course. I know. I worked as an associate dean at a private, tuition-driven Catholic university. One year, a fifth of the freshman class was in math remediation prior to regular college-level math classes.
You can argue the young people shouldn’t be admitted and it’s not a college’s role to make up deficiencies in elementary and secondary schooling. But somebody’s got to do it. These kids relied on what their schools told them, credentialing them with diplomas after going through multiple “proficiency tests” (that more often were “teaching to the test” than teaching). At some point, somebody’s actually got to teach them.
“may have several negative impacts on the local environment and economy”
See the post below about Germany being dumbasses about the same thing. Use gas. It’s cheap and it isn’t killing whales or the environment. Those are lies made up by hypocritical zealots whose religion is green (money, not sustainability like Al Gore and John Kerry).
Drill baby drill and bring down the cost of energy, bringing down the cost of everything else. For those who worship the planet, watch and see that it won’t harm a thing. It will actually be better for everything except their wallets
Everyone knows this has been a boondoggle, even the left, but they’re so committed to supposed ‘green’ energy that they can’t let go.
A government regulator recognizing offshore wind’s destructive environmental effects is as rare as a North Atlantic right whale. But a recent, 600-plus page report from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) admits that the offshore wind development planned for the New York Bight—the triangular area bordered by the New Jersey and Long Island coastlines—may irreversibly harm whales, commercial and recreational fisheries, and seabirds.
The BOEM report is the agency’s first to evaluate the cumulative impacts of offshore wind development. Its authors cite a wide range of potential effects, from negligible (or even beneficial) to major. Acknowledging potentially “major” harms is a radical departure from the agency’s previously accepted Environmental Impact Statements for offshore wind projects, which have always focused on the impacts of individual projects, rather than the cumulative impacts of multiple projects.
The report, which BOEM bills as a “programmatic environmental impact statement,” admits that the proposed offshore wind projects on the New York Bight may have several negative impacts on the local environment and economy. The authors note, for example, that the effect on the North Atlantic right whale could be “major,” defined as having “severe population-level effects” that would “compromise the viability of the species”—in other words, potential extinction. The report also concedes that the projects could have major effects (“substantial disruptions”) on commercial and recreational fishing, which contribute billions of dollars to the New Jersey and New York economies.
While the report discusses the consequences of these wind turbines on ocean views and even on local housing prices, it makes no mention of these projects’ adverse effects on electric ratepayers and economic growth. These effects are substantial, as New Jersey’s experience reveals. The state’s Board of Public Utilities estimated that its two approved offshore wind projects in 2024, with a total capacity of 2,400 MW, would raise the monthly electric bills of a typical residential customer by about $7, a commercial customer by about $59, and an industrial customer by over $500. Those estimated costs, which don’t include what those customers will pay for new transmission lines and the backup generation needed to offset wind’s inherent intermittency, cumulatively amount to more than a $750 million annual increase in electric bills for the state’s 8.5 million electric ratepayers. , based on the numbers of these customers. If the Garden State succeeds in its goal of developing 11,000 megawatts of offshore wind electricity, despite mounting costs and the cancellations of two major in-state projects, ratepayers alone will end up paying an additional $3 billion to $5 billion more each year for their electricity.
In his classic book, Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification, economist Timur Kuran notes how governments, and social movements, do their best to enforce this sort of ideological uniformity. People tend to hide unpopular views to avoid ostracism or punishment; they stop hiding them when they feel safe.
This can produce rapid change: In totalitarian societies like the old Soviet Union, the police and propaganda organizations do their best to enforce preference falsification. Such regimes have little legitimacy, but they spend a lot of effort making sure that citizens don’t realize the extent to which their fellow-citizens dislike the regime. This works until something breaks the spell and the discontented realize that their feelings are widely shared, at which point the collapse of the regime may seem very sudden to outside observers — or even to the citizens themselves. Kuran calls this sudden change a “preference cascade,” and I believe that’s what’s happening here.
In America, the left spent years bullying people into accepting “woke” ideas on race, gender, and politics. There’s considerable reason to believe that a majority of Americans never accepted these ideas, but between constant media repetition, and the risk of being mobbed and canceled if you disagreed with them, most people for years were afraid to stand up.
But two things put a stop to that. One was Donald Trump’s election. The other – and the two are related – was Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, now X, which is now a free-speech platform with roughly equal representation of Democrats and Republicans. Both had the effect of blowing up the lefty bubble and letting people realize that they, not the woke, were the actual majority.
Let’s start with some of the highlights. First, the FBI IG report acknowledges the presence of multiple CHS’s (informants), some of whom were sent to DC for Jan 6 by the FBI, and some of whom went on their own accord and reported to their handlers in the FBI.
We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6. We reviewed the documented CHS reporting that the FBI had prior to the riot and breach of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. We determined that three CHSs had been tasked by FBI field offices in the days leading up to the January 6 Electoral Certification, with the required approval of the WFO, to travel to DC for the events of January 6 to report on domestic terrorism subjects who were possibly attending the event. Specifically: One FBI field office tasked a CHS to travel to DC to report on the activities of a predicated domestic terrorism subject who was separately planning to travel to DC for the January 6 Electoral Certification; a second FBI field office tasked a CHS to travel to DC to potentially report on two domestic terrorism (DT) subjects from another FBI field office who were planning to travel to DC for the events of January 6; and a third CHS, who had informed their handling agent that they intended to travel to DC on their own initiative for the events of January 6, was similarly tasked by their field office to potentially report on two DT subjects from other FBI field offices who were planning to travel to DC for the events of January 6. Our review 5 concluded that none of these three FBI CHSs were authorized to enter the Capitol or a restricted area, or to otherwise break the law on January 6, nor was any CHS directed by the FBI to encourage others to commit illegal acts on January 6.
In other words, we see that there were at least three informants who had been tasked directly with following specific targets and informing on their plans in relation to January 6th.
In addition to these three informants who were asked to track specific people well in advance of January 6th, the FBI IG report acknowledges 23 additional informants who traveled to DC on January 6 and reported on the events to their respective FBI handlers:
They are as guilty as the day is long. The crime committed was authored by the FBI to cover up a stolen election. The FBI solves the crimes they commit
My wife’s dumbass relatives in Denmark can’t brag enough to me about their free healthcare, to which I say you pay 70% taxes, so it’s not free. They try to make America into Denmark and what sort of works for 5 million doesn’t translate to 330+ million. They don’t get it because they mostly want to trash the US. Plus, they are socialist and we’re not.
Well, here’s the facts. It doesn’t work, the doctors are crummy, you have to wait for months and you can’t sue for malpractice, which at least 4 of her relatives have received for healthcare and are now injured.
Now this story:
Advocates for “universal health care” love to use Finland as an example of a system that works. That is an absurd comparison. Finland has a culturally homogeneous population of 5.6 million; that is just over half the population of Los Angeles County (9.6 million).
Better examples are England and Canada.
England has government-funded “universal health care” in the form of the National Health Service. The population of England is around 57 million people. Wait times for nonemergency care average 14 to 18 weeks, and thousands of people have been waiting more than 18 months. As of June of this year, 7.5 million Brits were waiting for already scheduled procedures and surgeries requiring hospital stays, more than 300,000 of whom had been waiting for more than a year.
Keep in mind that these scheduled – and delayed – procedures include diagnostic tests and treatments for illnesses like cancer. Shortages of physicians and treatment facilities force cancer patients to wait weeks – or months – for radiation or chemotherapy.
These delays have life-and-death consequences. In 2009, British medical journal Lancet reported that 51.1% of British cancer patients were alive five years after their diagnosis. By contrast, 91.9% of American cancer patients were alive five years after their diagnosis.
England’s problems are not limited to cancer care. Last year, Bloomberg News published a report analyzing the NHS’s own data. The results were shocking. In most areas of England, medical care failed to meet government goals in things as basic as minimum wait times for an ambulance to arrive in an emergency (goal: 30 minutes; reality: up to three hours) or the availability of hospital beds.
In Canada – another country with “universal health care,” the situation is nearly as bad. Canada has a population of nearly 40 million. The average wait time for treatment in Canada for a condition requiring a specialist’s care is more than six months. But in some provinces and for some procedures – like orthopedic surgery or neurosurgery – the wait is closer to a year, or even longer. Canadians face long waits – six weeks to three months – even for simple but vital diagnostic procedures like MRIs, CT scans or ultrasounds.
By contrast, in the United States – a country with 330 million people – the average wait time for a nonemergency appointment with a specialist is only 26 days (a situation that medical journal STAT called “a public health crisis”). The median time between diagnosis of cancer and commencement of treatment is 27 days. The average wait time for an ambulance here is seven minutes.
As you likely know, race hoaxes are so common these days, it’s hard to keep up. You know the drill: the media breathlessly reports something like a “burning cross” on the lawn of a Baptist church, hinting that “white nationalists” are at it again. Then, surprise—it turns out some black guy did it because he hates white people.
Rinse and repeat.
The left and their media pals churn out race hoaxes, lies, and twisted stories to keep the “us vs. them” mentality alive and well in America.
The NAACP is getting in on this hoax game, too. They recently got busted trying to peddle this type of nonsense regarding the Daniel Penny not-guilty verdict. It all started when the NAACP responded to an X post by CNN that announced Daniel Penny’s fair and just acquittal – that case should’ve never gone to trial. And of course, instead of doing so professionally, the NAACP did what they do best: they sunk into the gutter, lied, and spread a fake racism hoax.
Thankfully, X’s Community Notes was there to crush the NAACP’s lie, and set the record straight.
Here’s what the NAACP lied about when responding to the CNN post. There were black people on the subway helping to restrain him, and who testified on behalf of Penny during the trial. This had nothing to do with race. It was very clearly a mental health/violence issue.
The left thrives on pushing these phony “race war” narratives. Why? Well, let’s face it, they can’t afford to have black Americans feeling happy, accepted, and successful—because the day that happens, the Democrat Party goes out of business for good.
Even the left’s politicians are getting in on the “race hoax” action.
The truth is, white people just aren’t producing the number of “hate crimes” the left needs, so they have to invent them. It’s a real supply and demand problem, eh?
The left and their media pals churn out race hoaxes, lies, and twisted stories to keep the “us vs. them” mentality alive and well in America.
The NAACP is getting in on this hoax game, too. They recently got busted trying to peddle this type of nonsense regarding the Daniel Penny not-guilty verdict. It all started when the NAACP responded to an X post by CNN that announced Daniel Penny’s fair and just acquittal – that case should’ve never gone to trial. And of course, instead of doing so professionally, the NAACP did what they do best: they sunk into the gutter, lied, and spread a fake racism hoax.
