Marriage Monday Memes – I thought this was one of the better ones, although I had to explain the pineapple juice reference to one of my friends. That tells me what I needed to know about his wife without him saying so.
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.
President-elect Donald Trump is poised to reignite global controversy by pulling the United States out of the World Health Organization (WHO) on his first day in office, January 20, 2025. According to a report from the Financial Times, Trump’s transition team is finalizing plans to sever ties with the global health agency, a move that would eliminate its largest single source of funding and reshape U.S. engagement in international health policy.
The decision, if executed, would fulfill a promise Trump made during his first presidency, where he accused the WHO of aligning too closely with China and failing in its global health leadership, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The U.S. contributes roughly 16% of the WHO’s $6.83 billion budget, a figure that underscores its importance as the organization’s top financial backer. Despite this, Trump has been one of the WHO’s most vocal critics, accusing it of failing to hold China accountable for the spread of COVID-19 and of being “China-centric.”
The WHO hates the US and was behind forcing the Jab on us when Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine would have worked better and more safely. Save the money and spend it on paying down the debt instead of these blood sucking ticks.
I hope he pulls out of the Paris Climate Accords also, another farce imposed on the world by the WEF.
Even after The Wall Street Journal published a four-byline bombshell detailing how Joe Biden’s staff energetically hid his ongoing cognitive decline from the public, there wasn’t a single question at the White House briefing. No reporters demanded answers about how they were misled, or complained they were pressured into silence.
They mustered that umbrage over the Hunter Biden pardon, but this slow-rolling scandal was apparently too painful to recount. Perhaps they thought that since Biden was talked out of a re-election bid, the matter was settled. This scandal is already over. But Trump scandals never stop emerging.
Radio host Hugh Hewitt proclaimed he had been calling Biden “infirm” for two years, but didn’t know the depth of the infirmity that’s now been revealed. Everyone inside the White House must have known, including the reporters. He said they were “either explicitly complicit or recklessly indifferent” to Biden’s decline.
Hewitt upset knee-jerk defenders of the media when he said “with the exception of Peter Doocy, I would ban everyone from the White House press room who has been there for the past four years, because they are obviously of no use to the country. They didn’t tell us the number one thing, which is that [Biden] is not competent. Why in the world would Trump let them in?”
The media is corrupt and is the propaganda arm of the democrat party. They are a bunch of Bagdad Bob’s telling us anything but what is really going on. They have an agenda and helping inform Americans isn’t it.
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.
When Barack Obama won the U.S. Presidency in 2008, there were claims of an insidious plot to turn America into a Communist-run nation, which was initially labeled as a “conspiracy theory.” Mike Adams, known as the Health Ranger, raised concerns about this plot during Obama’s first term in office, which later gained attention and credibility. Biden’s time in office has been likened to Obama’s third term, suggesting a continuation of the alleged Communist agenda. Various “conspiracy theories” have allegedly come true over the past four years, pointing to a government run by Democrat-Communists aiming to destroy America and the middle class. Many maniacal plots are attributed to Democrats, Liberals, and Globalists that include issues like vaccine push, assassination attempts, election corruption, and the replacement of Americans with illegal immigrants.
Top 10 maniacal plots conjured and propagated by Democrats, Liberals and Globalists over the past 4 years to try to wreck America and wipe out the middle class
#1. The deadliest vaccine push ever propagated on Americans – mRNA clot shots
#2. Two assassination attempts of President Trump
#3. The “mysterious” Drone-Gate psyop happening right now
#4. The coverup of the Hunter Biden “laptop from hell”
#5. The most corrupt election in U.S. history that put Biden in the White House and the FBI-created “insurrection” that falsely imprisoned hundreds of peaceful conservative protestors from January 6th, 2021
#6. Hiding Biden’s senility from the whole nation while he has the nuke codes
#7. Running a proxy war through Ukraine to funnel trillions of U.S. dollars using the Military Industrial Complex while instigating World War III with Russia
#8. Killing thousands (if not millions) of Americans in U.S. hospitals during the plandemic using “protocol” of isolation, Remdesivir, ventilators, and more clot shots.
#9. More than 4 MILLION ABORTIONS, many in the third term of pregnancy and some even on the day of birth, were performed to add to the genocide of Americans
#10. Replacing Americans with over 20 million illegal immigrants over the past 4 years
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.”
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.
The shooting of United Healthcare’s CEO, Bryan Thompson, has engrossed the public. The shooting itself was a well-planned and audacious act. But when police apprehended the handsome, Ivy League-educated killer, many were disappointed. They were rooting for him to escape.
The killing has proven more popular than I would have expected. Moreover, this popularity is not confined to the left wing. People across the spectrum have shared their frustrations with the healthcare system and found themselves sympathetic to the killer.
An All-American Murderer
When Luigi Mangione’s background and manifesto were revealed, he appeared to have a good life and a promising future. His social media suggested an intelligent freethinker, whose views and motives were neither clearly left- nor right-wing. He had his first significant encounter with the health system after a serious back injury, and the experience seems to have radicalized him.
His crime is a classic example of “propaganda by the deed.” People who acknowledge intellectually that murder is wrong seem totally unemotional about that conclusion. There’s widespread support for the shooter, while the victim has been dehumanized and reduced to a symbolic avatar for the industry and its sins.
Almost everyone has some story of being abused by the modern health insurance system. It’s even worse for the self-employed, who pay out of pocket for insurance. After paying premiums for years, the injured find themselves in a Kafkaesque battle with their insurance company over coverage, copays, and approved care.
The False Promise of Obamacare
It was not supposed to be this way.
Obamacare was supposed to provide universal coverage and make health care more affordable. After all, the law was called the Affordable Care Act. When the Obama administration proposed the law in 2009, it made many promises to sell it to the public and Congress.
One of the more famous ones was that “if you like your doctor, you can keep him.” Another was that if you like your insurance, you can keep that too. Finally, we were told this law would make us all healthier, as uninsured people would no longer wait until health problems became catastrophic before seeking care, typically in the emergency room.
This was the signature initiative of the Obama presidency, and the law has done none of these things. Care has become significantly more expensive. The quality of care has also gone down, with out-of-pocket expenses rising because of higher deductibles and out-of-pocket limits. Doctors are frequently dropped from plans, leaving patients unable to maintain continuity of care with those whom they have come to trust.
The country has not gotten any healthier, in spite of the enormous amount of money changing hands. The complexity of Obamacare has also led to the proliferation of highly paid billing specialists, administrators, and other overhead, none of which contributes directly to better care, but all of it costs money.
That MF looked right into the camera and lied to us. It’s what Marxists do. I’ve seen in the UK, EU and Canada that socialized or Government run healthcare just means less quality, longer waits for worse coverage and care. Obama only lied to the believers in him. I knew almost everything he said was a lie
Maybe we can stop Marxists like Obama and Kenji Brown from destroying America based on their free ride.
After the Supreme Court’s decision to axe unfair, DEI-driven, race-based admissions, some law schools are seeing a sharp decline in black and Hispanic students. The steepest drop is happening at Harvard. The so-called “pinnacle of excellence” sacrificed its reputation to prop up the left’s DEI charity agenda. Now, thanks to the Supreme Court, Harvard will be forced to admit students based on merit, not skin color—which is a win for everyone. After all, no one should want a handout they didn’t earn.
However, not everyone sees it that way. The folks over at The New York Times are tied up in knots over the decline in racist school admissions. Apparently, they’d rather universities pick students by skin color than by excellence—and they’re perfectly fine watching greatness take a nosedive across business, education, medicine, and beyond. And by the sound of their new article, it seems NYT is terrified there will be fewer Barack Obamas and Ketanji Brown Jacksons in the ranks.
We’ve covered the DEI disaster from every angle, and it all adds up to the same failed equation: your business, country, hospital, or university can’t be the best if you’re hiring subpar candidates just to fill a progressive “guilt quota.” We recently published a fascinating article exposing the truth about DEI Black students at Penn State. It’s a real eye-opener.
Isn’t it ironic how the left touts itself as the champion of fighting “disinformation,” yet they’re the ones silencing the truth and punishing anyone brave enough to speak out? This is especially true when it comes to topics like black crime statistics and DEI students who aren’t cutting the mustard. So, if you dare to talk about real, raw issues, especially involving black students, you’re instantly labeled a “racist,” blacklisted, and shut down. That’s exactly what’s happening to University of Pennsylvania Professor Amy Wax, who dared to discuss the fact that no black students made it into the top quarter of Penn Law School’s class of 2023.
Of all of Professor Amy Wax’s myriad sins against the Woke worldview, the one that seems to have gotten the Penn Law School administration most obsessively angry with her was what she told Brown U. economist Glenn Loury during a 2017 podcast discussing the “downside of affirmative action. According to CNN:
“Here is a very inconvenient fact Glenn, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class and rarely, rarely in the top half,” Wax told Brown University professor Glenn Loury in a video of the interview that recently gained attention.
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.
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.
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.
The red flags used to be tattooed (especially helter-skelter instead of artistic), hair dyed an unnatural color (green, pink, purple), excessive piercings, and cats.
The problem was that some of these girls might actually have been ok (all right, single digits).
Now, there is a 100% test for a girl who is certifiably nuts and you should avoid
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.
This writer regrets to inform you that leftists and Democrats were actually right.
Rampant racism and deeply embedded bigotry are alive and thriving in this country. The left has been tragically correct on this matter.
They just haven’t been particularly forthcoming about where all that racism and bigotry is coming from.
Spoiler alert: The call is coming from inside the house.
Soon-to-be former Democratic New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman — perhaps best known as an emasculated member of the progressive and anti-Semitic “squad” and/or Captain Fire Alarm and/or the jabroni who lost “the most expensive primary race ever” — took to the social media platform X on Tuesday to launch a vile (and yes, very racist) screed against white people.
Full disclosure: Not sure if you could tell by my last name, but I’m not white, so Bowman’s attack isn’t even directed at me. I still find it utterly abhorrent.
“Dear White People,” the defeated representative began. “I don’t know why I feel the need to keep talking to you. I don’t know why part of me still has hope for you and for us.
“Some of you are too far gone. But maybe enough of you aren’t and will join us in fighting to end white supremacy.”
“White supremacy,” you say? Surely Bowman has some concrete examples of this.
To give you an idea of Bowman’s room temperature IQ, his first example was immediately slapped with a Community Note:
go read it for yourself. It just goes to show you that if you discriminate based on skin color, any color, you are a racist
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.
Months before police identified Luigi Mangione as the man they suspect gunned down a top health insurance CEO and then seemingly vanished from Midtown Manhattan, another disappearing act worried his friends and family.
The 26-year-old scion of a wealthy Baltimore family who was a high school valedictorian and an Ivy League graduate, Mangione had maintained an active social media presence for years, posting smiling photos from his travels, sharing his weightlifting routine and discussing health challenges he faced.
He publicly kept track of nearly 300 books he had read or wanted to read, even posting a favorable review of the Unabomber manifesto on a book website.
story
Those institutions of indoctrination turn out losers. He’s just one in a line of many. I’m not saying they are murderers, but they are losers each in their own way.
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.
Woke, BLM, Muslim, Democrat, Illegal and Boston. I didn’t even include her breaking the law.
Boston City Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson, a Democrat and the first Muslim elected to the council, was arrested on Friday by FBI agents.
Tania Fernandes Anderson, who served as Vice Chair of the Post Audit Committee, which oversees government accountability, was arrested on six felony charges (five counts of wire fraud and one count of theft concerning programs receiving federal funds) stemming from a kickback scheme.
“The charges stem from an alleged kickback scheme she orchestrated to obtain several thousand dollars in taxpayer money in exchange for bribes paid,” U.S. Attorney Joshua Levy said at Friday’s press conference, according to NBC Boston.
According to the indictment, Fernandes Anderson allegedly awarded a $13,000 bonus to a staffer, identified as “Staff Member A,” who is also a relative, on the condition that the staffer return a significant portion of the bonus—approximately $7,000—directly to her.
Anderson allegedly finalized the cash transaction in a bathroom at City Hall, receiving $7,000 in kickbacks from Staff Member A, as detailed by text message evidence included in the indictment.
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.
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.
If you’re looking for the sharpest takes on just about everything—especially the chaotic mess of US politics—look no further than Revolver’s own Darren Beattie. It’s no secret that Darren has a unique knack for cutting through all the noise and revealing what’s really happening behind the scenes and beyond the propaganda. After all, this is a guy who worked in President Trump’s White House. He’s deeply connected, with a sharp eye for the nuances slithering through the DC Swamp and beyond. It’s that same insight that helped him blow the lid off the January 6 “Fedsurrection.”
Now, as the Biden regime inches us closer to World War 3 and the Deep State fights tooth and nail to survive, Darren is pulling back the curtain on what’s really happening in Ukraine and beyond. For Ukraine, Darren paints a picture of a lawless wasteland—basically, a modern-day Afghanistan, ruled by ruthless warlords where anything goes. It’s no wonder our politicians are so desperate to do business there; it’s a place where they can literally and figuratively get away with murder.
Fernando, a hitman for a Swedish narcotics gang, checks his phone as it pings with his latest orders: collect the guns, go to the target’s front door and fire until he runs out of bullets.
“Yeah, I understand brother,” he replies casually. He collects two pistols, a Kalashnikov rifle and an accomplice, before hurrying to their target in a suburb of Stockholm.
But this is no ordinary gang hit. Fernando is 14, a teenage assassin who was playing the video game Fifa in his youth club when the orders arrived by text.
He is one among dozens of child contract killers in Sweden, recruited by gang middle-men on social media who pay as much as 150,000 kroner (£13,000) per job.
The number of murder cases involving child suspects in Sweden, which has the highest per capita rate of gun violence in the EU, has exploded over the past year. The figures rose from 31 counts in the first eight months of 2023 to 102 in the same period of this year, according to Sweden’s prosecution authority.
What has been happening in Sweden recently?
Swedish prosecutors and police say the use of children – many of them from an impoverished or foreign background – to commit murders on that scale is unprecedented. One recent case involved a boy of just 11 years old.
Children are the ideal catspaw for Sweden’s gangs: those aged under 15 are too young to be prosecuted, a quirk of Swedish law that critics say is in urgent need of reform.
Hmm, I guess they mean “most” if not all are imports to Sweden. Fernando isn’t exactly a Swedish name.
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.”
For the first time in history, a Chinese president has openly delivered clear red lines to an American president, delineating Beijing’s non-negotiable core interests. When Chinese President Xi Jinping met with President Joe Biden at the 31st APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in Lima, Peru, the world’s attention was drawn to Xi’s blunt articulation of China’s “four red lines.” Unlike previous APEC meetings, which often emphasized cooperative economic growth, this meeting was starkly different in tone, as Xi chose to lay down firm boundaries. Xi delivered these red lines with a strategic calculation: he saw Biden as weak—a perfect target for asserting China’s boundaries—preferring to establish these limits before Donald Trump, a leader with a much stronger and more combative stance on China, takes office again in January. These red lines were issued as a stark warning to Washington: do not cross boundaries concerning Taiwan, democracy and human rights, China’s path and system, and its rights to economic development. Xi’s delivery of these red lines marks a critical turning point in global power dynamics, reflective of an increasingly confident China testing the resolve of a U.S. president they perceived as pliable.