Thankfully, X’s Community Notes was there to crush the NAACP’s lie, and set the record straight.
Here’s what the NAACP lied about when responding to the CNN post. There were black people on the subway helping to restrain him, and who testified on behalf of Penny during the trial. This had nothing to do with race. It was very clearly a mental health/violence issue.
What Obama fears is that Biden might be persuaded to issue a sweeping set of Deep State pardons to a list that would include various top-level Obama administration officials like former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former Attorney General James Comey who potentially could be forced to provide damaging criminal testimony against him.
A presidential pardon does not waive a person’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for future crimes. But a person accepting a pardon (including Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and Hunter Biden, or anyone else so pardoned) can be forced to testify truthfully about the pardoned crimes since they are no longer at risk of prosecution under federal law. Once pardoned, the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply to giving testimony against others for the pardoned crimes since the pardoned individual no longer needs Fifth Amendment protection from a self-incrimination risk that is no longer relevant.
In other words, just to be clear, please understand that by accepting a pardon, a person has admitted guilt to the pardoned crime, a precedent the Supreme Court established in 1915’s Burdick v. United States. This fact, without any other evidence, gives the DOJ and the FBI a probative cause to start a new investigation by interviewing and interrogating the pardoned person under oath. All a DOJ or FBI official would have to do is to put a piece of paper in front of the pardoned person and ask that person to enumerate all crimes committed, plus requiring the pardoned person to give the names and details of all criminal accomplices involved.
That’s right, we get find out everything they did and who they are. They are going to get away with anyway, they already did. This is a pre-emptive strike for next time
While the 78-year-old made it clear he doesn’t believe his wife did “anything wrong,” he suggested if members of Trump’s administration were “determined” to “make” up a crime, it could probably be done.
During the 2016 election cycle, former secretary of state found herself in hot water after she was accused of using a private server to send classified correspondences. However, Bill pointed out Hillary had been cleared of any wrongdoing.
“She followed the rules exactly as they were written,” he said on the Wednesday, December 11, installment of The View. “Remember how the emails were such a big issue in 2016? Trump’s State Department found that Hillary sent and received exactly zero classified emails on her personal device.”
Bill claimed the scandal was nothing more than a “made-up phony story.”
The Clintons are dripping with crime, as are a lot of others like ex-FBI, DOJ, Eric Holder, the Obama’s, Liz Cheney, Schiff, Nadler, Maxine Waters, Fauci and a long list of others.
FBI Director Chris Wray will resign at the end of the Biden administration, the agency said Wednesday, as it became clear he would be forced out by President-elect Donald Trump.
Trump, who originally nominated Wray after firing the previous FBI director, previously announced he will nominate Kash Patel for the role, although Wray still had three years remaining on his 10-year term. Patel has been meeting with senators to build support for a confirmation vote next year.
Wray had wrestled with whether or not to resign given Trump’s stated desire to replace him, sources say, and wants to facilitate an orderly transition. But some in the FBI worried his departure would normalize Trump’s penchant for replacing FBI directors he doesn’t like, as the position is supposed to straddle administrations and be insulated from politics.
Wray took the helm of the agency after Trump fired Director James Comey following investigations under his watch into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Wray took office after Comey, whose FBI also investigated Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, left the bureau in May 2017.
As the incoming director, Wray was seen by many lawmakers as a solid choice to stabilize a rocky ship, but he ultimately suffered a similar fate as his predecessor, after he too oversaw an FBI that investigated Trump, probes resulting in two separate federal cases against the former president.
He’s got enough Fentanyl in him to kill a horse. Let’s not overlook the Meth. He was a criminal committing a crime, not a hero.
They just needed a victim to set up the money laundering by a Marxist group. Who else is Marxist? Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, and other mass murderers in history who stole governments, laundered money, and tried to take down Western Civilization starting with God, the family, free speech, and private property.
What did BLM do with the money? Bought houses, cars and bling. They started no groups or agencies that actually helped blacks get on their feet.
Look at the last line before the story link. It says that the BLM activist racists are trained Marxists. The worst type of person we could have right now. (Look up Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, Obama)
Black Lives Matter leader Hawk Newsome called for “black vigilantes” to descend into major cities Monday to retaliate against 26-year-old former Marine Daniel Penny’s acquittal over the death of Jordan Neely.
A Manhattan jury found Penny not guilty of criminally negligent homicide after he held 30-year-old homeless man Neely in a chokehold to protect surrounding passengers on a New York City subway train in May 2023. Newsome called on “black vigilantes” to avenge Neely’s death and fight against white people who allegedly want to “choke” and “kill” black people for “being loud.”
“Like everybody else has vigilantes, we need some black vigilantes,” Newsome said. “People want to jump up and choke us and kill us for being loud, how about we do the same when they attempt to oppress us? I’m tired. I know you’re looking for us to be like, ‘Oh, go and march. Go and march.’ No, this weekend, I want you to hold a community event, everywhere from the Bronx, to Houston, to Seattle, to Florida. Black people hold community events and talk about what you need.”
Passengers who witnessed the incident said Neely behaved in an erratic and threatening manner by screaming at commuters, throwing his jacket on the ground, and saying that he did not care if he went to jail. Penny then came up from behind Neely and held him in a chokehold for about 15 minutes, where Neely eventually lost consciousness and was pronounced dead.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Braggcharged Penny after a medical examiner ruled Neely’s death a homicide in May 2023. The manslaughter charge, which was dismissed prior to the jury’s verdict, came with a potential 15-year prison sentence, while the negligent homicide charge comes with a maximum four-year sentence.
Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy said during a Monday Fox News segment that the jury was in a “deadlock,” likely due to many jurors buying into Bragg’s alleged “racialized” narrative of the incident.
Protesters supporting Neely gathered outside the courtroom prior to and following the verdict, chanting, “No justice, no peace,” and warning that the public “will hear [them] tonight.”
BLM executives have publicly identified themselves as “trained Marxist[s],” including co-founder Patrisse Cullors, who confirmed in 2020 that she and her fellow organizers are Marxist ideologues
At the center of it is the race hustle – a hustle being the attempt to get something for nothing – in this sense, seeking respect and approbation for people engaged in uncivilized behavior.
It kicked off in 2012 when one Trayvon Martin, 17, got shot while bashing the head of a neighborhood watch coordinator, George Zimmerman, against the pavement in Sanford, Florida. The news media dishonestly portrayed Martin as a skittle-munching child when police reported him as six-feet-tall. Zimmerman, five-foot-eight, was eventually acquitted of all charges on grounds of self-defense. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement was born.
Next up in 2014 was Michael Brown, 18, in Ferguson, Missouri. After robbing a convenience store, Brown was stopped on the street by Police Officer Darren Wilson. According to Wilson’s account, Brown reached into his patrol car trying to seize his gun. Brown’s DNA was later found on Wilson’s gun, and Brown’s blood was detected on the car’s door, suggesting a struggle. Following the incident, riots, arson, and looting broke out in Ferguson for days after. A local grand jury declined to indict Officer Wilson, and he was eventually exonerated of civil rights violations when investigated by the US Department of Justice. The case amplified the Black Lives Matter (movement.
Other incidents followed in 2014: one Eric Garner, 43, was stopped in Staten Island for selling individual cigarettes on the street. Garner resisted arrest and was put in a choke hold. He repeatedly said, “I can’t breathe,” before dying of an asthma attack. In November, same year, Tamir Rice, 12, was brandishing a toy gun that looked like a real firearm in a Cleveland, Ohio, park, when police trainee Timothy Loehmann responded to a 911 call and shot the boy. A Cuyahoga County grand jury declined to indict Loehmann. The city of Cleveland settled $6-million with the Rice family in a wrongful death suit.
In May, 2020, George Floyd, 46, a released felon, resisted arrest after trying to pass a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill in Minneapolis. Officer Derek Chauvin eventually subdued Floyd with a restraint, knee-on-back, recommended by the city police department’s training guide. Floyd died at the scene with 11 ng/mL of fentanyl, 19 ng/mL of methamphetamine, and cannabinoids detected in his blood at autopsy, plus heart disease and hypertension. Officer Chauvin was convicted on several counts of murder and manslaughter and three other officers at the scene also went to jail on lesser charges. Riots, arson, looting, and murder ensued in Minneapolis and many other American cities. Statues of George Floyd were erected around the country and the city of Minneapolis settled a wrongful death suit for $27-million with the Floyd family.
Penny was saving people being threatened by a drug induced criminal. This was not a White on Black issue. What if the schizophrenic was a white dude or an Asian and Penny choked him out?
No, some people see things through the color of race making it impossible to stamp out racism.
I’ve done decades of martial arts and choked people out with the same one he used on the criminal terrorizing the train that day. It was only cutting off the blood supply to the brain and then they wake up. Even the cop said he was breathing and had a heartbeat.
What Penny did was a Batman move to help everyone else on the train who was being threatened. His only crime was being white that day in an environment looking to convict a non PPP.
I said that day and every time since that I’d choke that MF out also just like Penny did if they were being harassed like that.
The case against Marine veteran Daniel Penny should never have been brought. It was a gross injustice. By law, he was justified in using reasonable force —even lethal force— to subdue a maniac who vowed to murder riders the moment he entered a subway car. That man, Jordan Neely, initiated the confrontation and died as a result of his own menacing and illegal actions.
He’s a hero and got a just sentence, except he never should have had to go to trial to begin with. It was a woke diversity move that the left was used to getting away with to try and extract reverse judgment on an innocent man. It should have never even gone to trial. He should have received a key to the city and a parade for saving people being harassed by a drug-induced criminal.
Justice was served. He never came close to committing a crime, rather he helped the community. That the criminal died is a different issue, but Penny didn’t have anything to do with his death. George Floyd died from Fentanyl which is how this farce began, but these made-up BLM lies failed again today against Penny
–
The jury has come back in the Daniel Penny case.
It’s so weird to me. The jury deliberated the first charge, second degree manslaughter, for so long and couldn’t reach a decision.
The panelists acquitted Penny of criminally negligent homicide — which could have put him behind bars for up to four years — in Neely’s chokehold death aboard a crowded uptown F train in May 2023.
Manslaughter, the top charge against Penny, was tossed on Friday after jurors twice said they couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict.