Taiwan: Beijing sees Taiwan as an inalienable part of its territory. Xi emphasized that any U.S. support for Taiwanese independence or actions that embolden the island’s efforts to solidify its separation from China would be unacceptable. The language was a firm reminder that Washington’s increased engagements with Taiwan would be seen as a direct challenge to China’s national unity.
Democracy and Human Rights: China demanded an end to external interference concerning human rights and democracy, both of which Beijing deems to be domestic matters. U.S. criticism over China’s treatment of Uyghurs and actions in Hong Kong has been seen by China as interference designed to undermine the ruling Communist Party.
China’s Path and System: Xi underscored that the United States must respect China’s governance and its chosen socialist path. Any attempts to influence or undermine the authority of the Communist Party would be viewed as an existential threat.
Rights to Development: Finally, China asserted its right to pursue economic development and technological advancement without external obstruction. Restrictions on trade, technology transfers, or economic development would be seen as direct infringements on China’s core rights.
First, the U.S. already is in a Cold War. It was started by the CCP, and it is high time that the U.S. joined the fight against it. The many tens of thousands of Americans killed by the CCP’s fentanyl alone shows that the CCP is at war with the United States and has no qualms about killing Americans.
The current Cold War with the CCP is multifaceted and fought, thus far short of kinetic war, but in all other domains—including the economic, diplomatic, and political. It is important to understand the similarities between this Cold War and the one with the Soviet Union. The most salient is that the motivation for aggression remains the same, the Communist ideology of the Soviet Union in the past and of the CCP today. The impact of the ideology of Communism and its role in driving the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) aggression is essential to comprehend. Communism is a Western ideology imported into China and is not a part of Chinese civilization, political culture, or political history.
But its effect on China has been profound and created a swath of destruction through that country. It has intentionally destroyed the traditional pillars of Chinese culture, society and civilization and killed many scores of millions of Chinese. Understanding the CCP’s ideology provides major insights into the People’s Republic of China’s behavior. It allows Americans to comprehend why the PRC is inherently aggressive. Communism seeks to force societies like China’s into an ideological Procrustean Bed defined by Marxism-Leninism. In addition, Communism requires aggression, including unrestricted warfare, against non-Communist states. The effect on U.S. national security interests could not be more significant as this explains the CCP’s aggression against the U.S. In the CCP’s worldview, the U.S. is the fundamental enemy to be destroyed.
Third, the right response to the “Four Red Lines” is total rejection. In essence, the affirmation of whatever Xi tells Americans they cannot do.
First, the U.S., not Xi, sets its policy toward Taiwan. U.S. must revisit its policy over Taiwan to reflect the strategic realities of the 21st Century.
Second, while Communist dictatorships abuse the human rights of their captive populations, which perforce all do, the rest of the world must not accept this. The Chinese diaspora, people of goodwill around the world, and the U.S. will speak for those oppressed.
Third, Xi knows that his government is illegitimate and tyrannical, and so the incoming Trump administration might revisit every aspect of its policies towards that regime. It is certainly appropriate for the world’s population to ask whether the CCP is a legitimate government and should continue to oppress the Chinese people.
Fourth, Xi is asking that the U.S. not impede the PRC’s power and accept its position while it seeks to supplant the U.S. without an adequate U.S. response. For too long, the U.S. elite have gone along with supporting the CCP because it has profited them. It was only the first Trump administration that turned the rudder and challenged the CCP. Xi’s effort to define the boundaries of PRC-U.S. relations with the new Trump administration is bound to fail.
Xi’s free ride is over. There is a new sheriff in town as of January 20th. This sheriff is unlike the previous one. He might have some demands of his own.
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.
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.
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.
With Donald Trump’s explosive victory Nov. 5, there should no longer be any doubt: The Age of Obama is finally over. But it’s not just that his charm and influence have waned, as was evident in the almost unrecognizably grumpy old man who took the stage in the final days of the Harris campaign. The legacy of his entire political project has now been thrown in the ash heap of history.
Will Democrats learn their lesson? Color me doubtful. I don’t see how they can step it up much from the “Trump is literally Hitler” line of attack, but I trust they’re creative enough to figure it out over these next four years. At least we can now be quite certain that it won’t work; Obama’s poisonous legacy has finally met its rightful end. If your idea of “progress” requires aggressive censorship, fomenting racial hatred and tearing apart the fabric of society, perhaps you should consider that it’s you who is on the wrong side of history.
The biographer and historian added that he believes the disastrous election result for Democrats means they will no longer want the Obamas front and center in future campaigns.
‘The conclusion for Democrats is that they’ve got to dispense with these people from the past, including Hillary Clinton too, and move to a new generation of figures who are not in the AOC club at all,’ he said, referring to left-wing firebrand Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
But the writer predicted that Barack still has enough ‘star-power’ to pull in large speaking fees – such as the $400,000 he was paid for a single 2017 speech by Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald, according to the New York Times.
‘I’m not sure that would necessarily decline. He still has the celebrity factor of being an ex-president,’ Garrow said.
The author said he expected the Obamas to ‘continue to hang out with celebrities and live on Martha’s Vineyard’, the millionaires’ playground island off the coast of Massachusetts.
‘I certainly expect them to be spending less time in Washington after early January,’ he said.
Garrow wrote the 2017 biography Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama. He won his Pulitzer for an earlier book on Martin Luther King.
He predicted that the Obamas will now largely vanish from the political scene to hang out with celebrities on Martha’s Vineyard’.
Garrow said Tuesday’s electoral rout has left Obama, 63, ‘nervous’ about the impact Trump could have on how he is seen by future generations.
‘He has been and remains extremely concerned and nervous about his historical legacy,’ he said.
‘That has certainly taken a big hit with Trump once again triumphing.’
JOE ROGAN: OBAMA “STRAIGHT UP LIED”. You’ll have to click on the link as my X-Twitter fight to embed with WordPress continues, but it is a good piece of work.
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.
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.”
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.
Who is biased now? Who discriminated against because of politics? Who weaponized government agencies. Well, here comes the truth.
North Carolina was hit as hard as any state. Whole towns were wiped out. I saw the damage personally as I was in one of them. Thank God for Samritan’s Purse because that is who helped people, not FEMA.
Now this.
Avoiding helping Trump supporters was a nationwide policy, according to the woman who was fired for putting it in writing.
The purpose of doing so, we are told, is that Trump supporters are dangerous to FEMA workers, and therefore should be avoided.
The FEMA official who was just fired for telling workers to avoid homes impacted by the hurricanes in Florida if they had Trump signs says that it was not "isolated" and that FEMA workers were instructed to do it in the Carolinas too. pic.twitter.com/BpBdZFSSPR
I don’t know to what extent the accusation that Trump supporters are any more likely to be hostile to FEMA workers, but if so, I am pretty sure that cause and effect are reversed. Obviously, Trump supporters who suspect that FEMA was doing its best not to help them were right, and since that is the case, they have every reason to be less than friendly to FEMA workers.
However, I seriously doubt there is much to the accusation in the first place. After all, there are countless videos of people in hurricane-ravaged areas begging for help. No doubt there is some Trump supporter somewhere who was nasty to a FEMA worker after being left to suffer for days, but the claim that this was a trend is…doubtful.
FEMA is, after all, part of the Department of Homeland Security, and under DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas nothing good has happened, and lots that is evil has. This is the man who controlled the porous border, is the boss of the Secret Service, and who has presided over disasters aplenty.
I doubt there will be justice and the people who suffered are still recovering. It’s not because of FEMA, it’s because of their neighbors and church organizations. We can’t clean house fast enough of these haters.
Columbia is the home of the Frankfurt School of Marxism. Marx wanted to bring down all of Western Civilization so I guess it isn’t surprising.
Columbia University activists are planning a protest of Veterans Day — which organizers want to “reclaim” from the “Israel-US wr machine” in the name of Palestinians killed in Gaza.
The unsanctioned student group Columbia University Apartheid Divest is circulating flyers for the event — set for Monday on the Ivy League school’s main Morningside Heights campus.
“Veterans Day is an American holiday to honor the patriotism, love of country, and sacrifice of veterans. We reject this holiday and refuse to celebrate it,” a flyer for the agitator group’s event said.
“The American war machine should not be honored for the horrors unleashed on others,” the flyer added. “Instead, we will celebrate Martyrs Day in honor of those martyred by the Israel-US war machine. A day to honor the patriotism, love of country, and sacrifice of those martyrs.”
Campus veterans outraged by the plans are planning a celebration of veterans at the same time to counter the antagonists.
The protest was viewed as a slap in the face after the on-campus vitriol sparked by Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel — much of which wound up directed at student-veterans.
“That post really shook the hornet’s nest,” said Sam Nahins, a 31-year-old Air Force veteran and Columbia graduate student who completed his undergraduate at the school in the spring.
“They’ve never hid their disdain for veterans. But now it’s really out in the open,” he added. “Last year when students and faculty members were running around dressing up as jihadist and screaming death to America, death to western civilization, death to everything but their cause, I had friends get called infidels, and murderers and baby killers.”
The Kamala Harris campaign raised an eye-popping billion dollars over the summer and into the fall, but it still wasn’t enough to beat Trump. It’s a good thing Americans didn’t trust her with the economy and the budget. Oh wait, they did the last 4 years and now we are $35 Trillion in debt
The more astounding part of the story however, is that despite having such a huge war chest of cash, the Harris campaign is ending with $20 million in debt.
Is there a more perfect metaphor for Democratic governance than this?
Harris’s Billion Dollar Campaign is Soliciting Donations and Selling Email List To Cover $20 Million Debt: Report
Vice President Kamala Harris’s billion-dollar campaign is reportedly soliciting donations from supporters and selling its email list to cover its $20 million debt.
Harris, who conceded the presidential race to Donald Trump Wednesday afternoon, ended her campaign with a debt of at least $20 million, sources told Politico’s California bureau chief Christopher Cadelago. The campaign is “selling their email list to make up for the losses,” according to Puck’s senior political correspondent Tara Palmeri.
The Harris campaign in an email Wednesday, well after voting ended, asked supporters to “donate to the Harris Fight Fund today to ensure we have the resources to elect Democrats down the ticket to hold the Trump administration accountable.”
A lot of this money went to concerts in swing states that did nothing to help Kamala’s campaign in the end.
In the end, the Kamala Harris campaign staged seven swing-state concerts on election eve, including performances by Jon Bon Jovi in Detroit, Christina Aguilera in Las Vegas, Katy Perry in Pittsburgh, and Lady Gaga in Philadelphia.
All of those swing states ended up in President-elect Donald Trump’s win column on Election Day.
While the pop stars reportedly waived their fees for Kamala, the campaign still had to pay for the staging, sound, security, and other costs associate with putting on a big rock concert.
Former senior Obama advisor-turned-senior Kamala Harris advisor David Plouffe hasdeleted his X account after suggesting on Wednesday that Harris’ landslide defeat was Joe Biden’s fault for not dropping out soon enough, and right as a massive campaign debt scandal erupts.
“We dug out of a deep hole but not enough. A devastating loss,” Plouffe posted to X – in what many interpreted as a dig at Biden.
Boyle’s post in its entirety:
Ok so this just got very explosive. A Kamala campaign staffer who saw these posts called me just now and said there is a massive scandal here worthy of an audit.
The $20 million debt thing is real.Rob Flaherty, this staffer said, is currently shopping around the Kamala fundraising email list to anyone who wants it to try to raise the money back. This includes other campaigns and outside groups.
Flaherty is the deputy campaign manager and reports to Jen O’Malley Dillon.
“Jen blew through a billion dollars in a few months and it was all Jen’s idea to do all the concerts.” — Kamala campaign adviser told me
This source added that O’Malley Dillon did these “concerts,” like Katy Perry, Lizzo, Eminem, Bruce Springsteen et cetera at the expense of “prioritizing and spending money on social media and other campaign priorities.”
Apparently a group in Georgia had to lay off 100 people because they couldn’t pay them.
It’s unclear at this time if the campaign PAID the talent to perform but the cost of production for the events was “immense.”
What’s more, this Kamala campaign staffer said several people who were working for the Kamala Harris for President campaign are still awaiting several overdue payments they were promised for their work. IE, they didn’t pay the staff.
This Kamala campaign staffer said to me of @jomalleydillon
“People didn’t like working with her. Many people on the campaign felt like we lost because Kamala wasn’t allowed to run her campaign. They were running Joe Biden’s campaign instead of a Kamala campaign. Obnoxious and very much a gate keeper and interfering with the vice president’s people who were trying to do their job.”
After dispatching the Clinton’s and Bush’s, Obama has almost self-destructed. After weaponizing the DOJ/FBI/CIA against Trump, he still couldn’t stop him and it has come back to haunt him. He’ll be known as the Marxist he really is and how he tried to destroy America through his and Biden’s terms.
Here’s How:
Obama’s biographer reveals ex-president fears for his legacy after ‘tone-deaf preaching’ harmed Harris campaign
Barack Obama and his wife Michelle have been slammed by his biographer for ‘talking down’ to voters in ‘tone-deaf and clueless’ preaching that harmed Kamala Harris‘ ill-fated presidential campaign.
The effect was so bad that – combined with Donald Trump‘s victory – it is likely to reduce the 44th president’s political relevance to ‘Bill Clinton levels’, David Garrow said in an exclusive interview with DailyMail.com.
‘People do not want to be talked down to, no matter who they are,’ the 71-year-old Pulitzer Prize winner said.
‘I thought it was tone-deaf and clueless for them to preach as they did,’ he told DailyMail.com.
‘I would expect that perception will be shared by lots of people. If so, I think it reduces their relevance to Bill Clinton territory.’
Barack Obama drew criticism for comments he made to a room of black men on October 11, saying he detected a lack of ‘energy’ that was ‘more pronounced with the brothers’ – and added that ‘it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president’.
Michelle Obama gave a speech on October 27 railing against Trump’s stance on abortion, admonishing men considering voting for the former president that ‘a vote for him is a vote against us’.
Besides being the single greatest comeback story – political or otherwise – in American history, there are at least two other crucial takeaways from Tuesday’s romp.