Jurors sided with Penny’s defense attorneys, who had argued that the Marine veteran was justified in rushing to protect his fellow subway straphangers when he subdued the erratic homeless man. The lawyers had also questioned whether there was sufficient evidence that the chokehold caused Neely’s death.
I asked AI to list some of his boners. Here’s what came up
Paul Krugman, a Nobel laureate economist and columnist for the New York Times, has been known to make predictions and argue for certain economic policies that have been proven wrong or controversial over time. Here are a few examples:
Predicting the 2008 Financial Crisis: In the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, Krugman was skeptical of the severity of the housing bubble and the potential consequences of a housing market crash. He argued that such a scenario was unlikely and that the economy would continue to grow. However, the crisis ultimately occurred, causing a major recession and exposing the flaws in Krugman’s predictions.
Arguing against austerity: Following the 2008 financial crisis, Krugman advocated against austerity measures and argued that governments should focus on boosting spending to stimulate the economy. However, many countries that implemented expansionary fiscal policies saw mixed results, and some economists argued that a more balanced approach to austerity and stimulus was necessary.
Predicting a “double-dip” recession: In 2010, Krugman predicted that the U.S. economy would experience a “double-dip” recession, with a second downturn occurring after an initial recovery. However, the economy continued to grow steadily, and the double-dip recession never materialized.
Arguing against the effectiveness of Quantitative Easing: Krugman has been critical of the Federal Reserve’s use of quantitative easing, arguing that it was not an effective tool for stimulating the economy. Some economists, however, have attributed the recovery of the U.S. economy in part to the Fed’s aggressive monetary policies.
Here’s what a second engine said:
Paul Krugman, despite his reputation as a prominent economist, has made several predictions that did not materialize as he expected. Here are some specific predictions by Krugman that didn’t come true:
Economic Predictions
2008 Financial Crisis: Krugman failed to anticipate the severity of the 2008 financial crisis1.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: In July 2008, Krugman predicted that concerns about a possible collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “overblown.” Months later, both institutions required massive government bailouts1.
Unemployment Rate: Krugman supported the Obama administration’s stimulus package, which was predicted to keep unemployment below 8%. However, unemployment surpassed 10% despite the stimulus1.
Interest Rates and Fiscal Policy
Zero Lower Bound: Krugman believed that nominal interest rates couldn’t go below 0%. This proved incorrect as some countries experienced negative interest rates2.
Fiscal Austerity: In 2013, Krugman predicted that U.S. budget cuts (the “sequester”) would lead to severe economic damage and possibly a double-dip recession. Instead, the U.S. economy continued to recover2.
Inflation and Deflation
Accelerating Deflation: Krugman’s model predicted accelerating deflation in the face of a prolonged economic slump. In reality, consumer prices rose modestly even as unemployment remained high2.
Price Deflation: In February 2010, Krugman warned of potential price deflation in the near future, comparing the U.S. situation to Japan’s. This did not occur; instead, his preferred measures of CPI turned around sharply within months2.
Oil Prices and Production
Permanent High Oil Prices: In June 2008, with oil at $137 per barrel, Krugman predicted that oil prices were on a permanently higher trajectory. The price of oil collapsed mere months later3.
U.S. Oil Production: Krugman failed to foresee the surge in U.S. crude oil output. He had expressed skepticism about significant increases in oil production, but U.S. field production of crude nearly doubled in the following decade
I’ve never trusted the NYT other than to be on the liberal side of anything, even if it means they were wrong. That he got an award for his economic writings is analogous to Obama getting a Nobel before he did anything other than lie to get elected.
Go away and stop ruining our lives like the rest of the Coastal elites that misunderestimate (Bush-ism) what the real America and real Americans who live in flyover country believe. It’s why most of the country just voted red instead of blue.
My wife’s idiot niece Marian posted on Facebook that Elizabeth Warren is the bomb. I can pretty much count on her being on the wrong side of everything good for America. Here’s proof.
President Biden has overseen nearly four years of a two-tiered justice system, as his pardoning of Hunter Biden and the political persecutions of then-candidate Donald Trump make all too clear.
But there have been quieter attacks on justice, like “debanking” — and few people realize they could be the next victims because they are a “politically exposed person,” that is someone who disagrees with the liberal status quo.
Debanking is a kind of financial blackballing that has appeared within just the last 20 years.
It started under then-President Barack Obama as a war to punish those seen as political enemies, like firearm manufacturers. Government documents unsealed at the end of 2020 proved that the federal government used its regulatory authority over financial markets to attack political opponents.
Government regulators essentially make it impossible for certain people or businesses to make online transactions, or to have a bank account or a credit card.
…
The debanking scourge under President Biden has hit the crypto world particularly hard. The Securities and Exchange Commission has unleashed a plague of investigations, some real and some merely threatened, to force innovators and investors out of that space.
Dozens of tech and crypto founders have been debanked under Biden, and their inventions smothered.
On Joe Rogan‘s podcast, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen blamed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a group set up at the behest of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to go after crypto firms in particular.
“Basically every crypto founder, every crypto startup, either got debanked personally and forced out of the industry, or their company got debanked,” Andreessen said.
Their findings further verified theories about gain-of-function research in China and the lab leak theory; exposed waste, fraud, and abuse of COVID relief funding; revealed how federal and state agencies, including the CDC and NIH, enforced pointless, unscientific recommendations that damaged our country’s health and economy; and highlighted how the government “ignore[d] natural immunity” and mandated the ineffective COVID vaccine while it “failed to properly inform the public about vaccine injuries” and is still failing to provide compensation for the vaccine-injured.
The report also highlights how New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and his Administration “worked to cover up the tragic aftermath of their policy decisions in an apparent effort to shield themselves from accountability” after forcing nursing homes to accept COVID-19-positive patients.
Joe Rogan reacted to the bombshell report with Canadian YouTuber and More Plates More Dates host Derek Munro, noting that the committee “basically said all the conspiracy theorists were correct.” He then slammed leftist MSNBC hack Rachel Maddow for helping to cover up the truth about the virus.
It can be recalled that Rogan came under intense scrutiny from the radical left and the fake news for questioning the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine and taking Ivermectin to treat his case of COVID.
WATCH:
Rogan: The House released a 500-page report on COVID-19 pandemic key findings: COVID-19 likely originated from a lab-related incident in Wuhan, China. Crazy! You get banned from YouTube for saying that, banned.
Over $200 billion in relief funds lost to fraud, with criminals exploiting weak oversight. Prolonged lockdowns and arbitrary mandates caused severe harm, economic devastation, mental health crises, and historic learning loss while lacking robust scientific support. Policies ignored natural immunity, pushing mandates that eroded trust and harmed public perception of science. Absolutely. WHO and CDC compromised by political interference, offering inconsistent, unscientific guidance that fueled public distrust, and the key players included federal agencies. And Cuomo’s administration actively obstructed oversight efforts and hid critical evidence.
Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic basically said all the conspiracy theorists were correct, every single one of them. No repercussions, no retractions, no apology from Rachel Maddow, none of it.
In addition to the House report, The Gateway Pundit reported that in another bombshell legal win, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a high-profile case brought by the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT).
The decision mandates the FDA to release the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) file for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine no later than June 30, 2025.
They should have done nothing, prescribed ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and nothing would have happened. Instead, they used it to cover up a stolen election and the would be 46th president is now the 47th.
We now can’t trust the government on healthcare, nor any of the agency’s recommendations.
Millions are vaccine-damaged, and a lot of old people died alone. It was malpractice by the government, the doctors, big pharma, congress China and America, not to mention countries like Israel and Denmark that made the whole country get jabbed.
Only Sweden and the Amish got it right. They had herd immunity.
The rest of us who saw through it and went un-jabbed are purebloods now.
“Everything was a lie from the beginning. The asymptomatic people don’t transmit. Kids were not harbingers of the disease. They don’t actually, they’re like a break on the disease. Lockdowns were a farce. Masks don’t work.”
“I tell people, I joke sometimes I say masks do work. A lot like bathing suits work to keep pee out of the pool. They’re not very effective. So that’s one of those things that, you know, it was a farce. Pretty much everything they said was a farce. I know we’re still recovering from it. Just yesterday we walked into a pharmacy and they were advertising COVID-19 vaccines.”
“Well if you want to destroy your immune system, take a COVID-19 vaccine. It will destroy your immune system. It distributes widely in your body. It can’t be broken down because it’s a genetically modified RNA. There are contaminants, process related impurities, what I usually call them, but contaminants for most people, that they haven’t gotten out of the vaccines.”
“The drug that I invented took eight years for us to get the process related impurities out. It’s hard to do and I knew this would be a problem early on when they were trying to push this so fast because nobody had ever made these vaccines in anything bigger than a blender. What we had is found is even worse.”
“They put an SV40 promoter in the vaccine, Pfizer did, that actually well known for the last five decades to bind P53 to Guardian the genome and cause cancers. They know that. We just kept them in the head of the Human Genome Project did this discovery with a few other molecular biologists.”
“This is really big news because the contaminants and the impurities in the vaccine are very dangerous and there’s design flaws like I just pointed out. Wide distribution to the brain, the bone marrow, the ovaries, the testes and long term production six months or more in the last study that we did. So there’s a lot to talk about. Do not get the vaccines unless you just want a crummy immune system. ”
“I think the main thing is these vaccines are dangerous. They have process related impurities. They cause cancer, strokes, heart attacks. The data is in 40% more deaths in 2021 between 18 to 64. This is just data we can’t ignore, so please stay away from the vaccines.”
The decision by a top soccer team to withdraw LGBTQ rainbow jackets after a Muslim player protested has drawn criticism from a woke former player. Tim Howard, a New Jersey-born ex-goalkeeper for Manchester United, attacked his old team for deferring to current player Noussair Mazraoui, who said he would not wear an LGBTQ jacket, citing his Muslim faith. This prompted the team to abandon the jackets entirely so Maraoui would not be “isolated.”
“Any team, any organization should always do what is right. And if one player chooses not to take part, they are entitled to do that, Howard complains. However, he warns players opting out of doing “the right thing” will have “eyes on them.”
“Teams don’t have to protect players. Teams should focus on the greater good, not the beliefs of one individual,” he insists, declaring he “tend[s] to have a problem with any faith or any religion that doesn’t put human rights first.”
In common with many leftists, Howard goes on to suggest people have to agree with his social politics to be good Christians—despite Mazraoui being a Muslim—saying, “Jesus knelt beside beggars and sinners and thieves—people from all walks of life.”
While this is true, Jesus disapproved of sin—saving a woman accused of adultery from being stoned but instructing her to “sin no more,” for instance.