First, it is evident that the 2008 Barack Obama Democratic Party intersectional coalition has died. It is not that the coalition is wounded or endangered; it is that it is dead. Trump made historic inroads with Hispanic voters, Black voters, young voters and other demographic subgroups that have been vital to the Democrats since 2008. Trump won the nation’s single most Hispanic county – 97% Hispanic Starr County, Texas – by 16%. Queens County, New York, famously one of the most ethnically and racially diverse counties in the country, moved over 20 points toward Trump from his 2020 performance. Overall, Trump won just under half the national Hispanic vote, and he made historic inroads with black men. Voters under the age of 35, such a core Democratic constituency in the not-so-distant past, are now a swing voting bloc.
Obamaism is dead. Trump was right. Americans don’t want Marxists or Commies.
Special Counsel Jack Smith, overseeing two federal cases against former President Donald Trump, has considered a possible pathway to end the cases, according to two sources familiar with the matter who spoke to NBC News. This news from the MSM outlet comes hours after Trump won the US presidential election.
Here’s more from NBC News:
The latest discussions stand in contrast with the pre-election legal posture of Special Counsel Jack Smith, who in recent weeks took significant steps in the election interference case against Trump without regard to the electoral calendar.
But the sources say DOJ officials have come to grips with the fact that no trial is possible any time soon in either the January 6th case or the classified documents matter—both of which are mired in legal issues that would likely prompt an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, even if Trump had lost the election.
Now that Trump will become president again, DOJ officials see no room to pursue either criminal case against him—and no point in continuing to litigate them in the weeks before he takes office, the people said.
The outlet continued:
The sources said it will be up to Smith to decide exactly how to unwind the charges, and many questions remain unanswered. Could the prosecutions resume after Trump leaves office or would they be time-barred? What happens to the evidence? What about the two other defendants charged with helping Trump hide classified documents? Will Smith write a report, as special counsels usually do?
The sources say all those issues require study and research.
At the same time, Trump’s legal team is weighing their own next steps for how to resolve the outstanding federal cases in the former president’s favor now that he is the projected winner of the election. The ultimate goal is to get all of the federal and state cases wiped out completely — the strategic call is how best to accomplish that task, according to a person familiar with the discussions.
Gov. Kathy Hochul on Saturday called New Yorkers who vote for Republican House candidates “anti-American” and “anti-women” — a smear that sparked furor across the Empire State and beyond.
“If you’re voting for these Republicans in New York, you are voting for someone who supports Donald Trump and you’re anti-women, you’re anti-abortion and basically you’re anti-American,” Hochul said on MSNBC.
“You just trashed American values and what our country is all about — over and over.”
But Republicans said it was Hochul doing the trashing — and even Democratic strategists said demonizing a large segment of voters as anti-American was not helpful to their candidates.
“This is about as helpful as a severe migraine. It’s never a good thing to identify a large segment of voters as un-American,” said ex-Democratic Rep. Max Rose, who is aiding Democrats in House races.
“Kathy Hochul doesn’t represent a majority of Democrats — anywhere,” said Rose, who served one-term representing Staten Island and parts of southern Brooklyn.
State Republican Party chairman Ed Cox fumed, “She’s smearing at least one half of American voters and all Trump voters.”
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-Hudson Valley) told The Post, “Governor Hochul has once again disgraced herself and the state of New York by calling supporters
Great, Just freaking great. Some of us made a huge effort to not get jabbed to avoid the mRNA poison and now they are putting it in our food.
The Biden-Harris administration has begun licensing the use of “DNA vaccines” in the United States food supply, according to reports.
The bombshell was revealed by Ohio attorney Tom Renz.
Renz exposed the Biden-Harris admin’s United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for licensing the use of deadly DNA vaccines in food.
The USDA had previously given the green light for salmon to be vaccinated with the latest mRNA chemicals.
However, this latest scheme raises far greater concerns.
By licensing DNA vaccines, the USDA is allowing even more questionable pharmaceutical chemicals to be administered to animals that people consume as food.
Renz highlighted a video that shows how fish destined for the food supply are vaccinated.
Because we don’t have secure borders, the biggest cause of death for a large swath of Americans is Fentanyl from China that gets processed in Mexico and comes across to the US.
It’s not so much the people flooding across the southern border affecting Arizonans, as what some of the illegal immigrants carry with them.
Illegal aliens don’t stay in the state, according to Pinal County, Arizona, Sheriff Mark Lamb. Instead, they travel to “California, Massachusetts, New York, Chicago, Iowa, Alabama,” he says, adding, “But what we are feeling is, just like every state and every American family, we’re feeling the effects of fentanyl.”
Fentanyl is now the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 18 and 45, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
“I don’t want to take away from 9/11, but I want to put it into perspective,” Lamb says. “On 9/11 we lost, I think, about 3,600 American lives that day … and we went to war for 20 years for that.”
An estimated 74,702 people died from fentanyl poisoning in America in 2023, a slight decline from the 76,226 fentanyl-related deaths in 2022, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Right now, China is putting fentanyl in the hands of the [Mexican drug] cartels,” Lamb explained.
Many of the precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl originate in China. On Oct. 24, the Justice Department announced “charges against eight China-based companies and eight individuals we allege are responsible for trafficking precursor chemicals that cartels use to manufacture lethal fentanyl,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement.
The Chinese don’t have to shoot at us. They supply the drugs that are killing Americans from within. Don’t forget when you vote that Democrats are replacing Americans who won’t vote for them with illegals bringing this in.
It’s no secret that the vast majority of the so-called elites are advocates of climate alarmism and are taken in by the Green New Scam.
Whether this preference is based on ignorance of the science, ideological zeal, a willful desire to hurt American growth or simple greed because of their investments in Green New Scam infrastructure varies case by case.
The typical upper-income supporter of the climate cult including academics, media figures and celebrities is probably ignorant of the fact that there is no evidence that CO2 emissions cause climate change and that the real causes are solar cycles, volcanoes, ocean currents and atmospheric moisture not caused by humans.
Climate Alarmists Have It Backward
The historical record actually demonstrates that warming periods produce higher CO2 levels — not the other way around. CO2 doesn’t cause warming. It’s caused by natural warming.
In other words, climate alarmists have causation completely backward.
Climate alarmism is based almost entirely on computer models, which depend on the inputs the modelers themselves build into them. A model is only as good as the inputs and assumptions programmed into it.
Virtually every one of these models has overestimated warming, sometimes by orders of magnitude, because it’s based on faulty assumptions that overestimate the impact of CO2 on climate.
In other words, it’s junk science. But they keep relying on these models because their political agenda requires it.
Climate: The New Communism
There’s no doubt that a fair number of neo-Marxists embrace the climate scam because they know it damages U.S. industry, raises costs to U.S. consumers and helps to undermine the U.S. economy.
Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism, anti-capitalistic collectivists admitted that they needed to promote the climate agenda because the only way to combat global warming is through collective action. It requires a coordinated global effort that limits national sovereignty.
The neo-Marxists are impervious to evidence; they just want to hurt America and wasting money on windmills instead of building new refineries is a good way to do it. That leaves the greed crowd.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out … without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.”
– H. L. Mencken
If the three-ring circus that is the looming presidential election proves anything, it is that the Deep State’s plot to destabilize the nation is working.
The danger is real.
Caught up in the heavily dramatized electoral showdown between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, Americans have become oblivious to the multitude of ways in which the government is goosestepping all over our freedoms on a daily basis.
Especially alarming is the extent to which those on both sides are allowing themselves to be gaslighted by both Trump and Harris about critical issues of the day, selectively choosing to hear only what they want to hear when it casts the opposition in a negative light.
This is true whether you’re talking about immigration and border control, health care, national security, the nation’s endless wars, protections for free speech, or the militarization of the U.S. government.
For starters, there’s the free speech double standard, what my good friend Nat Hentoff used to refer to as the “free speech for me but not for thee” phenomenon in which the First Amendment’s protections only apply to those with whom we might agree.
Despite her claims to being a champion for the rule of law, which in our case is the U.S. Constitution, Harris isn’t averse to policing so-called “hate” speech. In this, Harris is not unlike those on both the Right and the Left who continue to express a distaste for unregulated, free speech online, especially when it comes to speech with which they might disagree.
Then there’s Trump, never a fan of free speech protections for his critics, who has been particularly vocal about his desire to see the military vanquish “radical left lunatics,” which he has dubbed “the enemy from within.”
If it were only about muzzling free speech activities, that would be concerning enough.
But Trump’s enthusiasm for using the military to target domestic enemies of the state should send off warning bells, especially coinciding as it does with the Department of Defense’s recent re-issuance of Directive 5240.01, which empowers the military to assist law enforcement “in situations where a confrontation between civilian law enforcement and civilian individuals or groups is reasonably anticipated.”
This is what martial law looks like—a government of force that relies on the military to enforce its authority—and it’s exactly what America’s founders feared, which is why they opted for a republic bound by the rule of law: the U.S. Constitution.
Responding to concerns that the military would be used for domestic policing, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878, which makes it a crime for the government to use the military to carry out arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other activities normally handled by a civilian police force.
The increasing militarization of the police, the use of sophisticated weaponry against Americans and the government’s increasing tendency to employ military personnel domestically have all but eviscerated historic prohibitions such as the Posse Comitatus Act.
Yet sometime over the course of the past 240-plus years that constitutional republic has been transformed into a military dictatorship disguised as a democracy.
Unfortunately, most Americans seem relatively untroubled by the fact that our constitutional republic is being transformed into a military dictatorship disguised as a democracy.
The seeds of chaos that have been sown in recent years are all part of the Deep State’s plans to usher in martial law.
Good riddance. They were the poison on both social media and at their schools.
Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, or X as it’s now called, has brought an abrupt shift in the dynamics of the platform. For years, X functioned as an echo chamber where progressive academics freely exchanged ideas, often without much opposition. It was an exclusive club, and Musk’s open-door policy shattered it. With censorship dialed back and banned accounts reinstated, Musk’s version of free speech drove many academics away, leading to a marked decrease in engagement among their ranks.
This article addresses a narrower empirical question: What did Elon Musk’s takeover of the platform mean for this academic ecosystem? Using a snowball sample of more than 15,700 academic accounts from the fields of economics, political science, sociology, and psychology, we show that academics in these fields reduced their “engagement” with the platform, measured by either the number of active accounts (i.e., those registering any behavior on a given day) or the number of tweets written (including original tweets, replies, retweets, and quote tweets). We further tested whether this decrease in engagement differed by account type; we found that verified users were significantly more likely to reduce their production of content (i.e., writing new tweets and quoting others’ tweets) but not their engagement with the platform writ large (i.e., retweeting and replying to others’ content).
The data points to a familiar pattern: when left-leaning narratives lose control of the conversation, proponents either cry foul or flee. Now, if you combine this exodus with the insights from Mitchell Langbert’s 2018 study on the political affiliations of elite liberal arts college faculty, the story becomes even clearer.
Langbert’s study from 2018, Homogenous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty, reveals a staggering imbalance: liberal arts faculties are overwhelmingly Democratic, with many departments having zero registered Republicans. Across 51 colleges, the average Democratic-to-Republican ratio was 10.4:1. Excluding the two military colleges in the sample (West Point and Annapolis), the ratio jumped to 12.7:1. In the most ideologically driven fields, like gender and peace studies, there were no Republicans to be found.
Why Political Homogeneity Is Troubling
Political homogeneity is problematic because it biases research and teaching and reduces academic credibility. In a recent book on social psychology, The Politics of Social Psychology edited by Jarret T. Crawford and Lee Jussim, Mark J. Brandt and Anna Katarina Spälti, show that because of left-wing bias, psychologists are far more likely to study the character and evolution of individuals on the Right than individuals on the Left.2 Inevitably affecting the quality of this research, though, George Yancey found that sociologists prefer not to work with fundamentalists, evangelicals, National Rifle Association members, and Republicans.3 Even though more Americans are conservative than liberal, academic psychologists’ biases cause them to believe that conservatism is deviant. In the study of gender, Charlotta Stern finds that the ideological presumptions in sociology prevent any but the no-differences-between-genders assumptions of left-leaning sociologists from making serious research inroads. So pervasive is the lack of balance in academia that more than 1,000 professors and graduate students have started Heterodox Academy, an organization committed to increasing “viewpoint diversity” in higher education.4 The end result is that objective science becomes problematic, and where research is problematic, teaching is more so.
To the surprise of no one, the recently released House Energy and Commerce report on the approximately one billion dollar “indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity” (IDIQ) federal contract awarded by the Biden/Harris Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the “Beltway Bandit” Fors Marsh Group (FMG) has received approximately no coverage by corporate media – and hardly on social media, for that matter. The notable exception being the New York Post.
The report documents that what Fors Marsh Group delivered to HHS for the 991M $ in taxpayer dollars it received was to deploy a massive Psychological Warfare campaign on American Citizens, one which employed a wide range of proven disinformation. Disinformation as defined by spreading falsehoods for political purposes. Those following along closely will recall that the Mayorkas Department of Homeland Security defined the spreading of disinformation during the COVID crisis as domestic terrorism.
They are killing whales. It’s not that hard to figure out. There are so many better ways to generate energy. Hell, AI has gone nuclear, which is as clean as you can get when done right.
In a surprising yet overdue move, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has released its Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the New York Bight. This document, despite its extensive layers of technical jargon and cautious language, marks a pivotal shift. It appears to be a rare admission from BOEM that offshore wind farms are indeed capable of causing harm—biologically, socioeconomically, physically, and culturally.
The PEIS covers six commercial wind energy leases off the shores of New Jersey and New York, totaling over 488,000 acres. While its primary focus is to outline measures to “avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor” impacts, the fact that BOEM is even considering these measures implies a long-overdue acknowledgment of offshore wind’s potential to harm marine ecosystems and coastal communities. The language in the document hints that these developments are not entirely benign, despite being repeatedly framed as environmentally friendly solutions to the climate crisis.
Impacts Revealed
While BOEM insists that the PEIS is “programmatic” and not the final say on the matter, the document does provide insight into some of the broader consequences of wind energy development. The PEIS details potential adverse impacts across various categories:
Biological Impacts: Marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, and fish could suffer due to noise, habitat displacement, and changes in migration patterns. Even bats, which are not typically associated with offshore environments, could be affected.
FDA’s war on public health is about to end. This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything…
All we needed was the HCQ and Ivermectin and the Covid Jab would have never been necessary. Oh, and Covid wouldn’t have been a problem either, or masks, or lockdowns.
This is beyond ridiculous for stupidity on many levels. Besides the fact that it’s a tax based on a climate lie, it adds to the tax base of a group of socialists who pay one of the highest tax rates in the free world.
Of course, they tell you that education and medical care are free, but they just pay upfront, out of their paychecks. Nothing is free. Also, the medical care sucks. My wife’s relatives live there and I hear the stories directly from them about waiting six weeks for crummy care. It’s a schadenboner for me when I hear about Denmark doing another brainless move like this.
Here we go:
Dairy farmers in Denmark have to pay the world’s first carbon tax on their livestock, all in the name of a climate crisis that does not exist.