Multiple New Testament texts affirm that homosexuality is a sin, according to the Christian faith.
In the autumn of 2019 a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, began to circulate widely but at a low level. In March 2020, as the influenza season in the Northern Hemisphere subsided, due to a drop in viral interference SARS-CoV-2 surged and became the dominant respiratory virus. COVID-19 spread from China around the world, suppressing influenza, whilst leaving the other human-infecting coronaviruses undisturbed. The vast majority of countries reacted to COVID-19 by imposing non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as lockdowns and facemask policies and, later, vaccination programmes.
It was a big effing hoax, all of it from the virus to the jab. Politicians and Pharma should fry for this. It was murder, perjury, money laundering, RICO and many other crimes
•Academic success is primarily based on one’s ability to memorize material. Unfortunately, the educational system rarely teaches students how to do that.
•Effective learning requires actively rather than passively engaging with the required material and being conscious of what is going on inside your body and mind so that you can determine which approaches are correct for you.
•Many of the same factors that determine overall health and neurological health (e.g., a healthy sleep cycle and adequate circulation throughout the body) also directly influence your capacity to study and memorize.
•In this article, I will review the various approaches and supplements that we have found to be the most helpful in improving memory retention and supporting academic success (along with increasing the lucidity of dreams if taken right before bed).
The primary mechanism our society uses to determine one’s eventual wealth and place in the social hierarchy is their academic performance. As such, many put forward an incredible sustained effort to succeed at each rung of the academic ladder, and in many cases, at the urging of their parents, begin that effort from a very young age. However, while a variety of justifications exist for the society adopting this convention, there are also major issues with it, such as:
•Far too many who go through it and put in a sustained effort to “succeed” end up with nothing to show for it.
•Because education has essentially established a monopoly on moving up the social ladder (which forces everyday citizens to participate in its rat race), it has no incentive to provide quality education to those it trains—particularly since unconditional federal support (e.g., student loans) subsidizes education and is allotted based on how many students attend each institution, not the quality of the education offered.
•Education primarily focuses on telling you what to do, not how to do it. As a result, those with inherent talent do much better than their peers, whereas many of those who simply try to do what they are told to do fall short regardless of how much effort they put in.
•By making people believe they need to be “taught to learn” through copying what the teacher does rather than encouraging the natural learning capacity of each student to emerge, the educational process makes students lose their inherent ability to learn or think critically.
Critical thinking, one of the indicators of intelligence is rarely taught in public schools anymore. Take your kids out of it and put them in private schools, or home school them. Get the Government out of our schools.
NBC Hails a Shift: ‘Journalists Flock to Bluesky as X Becomes Increasingly ‘Toxic’
Kat Tenbarge, tech and culture reporter for NBC News, filed an online story Saturday, “Journalists flock to Bluesky as X becomes increasingly ‘toxic’ — Journalists are finding more readers and less hate on Bluesky than on the platform they used to know as Twitter.”
As long as you follow the liberal line, that is.
Tenbarge opened with a journalist and Bluesky fan:
When Ashton Pittman, an award-winning news editor and reporter, first joined the app Bluesky, he said, he was the only Mississippi journalist he knew to be using it. Until about five weeks ago, he said, that was the case. But now, Pittman said, there are at least 15 Mississippi journalists on Bluesky as it becomes a preferred platform for reporters, writers, activists and other groups who have become increasingly alienated by X.
The same outlets who refused to see the clear evidence before their eyes of conservatives being throttled on Jack Dorsey-led Twitter are muttering about supposed suppression by Musk.
Since Elon Musk bought Twitter, has turned the platform into an increasingly difficult place for journalists, and many had come to suspect that the platform had begun to suppress the reach of posts that include links to external websites. On Sunday, Musk confirmed the platform has deprioritized posts including links, which was how journalists and other creators historically shared their work. But four journalists told NBC News that after millions of users migrated to Bluesky, an alternative that resembles a pared-back version of X, after the election, they are rebuilding their audiences there, too.
Surprise! Liberal media outlets are finding life more congenial in the BlueSky echo chamber, where there’s little conservative pushback or disagreement.
Story
Birds of a feather flock together. This time it’s in the cesspool. Bluesky will never be X or Truth Social. That is the relevant place to be. Just look at the views and downloads. Just because they are butt-hurt by the election and no one trusts them anymore, they go to a safe place.
That shields the rest of the world from their lies and misreporting during their Trump-hating rants against the USA. We are all better off with them gone.
There is a new paradigm in the media and the alphabet networks and NY Times have been left behind, they just don’t know it yet
After two years of fawning press coverage and promises that the international war-crimes prosecutor would finally put Donald Trump behind bars, the special counsel today hammered the final nail in his own battered coffin by dropping his four-count J6-related indictment in Washington against the incoming president.
The move represents yet another failure by the Democratic apparatchik who once ran the Department of Justice’s public integrity unit under the Obama administration. Since then, Smith has been on a losing streak unmatched in DOJ history, suffering one loss after another before the Supreme Court and trial courts; in 2016, SCOTUS unanimously overturned the bribery conviction of Bob McDonnell, the former Republican governor of Virginia, a case Smith brought in 2014. Smith also failed to secure convictions in his prosecutions of former Senator John Edwards in 2012 and former Senator Robert Menendez in 2015.
This year, the highest court rebuked Smith on three separate occasions. First, the court rejected Smith’s rarely-used and desperate request to bypass the D.C. appellate court in considering the presidential immunity question and decide the matter quickly in an attempt to get the J6 case to trial before the election. The court a few months later reversed how the DOJ applied 18 USC 1512(c)(2), the post-Enron document destruction statute that represented two of the four counts in the J6 indictment against Trump. And on July 1, the court issued its landmark opinion in Trump v US, which gutted the J6 case by concluding most of the conduct cited in the indictment represented official acts protected by presidential immunity.
If the DOJ had a Hall of Shame, it would be named after Jack Smith.
If the CDC concentration Covid camps weren’t bad enough (see the post below this) To the surprise of only the most clueless, DEI ideology has been found to hurt everyone, including the identity groups it ostensibly helps at the expense of the rest of us. Still less surprising, the media has attempted to suppress this information.
A study published Monday by the Network Contagion Research Institute and Rutgers University provided strong justification for why Americans should dismantle the remainder of the DEI regime sooner rather than later, noting that race-obsessed programming is divisive, counterproductive, and helps create authoritarians.
From the study:
“DEI initiatives seen as affirmative action rather than business strategy can provoke backlash, increasing rather than reducing racial resentment. And diversity initiatives aimed at managing bias can fail, sometimes resulting in decreased representation and triggering negativity among employees.”
That is not a bug but the main feature of DEI. Cultural Marxism rests upon the increasingly obvious lie that favored groups are oppressed by bigotry. To prop up their failed ideology, liberals must create resentment.
The broader goal of DEI and Cultural Marxism in general is to provide a framework for left-wing totalitarianism:
“[A]n emerging body of research warns that [DEI] interventions may foster authoritarian mindsets, particularly when anti-oppressive narratives exist within an ideological and vindictive monoculture,” said the study. “The push toward absolute equity can undermine pluralism and engender a (potentially violent) aspiration of ideological purity.”
No monoculture was ever more ideological and vindictive than that of woke liberals.
The paper concluded, “The evidence presented in these studies reveals that while purporting to combat bias, some anti-oppressive DEI narratives can engender a hostile attribution bias and heighten racial suspicion, prejudicial attitudes, authoritarian policing, and support for punitive behaviors in the absence of evidence for a transgression deserving punishment.”
Speaking of the monoculture of woke liberals, the media establishment reacted to the study by refusing to acknowledge it:
Thank the Lord it got exposed. The fact that they planned this should tell you how evil the deep state and the WEF people really are. What are we, Germany in the 1930’s?
Here is a taste of what these bastards were planning and a link to read as far as you can stand before you want to strangle them.
This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings. This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available. Please check the CDC website periodically for updates. What is the Shielding Approach ? The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting. They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.
It was undoubtedly planned to be permanent and nationwide if not worldwide. Instead, the scheme had to be dialed back.
Features of the CDC’s edicts did incredible damage. It imposed the rent moratorium. It decreed the ridiculous “six feet of distance” and mask mandates. It forced Plexiglas as the interface for commercial transactions. It implied that mail-in balloting must be the norm, which probably flipped the election. It delayed the reopening as long as possible. It was sadistic.
Even with all that, worse was planned. On July 26, 2020, with the George Floyd riots having finally settled down, the CDC issued a plan for establishing nationwide quarantine camps. People were to be isolated, given only food and some cleaning supplies. They would be banned from participating in any religious services. The plan included contingencies for preventing suicide. There were no provisions made for any legal appeals or even the right to legal counsel.
The plan’s authors were unnamed but included 26 footnotes. It was completely official. The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy.
It was called “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings.”
Donald Trump may have won the presidency, but Dr. Naomi Wolf isn’t resting on her laurels. Rather, the author of “The Pfizer Papers” is continuing her fight for freedom and truth while exposing the corrupt relationship between Big Pharma, health care, and the United States government.
However, her eyes weren’t always so open.
“I certainly, in the pandemic, saw that the people I’d voted for turned out to be horrible tyrants,” Wolf tells Rick and Bubba of “Rick and Bubba University.” “They censored me when I was trying to warn women accurately about damage to their fertility from the Pfizer injection.”
“I got deplatformed and ousted from that world,” she explains, noting that a successful lawsuit led by attorney Aaron Siri led to the release of Pfizer documents that opened her eyes even further.
“450,000 internal documents released under court order that the FDA had asked the court to keep hidden for 75 years,” Wolf says. “It turns out the FDA was waving through the biggest crime against humanity in recorded history, and you know, more investigations on our team’s part found that the White House knew.”
“There was a massive collusion by the very people I’d voted for, in ushering in an injection about which they lied to us, that was sterilizing and disabling and killing people in massive numbers,” she adds.
“Did you just find it strange that we rushed this in? Was the need and the panic by the public for an answer part of this that forced us to jump through so many hoops so fast?” Bubba asks.
“I was hoping when I went into this project that that’s what I would find. Just the usual story of greedy corporations cutting corners, rushing to meet a deadline, because of a putative, epidemic, emergency. That’s not what the Pfizer papers reveal,” Wolf answers.
“Unfortunately, they reveal months and months and months and months before the vaccine was rolled out, in which Pfizer was identifying many, many ways to injure, damage, and destroy the functions of the human body with, again, a special focus on reproduction,” she continues, adding, “It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.”