The country’s coalition government agreed this week to introduce the world’s first carbon emissions tax on agriculture. It will mean new levies on livestock starting in 2030.
Denmark is a major dairy and pork exporter, and agriculture is the country’s biggest source of emissions. The coalition agreement — which also entails investing 40 billion krone ($3.7 billion) in measures such as reforestation and establishing wetlands — is aimed at helping the country meet its climate goals.
“With today’s agreement, we are investing billions in the biggest transformation of the Danish landscape in recent times,” Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said in a statement Tuesday. “At the same time, we will be the first country in the world with a (carbon) tax on agriculture.”
Estimated cost per cow: 672 kroner ($96) annually, based on average emissions of 5.6 tons of CO2 equivalent per cow.
Implementation date: 2030
Initial tax rate: 300 kroner ($43) per ton of CO2 equivalent
Tax rate by 2035: 750 kroner ($108) per ton of CO2 equivalent
Effective tax after 60% tax break: 120 kroner ($17) per ton in 2030, rising to 300 kroner ($43) by 2035
Dairy is one of their country’s largest industries and they are going to help make it more expensive, thus killing the golden goose.
Her relatives love to think how smart they are and tell me how bad the USA is. It’s gems like this that let me chuckle at the chuckleheads. That they both buy the climate lies and self-penalize their economy tells me who’s not really that smart. I don’t even have to say anything when stuff like this comes out.
Numerous laboratory studies have confirmed the presence of plasmid DNA in Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines. In fact, a recent analysis reveals that a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine can contain over 200 billion DNA fragments. These are nucleotides that should never enter the human supply chain because they can cause cancer.
Plasmids, which are used in the manufacturing process for vaccines, carry genetic material that can inadvertently enter the human body through vaccination. Plasmids can disrupt cellular functions or contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance. These fragments have the potential to integrate into the DNA of vaccinated individuals, potentially disrupting the function of oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. One troubling aspect is the inclusion of sequences from the SV40 virus, known for its cancer-causing properties. The implications of such contamination are dire, with experts warning of the potential for permanent genetic changes in vaccine recipients.
This serious safety concern necessitates that ALL recombinant vaccines be investigated for DNA contamination. The current findings on DNA contamination across the vaccine supply are startling, and warrant an audit into the manufacturing processes of vaccines, including investigations into the role adjuvants and lipid nanoparticles play in facilitating the DNA contamination of human cells.
They are homogenous. It’s a bunch of liberals indoctrinating students to hate America and turn against it. What about learning? The Test of a First-Rate Intelligence Is the Ability To Hold Two Opposed Ideas in the Mind at the Same Time. There is only one way in colleges now, the liberal view.
Honestly, this number seems a little high, given all we know about the political culture of higher education.
Professors will overwhelmingly vote for Vice President Kamala Harris in the coming weeks, according to a new survey.
Inside Higher Ed surveyed more than 1,000 professors, mostly “tenured or tenure track,” and found significant support for the Democratic presidential ticket.
“Seventy-eight percent support Kamala Harris and running mate Tim Walz, while only 8 percent of the respondents back Donald Trump and JD Vance, according to the survey, which has a 2.9 percent margin of error,” the publication reported.
“But while their personal support for Democrats was overwhelming, almost no respondents said they plan to tell students which party or candidate to vote for,” Inside Higher Ed reported.
Most respondents said they keep their personal political beliefs out of the classroom. Only four percent said they would tell students who to vote for, but 30 percent plan to “discuss the election” in class.
Back in 2022, I reported that Toyota Motor chief Akio Toyoda remains skeptical of moving to only producing electric vehicles (EVs). Toyoda also indicated that most people who work in the auto industry agree with him.
“People involved in the auto industry are largely a silent majority,” Toyoda said. “That silent majority is wondering whether EVs are really OK to have as a single option. But they think it’s the trend so they can’t speak out loudly.”
BMW wants Europe to relax its plan to ban new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2035 onward, in an effort to reduce the region’s reliance on batteries from China. While many automakers have fully embraced electrification, BMW is opting for a more diversified strategy.
In addition to battery electric vehicles (BEVs), the company is investing in alternative technologies such as e-fuels and hydrogen fuel cells, betting that the future of mobility won’t be driven by batteries alone.
They just want to force their climate nonsense on us when in fact it’s a control issue by the Climate wienees. They tried making us act like sheep during Covid and we’re not going to do it again. This level of technology of battery-powered cars is not the answer, especially when they can turn them off for social non-compliance.
As reported, Kamala Harris held a rally fearmongering over abortion this past week. She mocked two young Christians. When two Lacrosse University students called out “Jesus is Lord,” she said they were at the wrong rally.
They were kicked out as she laughed at them and mocked them. The audience jeered at the college students. These people hate Christians, and Harris encourages this divisiveness.
I’m very tired of atheists bashing us. Christians aren’t doing anything to them.
So she’s no different from the rest of the liberals and democrats. They hate God, just like the Communists. They keep trying to take God out of the picture so that the Government can become the God of the people.
Also known as lying or bullshit. I worked in the industry and saw just how much it was just that.
“’I’m a businessman. I’ll take the [government green] money, that’s all I care about… I will move heaven and earth to get projects done over here’.” – James Quigley, quoted in Politico ‘s “Power Switch” (below)
Government is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else. Every one is, more or less, for profiting by the labors of others. No one would dare to express such a sentiment; he even hides it from himself.
The Frenchman added:
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.
Correct. Government does not create wealth; it redistributes it (after a large cut). Who wins and loses? The winners are government, the lobbyists, and the rent-seekers, with concentrated benefits to them and diffused costs for the rest of us. Plunder, Bastiat would say.
—————-
I was reminded of this by a news item reported in Politico‘s “Power Switch” newsletter (August 16, 2023).
“Not all Republicans want to repeal the climate law that turns 1 today,” reported Josh Siegel. “In fact, my colleague Kelsey Tamborrino and I spoke to dozens of people from all corners of the country and discovered that many GOP officials in rural areas are welcoming the billions of dollars in clean energy incentives coming from President Joe Biden’s signature legislation.”
So do you think they found Republicans that feared “climate change” and welcomed “green” energy as cheaper and better? No, the interviewed were financially captured rent-seekers, enjoying a wealth transfer from taxpayers (via Biden) to their pockets. Here is the rest of the story.
In Rogers County, Okla., Republican Commissioner Ron Burrows looks at the Inflation Reduction Act and sees jobs — 1,000 of them to be exact. At least once the Italian giant Enel opens its $1 billion solar manufacturing plant there in 2025.
Burrows is not alone. Other political and economic leaders in Oklahoma, including Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, are glad to receive the major investments they say they’d never have attracted without the climate law.
“You can imagine being in a small rural community and trying to get economic development to come — it’s a challenge,” said Rosalie Griffith, a board member of the Rural Economic Development of Inola. “But unless you develop, you’re going to die.”
Burrows said Enel’s decision to locate in his tiny town east of Tulsa — population 1,500 — would not have happened without local buy-in. “I just don’t see a company making that sort of investment without some level of comfort that it’s not adversarial, it’s not split,” he said.
By contrast, his local member of Congress — GOP Rep. Josh Brecheen — views the Inflation Reduction Act through the prism of most national Republicans. Brecheen told me he opposes the use of “taxpayer subsidization” to bolster Democrats’ favored green industries and is seeking to repeal the law.
Kelsey and I found that same disconnect between state and local GOP officials in rural areas and their federal representatives across the country.