So here’s the deal – remember when “experts” kept telling us what to do during COVID?
Turns out they got pretty much everything wrong. Like, spectacularly wrong.
We’re talking 19 major things they completely screwed up, from how the virus spreads to whether masks actually work (spoiler alert: those cloth masks were basically fashion accessories).
Dr. Fauci is the patron saint of TERRIBLE COVID policies.
He was wrong on SO MANY POINTS. It’s time to set the record straight…
Did he get anything right?
Origin of the disease—wrong
Transmission—wrong
Asymptomatic spread—wrong
PCR testing—wrong
Fatality rate—wrong
Lockdowns—wrong
Community triggers—wrong
Business closures—wrong
School closures—wrong
Quarantining the healthy—wrong
Impact on youth—wrong
Hospital overload—wrong
Plexiglass barriers—wrong
Social distancing—wrong
Outdoor spread—wrong
Masks—wrong
Variant impact—wrong
Natural immunity—wrong
Vaccine efficacy—wrong
Vaccine injury—wrong
Last year the Norfolk Group just dropped a bomb of a document laying out all these failures. And it’s not just Monday morning quarterbacking – they’ve got the receipts. Real studies showing how natural immunity was actually legit (while Fauci pretended it didn’t exist), data proving schools could’ve stayed open (looking at you, Sweden), and evidence that maybe, just maybe, locking healthy people in their homes wasn’t the brilliant strategy they claimed.
Listen, I’m not here to say “I told you so” (okay, maybe a little), but we need to talk about this. Because if we don’t learn from how badly our “experts” messed up, we’re just asking for a repeat performance next time around. And honestly? I don’t think any of us can handle another round of plexiglass theater and double masking.
Let’s break down exactly how they got it wrong, and more importantly, why they kept doubling down even when the evidence said otherwise. Buckle up – this is gonna be a wild ride through the greatest public health face-plant in modern history.
Look at the money being waisted on salaries for worse race relations. This has got to go.
The University of Michigan’s (UM) multi-million dollar diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) program may soon be dismantled.
The university’s board of regents has reportedly asked UM president Santa Ono “to defund or restructure” the DEI office amid growing criticism and public pressure, according to emails shared on X. The board is expected to vote on the matter on Dec. 5.
Despite UM investing $250 million into DEI since 2016, students and faculty have reported a deteriorating campus climate since the program began and are less likely to interact with people of a different race, religion or political ideology, though these are “the exact kind of engagement[s] D.E.I. programs, in theory, are meant to foster,” the article stated. Attempts to create a more diverse campus also fell flat, with black enrollment at the university remaining a steady 5%.
The program also created a “culture of grievance,” with the office’s conception coinciding with an “explosion” of complaints on campus involving race, gender and religion, the NYT reported. Meanwhile, nearly 250 university employees were engaged in some form of DEI efforts on campus.
DEI staff cost the university approximately $30.68 million annually, with the average salary reaching $96,400, according to Mark Perry, an American Enterprise Institute scholar. Several DEI employees are paid more than $200,000 a year, while the department’s head makes upwards of $400,000.
RUSH: Well, happy Thanksgiving, everybody. I hope it is as great as you want it to be, getting together with family, friends, hangers-on, people that got nothing to do trying to horn in on your action, whatever it is. Well, you know that happens. You get a call, “Hey, what are you doing for Thanksgiving?”
“Ah, got the family coming over. What are you doing?”
“Nothing.”
“Really? You want to come over with us?”
“Yeah! Yeah! I would love that.” Whatever happens, whatever’s going on with you, we hope it’s a great one. Do you realize next year will be the 400th anniversary of Thanksgiving? Four hundred years since the Pilgrims arrived without guaranteed reservations at Plymouth Rock.
Greetings, my friends. Welcome to the Thanksgiving edition of Rush Limbaugh program. We are going to do what we always do. We will recite to you the real story of Thanksgiving as first written about by me in my best-seller, See, I Told You So, Chapter 6: “Dead White Guys, or What the History Books Never Told You. The True Story of Thanksgiving.”
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Look at this, folks. I went to the computer during the break just to check and see if anything had happened, and I got a message. I got a message from the guy that used to mow my lawn when I lived in Kansas City. When I lived in that shack and worked for the Royals, I couldn’t pay anybody to mow the lawn, but I was able to get him Royals tickets. His name is Dan. So I got a message from Dan. He says, “I wish you could see this. Maria and I are driving out to Colorado Springs.”
They live in Kansas City still. They’re driving out to Colorado Springs for a wedding over Thanksgiving. “I’m in the backseat of the minivan because I’m rehabbing from a hip replacement. Anyway, five minutes ago, I hear this cheer. Maria cheers like the Chiefs have won the Super Bowl. But of course the Chiefs haven’t won the Super Bowl. No, it was because you are on live today. No guest host! Our minivan is cheering that you’re there. So bless you. Have a great Thanksgiving.”
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Happy Thanksgiving to one and all from all of us. And, of course, this begins the — here, anyway, the official beginning of the holiday season, which is a great time of year. But you know what suffers during the holiday season is normalcy. You’ve got less action happening than normally does, business is slowed down in a sense. I mean, sales pick up, hopefully. But conflicting times, but we hope it’s joyous for all of you, as joyous as it can be.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We’re here on Thanksgiving eve as we start the holiday season. It’s an annual tradition. It’s actually not quite 30 years now we’ve been reading from my second book, See, I Told You So, Chapter 6: “Dead White Guys, or What the History Books Never Told You: The True Story of Thanksgiving.” I also have George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation, the very first one, and also the truth of how the Indians screwed the Pilgrims out of Manhattan. Everybody thinks that we screwed the Indians and gave ’em a bunch of garbage for Manhattan.
It’s the other way around, actually — and it’s something I look forward to every year. And you know what? Despite doing it every year, with millions and millions and millions of people having heard it, there’s still a bunch of caca out there about Thanksgiving. I mentioned earlier that the College Fix website has a headline: “Students say it’s NOT okay to celebrate Thanksgiving,” that it’s “‘based off of the genocide of indigenous people.’”
What’s being done to young skulls full of mush via the education system in our country and cumulatively over decades is nothing less than obscene. Yesterday at the College Fix website, they posted a video where their correspondent, Kyle Hooten, interviewed students at Macalester College, St. Paul, Minnesota, and asked them about Thanksgiving, and here’s about 45 seconds of it…
WOMAN #1: I think that, like, Thanksgiving has been misconstrued a lot, especially in textbooks, and it’s kind of just based off of the genocide of indigenous people. And I don’t really any that we actually give thanks on Thanksgiving. We just eat a bunch of food and a bunch of capitalist bulls(bleep)t.
HOOTEN: Is it okay to celebrate Thanksgiving?
MAN #1: Nnnno. It’s probably not as bad as Christmas or Easter but, like, I don’t know.
HOOTEN: So what do you think the real Thanksgiving story is?
MAN #2: I don’t know what it is (snickers) ’cause I wasn’t there and ’cause I don’t have the — all the historical information.
WOMAN #2: I mean, the public school education — ugh! — tells you that this Thanksgiving was this great meeting where, you know, the Native Americans showed the Pilgrims how to, you know, grow corn — and obviously that’s not true. But what legitimately happened on Thanksgiving? I have no idea.
RUSH: If you have no idea, then what the hell was the answer, “Well, you know, what’s being taught is we gave thanks to the Indians gave thanks, the Indians teaching how to grow corn, maize, popcorn, and all that”? It is amazing when you stop and think about it. I don’t know what you were taught about Thanksgiving, but I was taught a version that goes like this: The Pilgrims showed up, and they were incompetents. They were well-intentioned good-hearted people but incompetent, and they didn’t know how to do anything. They were stumbling and bumbling around in a foreign place, had no idea even where they were.
And as they’re on the verge of starvation, the Indians stumbled upon ’em — across them — and showed them how to basically live, gave them everything, showed them how to grow crops and kill turkey and build tepees and stuff, and so the Pilgrims survived, and we were giving thanks, that Thanksgiving is to acknowledge the Indians’ role in saving the first Pilgrims. Now, it’s a quaint story, and it has attached itself to a number of people, but it is nothing to do…
Well, I can’t say that it’s nothing to do, but it is very far removed from what the first Thanksgiving is really about. Thanksgiving. George Washington first proclaimed it, Thanksgiving. Well, who was thanking who for what? That’s the root of the error. The root of it is that the Pilgrims must have been giving thanks to the Indians for saving them. That’s not what the Pilgrims were thankful for, as you will soon hear.
“The story of the Pilgrims begins in the early part of the seventeenth century (that’s the 1600s for those of you in Rio Linda, California). The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority.” The first Pilgrims were Christian rebels, folks. “Those who challenged [King James’] ecclesiastical authority and those who believed strongly in freedom of worship were hunted down, imprisoned, and sometimes executed for their beliefs” in England in the 1600s.
“A group of separatists,” Christians who didn’t want to buy into the Church of England or live under the rule of King James, “first fled to Holland and established a community” of themselves there. “After eleven years, about forty of them” having heard about this New World Christopher Columbus had discovered, decided to go. Forty of them “agreed to make a perilous journey to the New World, where [they knew] they would certainly face hardships, but” the reason they did it was so they “could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences” and beliefs.
“On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims,” now known as Pilgrims, “led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established” how they would live once they got there. The contract set forth “just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs,” or political beliefs. “Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible.
The Pilgrims were a “devoutly religious people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work.” They believed in God. They believed they were in the hands of God. As you know, “this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey” to the New World on the tiny, by today’s standards, sailing ship. It was long, it was arduous.
There was sickness, there was seasickness, it was wet. It was the opposite of anything you think of today as a cruise today on the open ocean. When they “landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford’s detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves.” There was nothing.
“[T]he sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims — including Bradford’s own wife — died of either starvation, sickness or exposure.” They endured that first winter. “When spring finally came,” they had, by that time, met the indigenous people, the Indians, and indeed the “Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers” and other animals “for coats.” But there wasn’t any prosperity. “[T]hey did not yet prosper!” They were still dependent. They were still confused. They were still in a new place, essentially alone among likeminded people.
“This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than what it really was. That happened, don’t misunderstand. That all happened, but that’s not — according to William Bradford’s journal — what they ultimately gave thanks for. “Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract” that they made on the Mayflower as they were traveling to the New World…
They actually had to enter into that contract “with their merchant-sponsors in London,” because they had no money on their own. The needed sponsor. They found merchants in London to sponsor them. The merchants in London were making an investment, and as such, the Pilgrims agreed that “everything they produced to go into a common store,” or bank, common account, “and each member of the community was entitled to one common share” in this bank. Out of this, the merchants would be repaid until they were paid off.
“All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well.” Everything belonged to everybody and everybody had one share in it. They were going to distribute it equally.” That was considered to be the epitome of fairness, sharing the hardship burdens and everything like that. “Nobody owned anything. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the ’60s and ’70s out in California,” and other parts of the country, “and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way.
“Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that” it wasn’t working. It “was as costly and destructive…” His own journals chronicle the reasons it didn’t work. “Bradford assigned a plot of land” to fix this “to each family to work and manage,” as their own. He got rid of the whole commune structure and “assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage,” and whatever they made, however much they made, was theirs. They could sell it, they could share it, they could keep it, whatever they wanted to do.
What really happened is they “turned loose” the power of a free market after enduring months and months of hardship — first on the Mayflower and then getting settled and then the failure of the common account from which everybody got the same share. There was no incentive for anybody to do anything. And as is human nature, some of the Pilgrims were a bunch of lazy twerps, and others busted their rear ends. But it didn’t matter because even the people that weren’t very industrious got the same as everyone else. Bradford wrote about how this just wasn’t working.
“What Bradford and his community found,” and I’m going to use basically his own words, “was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else… [W]hile most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years — trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it — the Pilgrims decided early on,” William Bradford decided, “to scrap it permanently,” because it brought out the worst in human nature, it emphasized laziness, it created resentment.
Because in every group of people you’ve got your self-starters you’ve got your hard workers and your industrious people, and you’ve got your lazy twerps and so forth, and there was no difference at the end of the day. The resentment sprang up on both sides. So Bradford wrote about this. “‘For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.
“For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense,’” without any payment, “‘that was thought injustice.’ Why should you work for other people when you can’t work for yourself? What’s the point? … The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive.
“So what did Bradford’s community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result? ‘This had very good success,’ wrote Bradford, ‘for it made all hands [everybody] industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.’ …
“Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s. … In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves. Now, this is where it gets really good, folks, if you’re laboring under the misconception that I was, as I was taught in school. So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London.
“And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the ‘Great Puritan Migration.’” The word of the success of the free enterprise Plymouth Colony spread like wildfire and that began the great migration. Everybody wanted a part of it. There was no mass slaughtering of the Indians. There was no wiping out of the indigenous people, and eventually — in William Bradford’s own journal — unleashing the industriousness of all hands ended up producing more than they could ever need themselves.
So trading post began selling and exchanging things with the Indians — and the Indians, by the way, were very helpful. Puritan kids had relationships with the children of the Native Americans that they found. This killing the indigenous people stuff, they’re talking about much, much, much, much later. It has nothing to do with the first thanksgiving.
The first Thanksgiving was William Bradford and Plymouth Colony thanking God for their blessings. That’s the first Thanksgiving. Nothing wrong with being grateful to the Indians; don’t misunderstand. But the true meaning of Thanksgiving — and this is what George Washington recognized in his first Thanksgiving proclamation.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Thank you for being with us today, folks. Have a great rest of the Thanksgiving weekend. And know without doubt how truly thankful for you I personally am and all of us are. Never forget it. Can’t say it enough that we love you. See you back here on Monday. We will be here.
According to the New York Post, transgender activists are “reconsidering their abrasive approach as public support slips.”
Citing a New York Times piece (itself titled “Transgender Activists Question the Movement’s Confrontational Approach”), it seems that some members of the LGBT community are none too pleased with the more hysterical fringes of the “trans” movement.
Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, executive director of Advocates for Transgender Equality, told the Times that shaming people into embracing transgenderism appeared to be backfiring.
“We have to make it OK for someone to change their minds,” Heng-Lehtinen told the Times. “We cannot vilify them for not being on our side.
“No one wants to join that team.”
The director added: “No one wants to feel stupid or condescended to.”
This essay was first published on Daily Pundit in 2017. More applicable now than then, I think.
——
I have one. You have one. We all have a tard in our family circle. If you’re lucky it’s not a blood relative, just a boyfriend or in-law, but they’ll be showing up at the big family get-together for Thanksgiving.
Not just any tard, either. A Progtard.
They’re sort of like the Terminator: They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. And they absolutely will not stop, ever.
Unlike the Terminator, progtards aren’t dangerous except in large groups or if they’re in the position to ambush you from behind or to file a bogus complaint with your employer. Progtards are mostly pathetic, and they’re even more amusingly pathetic when they’re angry and self-righteous.
Herewith, a guide for dealing with the tard at the table. This will be most useful if you have someone to work with, someone contemptuous of sloppy thinking, of feeeewings, and of self-entitlement.
(If you’re the sole hard thinker at the table and you’re surrounded by progtards, you can still use these suggestions, but I wouldn’t bother. I’d just grab the carving knife and lay into everyone at the table. But that’s just me.)
College Mockery
Mocking modern education — indoctrination, rather — is a good place to start. Many progtards are in college or have recently gotten out. (I’m not saying “graduated” because so many don’t, especially not within the old normal of four years.) This is in large part due to many people being soft-headed progs before they grow up and get the stupid knocked out of them. College is for most a prolonged childhood that allows them to avoid growing up. It certainly doesn’t educate them in any meaningful sense. And it costs an arm and a leg.
Thus, our first line of attack.
(Remember, we’re not trying to enlighten the progtards. That’s hopeless. All we’re doing is entertaining ourselves by getting them all riled up.)
“So, how much does your college cost per year? That much? Wow. How can you afford that?”
This can lead to criticism about mooching off of parents or taxpayers. That’s unlikely to impact the progtard directly, on account of an inflated sense of entitlement, but might help to get others on your side.
“How much are you having to borrow every year? Ouch. So you’ll be a hundred grand in debt. Oh, it’s taking you six years to graduate? A hundred fifty grand. Wow. That going to be, what, a grand a month for twenty years?”
“So, how are you going to make a living so you can pay that off and still have a place to live and get a car and stuff?”
“That’s a good goal, but how are you going to get there from here? How do you get your foot in the door to get started? Is your BA in Music History going to get you a job at all? Will it let you pay your school loans? ”
“Wouldn’t you have been better off not going to college? You could have lived at home, interned for minimum wage or even for free for a working musician, gotten some real experience, and not had any debt when you were done.”
“Does anyone really think that degree is worth anything? Why did you even bother getting it?”
“My nephew did two years of electrical tech in community college, lived at home, and worked part time to pay for it. He got a job with the power company straight out of school. He didn’t have any debt and he just bought his first house. He’s twenty-three years old.”
There’s meat left on those bones, but that’s enough to start the poo flying.
Communism, Socialism, and Progressivism
Don’t miss the chance to bring up the repeated failures of socialism and its inbred kin. You can’t quite say that every progtard truly believes that socialism et al would make the world a better place, but if you did say that you’d be off by only a few. Note the comment above about getting the stupid knocked out of you — socialism and such are stupid ideas that sound like they should work, and they sure do appeal to the lazy and untalented and envious, and you don’t realize they don’t work until you’ve had the stupid knocked out of you by the real world. Students, educators, bureaucrats, and some other so-called adults who have lived their lives as hothouse flowers never quite learn that a lot of nice-sounding ideas don’t actually work.
“You know the amazing thing about socialism? It’s so good at destroying wealth that it doesn’t matter if everyone’s equal. They’re poorer than even the poor people in the oh-so-unequal capitalist countries.”
“No, I take that back. The most amazing thing about socialism and communism is the number of people they’ve killed.”
“Tell me, how many more times does socialism need to be tried before it’s ‘real’?”
“Have you ever noticed how often socialist countries have to be bailed out by capitalist countries after natural disasters? Why doesn’t it ever go the other way?”
“Socialized medicine. What a cute idea! Too bad it never works for long. Back in the 1980s, American socialists pointed at England’s national health system as the best example of how nationalized medicine would work for everyone. Then when that started to show problems, they started pointing to Canada. Canada’s socialized medicine had just started and looked good … until rationing and problems became obvious a few years later. Now anyone wanting to show an example of socialized medicine done right has to just lie about all the problems it has everywhere. But next time for sure, right?”
Keeping the Poo Flying
There are a few miscellaneous poo bombs you can throw if the conversation and acrimony are slowing down.
Che really was a cowardly murderer, you know.
Wouldn’t it be neat if the global warming scientists would show their data and algorithms so it could be peer reviewed?
Yes, that short, blue hair does make a statement. It says, I’m going to be a lonely cat lady before I’m forty.
Aw, competition isn’t fair because it means that not everyone will be a winner? Aw, let me call you a wambulance.
You’re right, things are different than when I was young. When I was your age, it was almost impossible to make a living unless you worked for someone. Going into business for yourself took a lot of money to open a store front or you had to be in a big city or be willing to travel all the time. Now you can write software or books or make videos or do odd jobs all over the world for basically no money down. You have it so much easier now.
I wish that women only were paid 79 cents on the dollar. I’d fire all my male employees, hire all women, and save big bucks on payroll.
Why is it cultural appropriation for me to eat tacos, but it’s ok for Mexicans to wear blue jeans and use cell phones?
And lots and lots more, but we’re up to 1200 words, and that’s plenty enough.
I’m stuck at a family dinner that I thought I’d get out of, but no, I have to be there.
How long can you talk shit about half the country before they get fed up? How long can you brag about the stock market while many Americans struggle at the grocery store and gas pump? How about hurricane victims getting ignored while illegals are put up in luxury hotels? I guess we found out.
Former NBC journo Brian Williams appeared on the Seth Meyers show this week and suggested that Democrats have completely lost the working class, which is true, and that it happened because Democrats kept gaslighting the public which was insulting.
He points to the way Democrats kept insisting that the economy was great while prices kept rising to ridiculous levels. He mentions the fact that the border was completely overrun while Democrats insisted that it was under control.
He cites other examples, but it’s all the same theme.
Seth Meyers Goes Quiet as Ex-NBC Anchor Torches Democrats for ‘Insulting’ the Working Class
“It is tough love time for the Democratic Party. I think it needs to be stripped down and rebuilt.”
Here’s how they alienated working-class voters, according to Brian Williams:
1. Ignoring Rising Costs: “A 12-pack of Bounty [paper towels] is $40. Rich folks don’t feel that. Poor folks already switched to Sparkle during the COVID lockdown.”
2. Touting Stock Market Success While Ignoring Economic Hardship for Regular People: “I think telling them that the Nasdaq is gangbusters is further insulting. It’s insulting.”
3. Downplaying Border Issues: “I think the biggest unforced error of the Biden administration by far was the border…. To tell people it’s not a problem is insulting.”
4. Providing Benefits to Migrants While Ignoring Citizens: “For the working class to see incoming migrants getting welcome bags, debit cards, and motel rooms is probably insulting as well.”
5. Failing to Address Biden’s Cognitive Decline: “I want to know who thought it was a good idea that Joe Biden stand for another four years at 80 years of age and 37% popularity.”
Journalist Peter Lloyd said the ad “sends a clear and deliberate message to white Britons.”
The message does come off clear as day from Boots: White people are lazy and rely on the hard work of non-white workers — who are also nonbinary — to save the day.
Do you shop at Walgreens? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge via email. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
The viewer could also just take away the specifics and leave with the more general conclusion that you are hated and seen as lesser if you are white.
New Zealand journalist Dan Wootton spoke with Father Calvin Robinson last week on the former’s show, “Outspoke,” where Robinson pointed to Andoh’s past racist remarks about the royal family.
“Yes, it’s anti-white racism,” Robinson told him.
WBA stock was down over 10 percent Wednesday compared to five days ago, while competitor CVS Health Corp went up 5.3 percent in the past five days.
The decline led one X user to tell WBA, “Welcome to your ‘Budweiser’ moment.”
Click on the X post it if doesn’t come through, it’s cringeworthy. They deserve to be Bud Lighted.
Liberals who are in the throes of capitulation and despair after Donald Trump’s crushing electoral and popular vote win can lay blame for their disastrous loss at the feet of one man: Barack Hussein Obama.
Obama built the Trump wave. His failure to live up to the promises of his populist 2008 run has cursed the Democratic Party, probably for a generation. The Washington DC establishment in just two short months is going to get “scholonged” by an angry and vengeful Trump, ready to rain executive hellfire on the bureaucrats and institutions that have spent the last nine years fighting him tooth and nail.
All of this could have been prevented. In 2008, Obama swept into power with a crushing electoral college and popular vote majority. He won Iowa, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina. He even won Indiana. Democrats swept into power in Congress with a 74-seat lead in the House, nearly 59% of seats, and were gifted with a magical 60-seat filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate.
This was a generational victory, a sign that voters were fed up with politics as usual and the failures of the GOP and the Washington and Wall Street establishment as such. This victory wasn’t just about electing the first Black president, though that was important: The policies and platform at stake appealed deeply to voters.
It is worth remembering what exactly those policies were.
Obama promised to end the war in Iraq, end the Afghanistan war with honor, help the economy by reducing health care costs (prioritizing “Main Street” over Wall Street), and bring about a new era of racial harmony. Moreover, Obama explicitly eschewed radical leftist politics. He explicitly defended traditional marriage. In his DNC nomination speech, he condemned employers who “undercut American wages by hiring illegal workers.”
Obama ran a campaign on bringing “change” to DC. He made much of his status as a newcomer who lacked the “typical pedigree” of a candidate for the nation’s highest office.
Put another way, Obama won a decisive victory in 2008 by campaigning as a Washington outsider bent on ending foreign wars, boosting the economy by helping ordinary people, and being a moderate on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. Does this message sound familiar? It should.
Oh FFS. Marxists Killed the queers and had no use for them. When will this woke crap stop? Are they trying to do to the Ivy League what the Liberals did to the Democrat Party?
Cornell University students can take a course on “Queer Marxism” next semester that asks questions such as “Are queer theory and Marxism truly irreconcilable.”
The course description stated that the course will compare two visions of society that many have thought could not be joined.
“While queer studies emerged in part as a rejection of Marxism’s totalizing approach and Marxists have criticized the queer emphasis on individuals, this seminar explores the potential of bringing the two fields together,” it says.
The course will not explore this possible union of the two theories by one taking over the other. Students will study a dual influence, examining the effect of one theory on the other, and vice versa.
“We will consider how queer critiques of reproductive futurism, racial capitalism, and homonationalism can transform the legacy of Marxist theory and practice,” the description says. “At the same time, we will examine Marxist notions of totality, reification, and value to re-envision the scope of queer politics.”
Students will further examine the principles of queer and marxist theory as they manifest in historical examples. “After covering these key Marxist and queer theoretical concepts, the seminar will turn to transnational Marxist debates on gender and sexuality in Weimar Germany and the Soviet Union,” the course says.
The university’s Feminist, Gender & Sexuality Studies Program is offering Queer Marxism. The program’s mission is to “to address some of the most important issues the world faces today,” particularly “by offering students the opportunity to study a wide range of fields from the perspectives of feminist and LGBTQIA critical analysis, in global and local contexts and with the purpose of promoting social justice.”
The raw facts are these: As of 1960, 51 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were married and living with their husbands, another 20 percent were divorced, widowed, or separated, and only 28 percent had never been married. Twenty years later, only 31 percent of black women in these age brackets were married and living with their husbands, while 48 percent had never married.
By 1994, an absolute majority—56 percent—of black women in these age brackets were never married and only 25 percent were married and living with their husbands.186 Accordingly, while two-thirds of black children were living with both parents in 1960, only one-third were by 1994. While only 22 percent of black children were born to unmarried women in 1960, 70 percent were by 1994.
White liberals, instead of comparing what has happened to the black family since the liberal welfare state policies of the 1960s were put into practice, compare black families to white families and conclude that the higher rates of broken homes and unwed motherhood among blacks are due to “a legacy of slavery.” But why the large-scale disintegration of the black family should have begun a hundred years after slavery is left unexplained.
A House committee report revealed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ $900 million “We Can Do This” COVID campaign was flawed and claimed COVID shots prevented transmission despite FDA stating there was no such evidence
CDC’s shifting mask guidelines and reversals on recommendations damaged public trust, with changes appearing politically motivated rather than based on scientific evidence
The government aggressively promoted COVID shots for children despite low risk levels, using emotional manipulation and fear-based messaging through the Fors Marsh Group PR firm
Clinical trial studies showed significant bias in measuring COVID shot effectiveness, with case-counting window bias making ineffective shots appear 50% to 70% effective
Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials revealed higher risks of serious adverse events than initially reported, with Pfizer showing 36% higher risk compared to placebo groups
The U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee released an assessment of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) COVID-19 public health campaign, revealing it was fraught with miscalculations that set the stage for widespread public distrust.1
In December 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the first COVID-19 shots, yet these authorizations clearly stated there was no evidence the shots prevented viral transmission. Despite this, the administration launched the “We Can Do This” Campaign, spending over $900 million to promote vaccine uptake and public health measures.
However, foundational issues plagued the campaign from the beginning. Past contracts and fiscal mismanagement within HHS raised red flags about the effectiveness and integrity of their public relations efforts. As the campaign aimed to shape public behavior around masking, social distancing and vaccination, the reliance on flawed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance undermined its credibility.
By allowing CDC recommendations to drive public messaging, the administration sowed confusion and mistrust. These early failures were not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of inconsistent and politically influenced public health strategies that ultimately eroded the very trust needed to effectively manage a public health crisis.
Overstating COVID-19 Shot Efficacy — A Critical Misstep
When COVID-19 shots were introduced, Americans were told to believe they were not only preventing illness but also halting the virus’ transmission. However, this narrative quickly unraveled, as there was no evidence that vaccines prevented transmission. Despite this, the CDC and the “We Can Do This” campaign promoted the idea that only vaccinated individuals could safely forego masks and social distancing.
This overstated efficacy became a significant issue as breakthrough infections began to rise, especially with the emergence of more transmissible variants like Delta. The administration’s insistence that vaccines stopped transmission contradicted the FDA’s original EUA terms and created a false sense of security.
When real-world data began to show that vaccinated individuals could still spread the virus, the CDC was forced to retract and revise its messaging, further damaging its credibility. This disconnect between official statements and emerging evidence betrayed the public’s trust.
Meanwhile, the report highlights how vaccine mandates became a contentious tool in the government’s strategy to control the pandemic.3 You saw federal, state and private employers enforcing COVID-19 shot requirements, often without clear, evidence-based justification. These shot mandates targeted millions, demonstrating the extent of overreach and coercion.
It wasn’t as if the Tar Heel State didn’t see Hurricane Helene coming. On Sept. 25, one day before Helene stormed ashore, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper declared a state of emergency as the storm’s path showed it churning northward toward Appalachia after making landfall in Florida.
The unprecedented, relentless downpour, falling on ground already saturated by rain the week before, tore old pines and hardwoods out by the roots, creating arboreal torpedoes that rocketed down the steep inclines; water that turned photogenic stony creeks into whitewater torrents, lifting ancient streambed boulders and tossing them like chips on to roads and into homes and buildings.
The storm left 230 people dead, nearly half of them in North Carolina, with dozens still missing as of early November.
As residents in Asheville, Chimney Creek, and other smaller communities continue to pick up from the carnage, after-action reports indicate government agencies at the federal and state levels were slow to react.
Interviews with several private relief groups that sprang into action after Helene, along with statistics provided by congressional sources, indicate that Cooper’s office and the Biden administration were slow to activate military personnel and assets like helicopters that were critical in the days after the storm.
In addition, budgetary moves and internal communications have also drawn questions about how the Federal Emergency Management Agency is spending its money and how it envisioned its purpose in a Biden administration suffused with “diversity, equity, and inclusion” mandates.
FEMA is also wrestling with revelations that politics had influenced some of its relief efforts. The agency fired a staffer who told crews to avoid houses in storm-damaged parts of Florida that displayed Donald Trump campaign signs. The dismissed worker said this week her orders were not an isolated incident and that FEMA avoided “politically hostile” zones in the Carolinas, too.
Here is the last paragraph, but the one that explains what is really wrong and how to fix it. The fans would come back to see this: —-> Until Star Wars is fun, masculine, cool, and sexy again (instead of prim, proper, woke, and preachy), the phenom is over. And it might be over regardless, because Kathleen Kennedy’s obsession with homosexuality and gender politics has drained the greatest franchise in Hollywood history of all its goodwill.
The groomers had slated December 18, 2026, for some untitled Star Wars piece of shit. But in a humiliating move, because everything Lucasfilm chief Kathleen Kennedy touches turns to shit, Ice Age 6 has been slotted in its place.
Our best guess is that this Star Wars piece of shit would have been a continuation of the Skywalker Saga starring Daisy Ridley’s Rey, a Mary Sue character absolutely no one cares about. After defeating the Empire in a 2019 Star Wars piece of shit called The Rise of Skywalker, this new piece of shit would have apparently had Rey rebuilding the Jedi Order, an order that almost certainly would have been made up of effeminate men, hairy guys in high heels, dumb dads, pronouns, land acknowledgments, and homely lesbians.
I’ve lost count of how many Star Wars projects have been announced and then canceled over the past few years. Wonder Woman director Patty Jenkins, Marvel chief Kevin Feige, Last Jedi director Rian Johnson, the Games of Thrones guys, directors James Mangold, Dave Filoni, Donald Glover, Taika Waititi, and Shawn Levy, have all come and gone, or at least faded.
Somehow, and I’m sure this has nothing to do with affirmative action, Kathleen Kennedy remains in charge. She destroys Star Wars, Willow, and Indiana Jones — but there she stands surrounded by her own smoking wreckage only because she has lady parts.
There has been no Star Wars feature film since 2019… Since the putrid Rise of Skywalker… To understand what a failure that is, you must remember that after acquiring Lucasfilm, Disney’s original stated goal was to release a Star Wars feature twice a year.
Next on the schedule is director Jon Favreau’s The Mandalorian and Grogu, a spin-off from a fading Disney+ streaming series that did this in its most recent season. That feature is scheduled for May of 2026. After that, another untitled Star Wars movie is scheduled for December 17, 2027.
Until Star Wars is fun, masculine, cool, and sexy again (instead of prim, proper, woke, and preachy), the phenom is over. And it might be over regardless, because Kathleen Kennedy’s obsession with homosexuality and gender politics has drained the greatest franchise in Hollywood history of all its goodwill.
Levi’s is as woke as they come. They are everything left and are in Bud Light territory for being hard to take.
Then this….
Going into the election, I was scolded by people telling me why what I was prioritizing in my voting choice was wrong. COVID-19 is over. Boys in girls’ sports isn’t happening. No one is getting censored. You’re getting it all wrong. Subtext: You’re an idiot influenced by far-right loons, and you’re a bigot to the core. What happened to you, Jen?
Here’s what happened to me. I get to care about what I want to care about. And for the last 10 years, the far Left has been not only telling us what we need to care about but smearing us and canceling us if we don’t agree.
We dissident former lefties have been called racists, misogynists, Nazis, grandma-killers, transphobes, bigots, and fascists and generally cast aside as unworthy of employment or membership in polite society. The election was a big middle finger to all of that.
The Left canceled too many of us.
The outcasts spoke up and rejected the crazy on Nov. 5. Sure, we may have chosen our own brand of crazy. But, that brand of crazy knows men and women are different, boys don’t belong in girls’ sports, inflation is real, free speech is the most fundamental right in a democracy, and Vice President Kamala Harris was installed, not elected, as the Democratic candidate.
Again, WordPress is giving me a hard time embedding X posts. Click on it to see how far the left and media have gone on DEI, racial quotas, and open borders and blamed it on the far right, liars.
Scientific Americanbills itself as an outlet that “covers the most important and exciting research, ideas and knowledge in science, health, technology, the environment and society. It is committed to sharing trustworthy knowledge, enhancing our understanding of the world, and advancing social justice” that “reaches more than 10 million people around the world each month.” On Thursday, editor-in-chief Laura Helmuth resigned after calling Donald Trump voters “fucking fascists.”
“The Board of Education is united in finding the teacher’s behavior reprehensible and unacceptable, and we are horrified and deeply offended by statements made in the video,” the statement reads in part. “As representatives of this community, we demanded an immediate response and are grateful to Superintendent, Dr. Solan and all parties involved for their swift actions to ensure a resolution. This incident has been treated with the utmost care, and every step taken has aligned with legal and ethical standards.”
First lady Jill Biden’s former press secretary blasted Democrats who label opponents of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) as racist this week after an MSNBC guest called President-elect Trump’s Secretary of Defense nominee a “White supremacist.”
“This s— has to stop,” Michael LaRosa, who served as the first lady’s press secretary from 2021 to 2022, posted on X in response to an MSNBC guest calling President-elect Trump’s Defense Secretary nominee and former Fox News host, Pete Hegseth, a “White supremacist” in response to his opposition to DEI policies.
“Opposing DEI initiatives does not make you a white supremacist. Conversations and demonization like this are a big part of the reason we got our a–es kicked,” he continued.
As always, Woke destroys everything it touches including liberals and the election in 2024.
Get woke, go broke, get fired, lose the election.
The examples like this keep rolling in. America is tired of this shit and just because we don’t agree doesn’t make anyone Hitler. It just makes the one calling someone Hilter an idiot
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy said Friday that Special Counsel Jack Smith proved the prosecutions of President-elect Donald Trump were intended as political weapons.
“They’re taking the position that the long-standing office of legal counsel guidance at the Justice Department [that] basically says that you can neither indict nor prosecute a sitting president,” McCarthy told “America Reports” co-host Sandra Smith. “They are conceding that President-elect Trump will be certified, that is, at the joint session of Congress which as we all know now, will be January 6th. His victory will be ratified, state-certified electoral votes will be ratified, he will for all intents and purposes be a sitting president as of January 20th. And they are taking the position that under those circumstances, the cases shouldn’t go forward.”
In the wake of President-elect Donald Trump’s victory, many liberals have announced they are leaving X. Tired of all the “disinformation” they encounter on the platform, they are convinced the time has come to delete their accounts.
It was all OK before Musk bought the biased and censored version of Twitter that discriminated against and banned conservative speech. Once it became a platform for free speech, it was not usable for liberals. They’re really Marxists now but identify as liberals.
NBC News reported that the day after the election, “115,414 accounts were deactivated,” the biggest one-day exodus since Elon Musk bought the platform.
Let’s see what Aristotle said about it:
Aristotle: ‘It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.’
In other words, you can listen, but don’t have to believe the other side. You could also be a critical thinker and know they were wrong, but not let it change your POV or be so butt-hurt that you had to act like a child and leave X for attention.
“Meanwhile, daily traffic to competitors Bluesky and Threads have jumped since the beginning of October.” NBC reporters spoke to six people who have left X for these platforms since Election Day. These individuals cited “growing issues on X, including bots, partisan ads, and harassment” as their reasons for leaving. Harassment likely means they were hit with a community note or someone on the platform disagreed with them.
Importantly, all six said the aforementioned issues “reached a tipping point when Trump won the election.”
In a separate article, NBC recounts the experience of former X user Kara Wurtz, a 39-year-old finance director in St. Louis. For Wurtz, “the day after the election was the ‘final straw.’” She claimed that, “under Musk’s leadership,” … X “became a place where I wasn’t really getting what I wanted out of it anymore.”
What she “wanted out of it” was validation of her own world view. Following Musk’s takeover, she was forced to hear opinions that differed from her own for the first time. That didn’t happen before Musk took over the platform.
“Every time I opened it up,” she said, “it would throw things at me that put me in a bad mood.”
Yes, the truth is like that.
Anyway, as the flight continues, some users are still on the fence. But there is one trait they all seem to share: their egos are the size of the Grand Canyon.
Joy Ried leaves X – because she can’t handle the negativity. Let’s not forget that she was 100% negative on Conservatives, Trump and Whites before leaving
They act like children who don’t get their way and take their ball and go home. In case they didn’t notice, they have no audience and cellar-dwelling ratings due to lying and disparagement.
I’d advise them to grow up and act like adults, sort of like half the country did for the last 4 years.
Tuesday’s defeat for the Democrats is raising a lot of questions in that party.
The questions they’re asking most are the most obvious ones: What went wrong? Where did the message fall short in mobilizing voters against President-elect Donald Trump?
An X user named HVAC1 — a self-described HVAC master and business owner — responded to a clip from MSNBC in which panelists were asking these questions. He gave the “simple answer” as “a former union democrat.”
“I’ll make it real simple for ya from a former union democrat… Easy fix. [Y]ou s**t on and insult working people from your mansions and gated communities. [Y]ou steal from us to give to your pet constituents. [Y]ou call us enemies and garbage, deplorable, and nazis…” he wrote.
He went on to make over a dozen additional points about Democrats ramping up inflation, threatening to pack the courts, lying constantly, forcing “sexual perversions and fetishes on us,” and so much more.
I often say that everything that Woke touches goes to hell, broke, or both. It is tough to stomach these people trying to ruin Western Civilization – also the definition of Marxism.
There were many reasons that President-elect Donald Trump won in such a resounding victory this week: inflation, the bewildering open border policy, the Afghanistan withdrawal humiliation, the world on fire, etc. But let’s not forget one of the top ones: This was a resounding defeat of wokeism.
Voters have rejected wokeism—defined here as an unhealthy obsession with viewing all of life as a struggle between oppressors and oppressed, or, as the woke would put it, being “awake” to the misfortunes of the marginalized.
Throughout her long public career, the vice president has embraced all the woke nostrums. She was particularly adept at describing equity—the government and the private sector treating Americans differently depending on their race—and how it is different from equality.
“So, there’s a big difference between equality and equity,” she voices over in a 2020 animated video. “Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.”
President Joe Biden spoke the word “equity” constantly, but he struggled with it, at times starting to say “equality” before catching himself. And he never described or defined in any way the thinking behind it—probably because he lacked the knowledge.
Harris, however, completely abandoned her views during the three months she ran for president, and the media, of course, never held her accountable.
This was a tacit admission that she understood how much the country hated the use of race to justify dismantling society or the promotion of the idea that the United States is systemically racist. Voters also happen to disagree with allowing males to use women’s bathrooms and allowing minors to surgically or chemically castrate themselves or remove other healthy body parts.
It is, of course, an open question whether Harris’ sudden march to the center on these issues was a political ruse and whether she would have turned around and promoted these policies once elected.
The Quran does not even mention Mecca, but rather uses the term Bekkah.
Once the laughter stopped, Stahl may have found it productive to engage in some good-old fashioned reporting to figure out what she “could do” to better understand the media’s abysmal ratings. And even more concerning, the loss of public trust. In her 53-year journalism career, she never thought she’d witness her once-premiere news program, “60 Minutes,” becoming increasingly irrelevant in a post-Trump election world. Ratings stayed in the toilet bowl, as one CBS executive noted, as the show pulled in a pitiful five million viewers in mid-November.
Delusions of Adequacy 