There’s even a similar, but less dramatic, dynamic unfolding in upstate New York. GOP Rep. Marc Molinaro voted to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy incentives, and that’s made him a top target of Democrats in the 2024 election. His district is one of 18 that voted for Biden but are held by Republicans.
Inflation Reduction Act money catalyzed Canadian company Zinc8 Energy Solutions’ decision to locate a planned battery factory in Molinaro’s purple district. The project is expected to bring up to 500 new jobs to a Hudson Valley region still suffering from the loss of its manufacturing base in the 1990s. That’s exciting James Quigley, a Republican who drives a Tesla and is the supervisor for the town of Ulster, where Zinc8 plans to locate.
“I’m a businessman. I’ll take the money, that’s all I care about,” Quigley said. “I will move heaven and earth to get projects done over here.”
Final Comment
Gosh Josh, what did you really find our here? Are you proud of this? Did you and Kelsey Tamborrino ask the same parties if they liked the federal deficit and inflation? The present level of taxation? The wisdom of the few over the energy verdicts of the masses?
Money for these subsidies has to come from somewhere, and that means the private economy in higher taxes and more government borrowing…. The IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] is the heart of Bidenomics, which is about creating a new political-subsidy economy. Perhaps all of this will effloresce into a brilliant green future. More likely hundreds of billions in misallocated investment will reduce future productivity gains and translate into slower economic and income growth. Let’s hope President Biden’s subsidies don’t boomerang like pandemic transfer payments, leaving all Americans poorer.
What a waste, what a shame. The next President needs to issue an emergency declaration that the U.S. is out of money and cease all subsidies of the Inflation Reduction Act in order to pause wind, solar, and battery subsidies. Ratepayers and taxpayers will be thankful.
The electric vehicle (EV) is heralded as a cornerstone of the fight against climate change, with promises of a cleaner, greener future. As recently as July, the Biden-Harris administration announced billions of dollars of government support for EV manufacturing.
However, a growing concern lies beneath the shiny surface of electric cars and bikes: the safety risks of lithium-ion batteries, particularly their propensity to catch fire.
The rosy image of EVs as environmental saviors doesn’t align with their increasing reputation as flammable hazards.
Lithium batteries are designed to store a significant amount of energy in a compact space, which increases not only their efficiency but also their risk profile. When these batteries overheat, short-circuit or suffer physical damage, they can ignite and burn with alarming intensity.
New York is particularly notorious for the large number of E-bike fires. Entire shipments of cars on cargo ships have been burnt up in the middle of the ocean due to fires from EV batteries.
Recently, containers holding 33,000 pounds of lithium batteries at Canada’s port of Montreal caught fire, prompting city authorities to warn residents to remain indoors. The fire, which occurred around 2:45 p.m. on September 23, was not extinguished until 3 a.m. the next day!
“Due to the amount of energy that these batteries store, it took us quite a while to extinguish the fire,” said the fire department chief.
As soon as money became the issue, see how little the climate scam mattered?
I got to work with Schmidt when I was with IBM. He told me that the do no evil was a lie back when Google stood behind it as a corporate mission. He basically said don’t trust him or Google and I don’t. This is more evidence that they (the climatards) were lying the whole time about the climate scam. They were just trying to get people to act the way they wanted to, also known as socialism. See the recycling story below on that.
… any moves to curtail the expanding amounts of energy consumed in developing … ever more advanced AI models are futile…
Google’s former chief Eric Schmidt thinks we shouldn’t let AI’s ballooning power consumption worry us, because putting AI to work on climate change issues will be our best shot at solving them.
Schmidt was speaking at a recent AI summit in Washington DC, and his comments echo those of Microsoft founder Bill Gates who expressed very similar sentiments at an event in London earlier this year.
…
“All of that will be swamped by the enormous needs of this new technology,” he said, adding that “we may make mistakes with respect to how it’s used, but I can assure you that we’re not going to get there through conservation.”
Schmidt further stated that he believes that “we’re not going to hit the climate goals anyway because we’re not organized to do it,” and that he would rather bet on AI solving the problems than constraining the development of the tech and still having the problems anyway.
This rather optimistic view of the Earth-saving potential of AI can perhaps be explained by the fact that Schmidt has his own investments in the technology. According to Business Insider, he is the founder of White Stork, a defense company that develops AI-powered drones.
On March 22, 1987, the barge Mobro 4000, loaded with six million pounds of garbage and towed by tugboat Break of Dawn, departed Islip, New York. It was bound for Morehead City, North Carolina — but never did dock there. Instead, it spent the next five months at sea, turned away by multiple states and three foreign countries. It became big news when journalist Dan Rather called it “the most watched load of garbage in the memory of man.” But another load of garbage was the story the media spun about it. In reality, no one would accept the Mobro because of a rumor that it was carrying medical waste. But that’s not the narrative the media pushed.
It advanced the notion that the Mobro’s fate was a result of a lack of dump space.
The “solution,” of course, was recycling. The timing was perfect, too, as there already was increasing public concern about waste. Oh, never mind that, as Reader’s Digest reported decades ago, 1,000 years of America’s trash could fit in an area 50 miles square (one m2 per state) and 200 feet high — the average modern dump’s height. “Never let a crisis go to waste,” and this one wasn’t wasted: The story helped catalyze the recycling movement. The Mobro 4000 might have been adrift, but recycling proponents’ ship had come in.
Of particular concern, too, is plastic, with stories of the material polluting our oceans. But what if plastic recycling is a myth, if not a scam, that is not only wasteful but environmentally damaging?
Yes, it is one of the biggest scams in history and you can read about how little it really matters at the link above.
Don’t forget that getting the guilty to recycle is no different than lining up the sheep for a jab. It is to get a group to behave the way the government wants them to act. In other words, it’s just another step toward socialism through behavioral acts of perceived service. Socialism is just one step away from communism, what the assholes in DC want anyway.
Don’t be a sheep. Throw it away, just not on the street. It’s cheaper to treat it as garbage than as recycling as you can read and you are not helping the environment by recycling.
The greatest moral hazard in American life is politics.
Many of you probably remember 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney being secretly recorded by a Democratic operative telling donors that “47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what” because they are “dependent upon government … believe that they are victims … believe the government has a responsibility to care for them … these are people who pay no income tax.”
Even I could have told you that accusing half the electorate of being a bunch of moochers was a bad idea. Coming from a fat cat like Romney, it reeked of snobbery.
Also, Romney happened to be correct.
And what he said then is even truer today. But in contemporary politics, asking citizens to pay for their own life is an act of self-immolation.
In a recent Gallup poll, an amazing 9 in 10 young women support socialized medicine, paired with higher taxes on the wealthy. What is the risk in backing pricey utopian experiments when there’s no bill coming in the mail? Now, if we flattened federal taxes and compelled everyone to pay their “fair share,” or even one-tenth of their share, for that matter, 9 in 10 young women would be hoisting Gadsden flags on their lawns and sticking “taxation is theft” bumper stickers on their cars.
That’s never going to happen, because the incentives of contemporary politics are dangerously distorted. The more the government spends, the less Americans expect to pay. The more dependency it creates, the less self-reliance it expects.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported on a new study that found a mind-boggling spike in government dependency. In 1970, safety-net funding accounted for the significant income in fewer than 1% of all counties in the country. By 2000, 10% of counties were getting a significant share of their income from federal and state safety-net and social programs. Today? More than half of all U.S. counties drew at least a quarter of their income from government aid.
While people on the Left like to grouse about “income inequality,” they never mention that every year, nearly $2 trillion, about the gross domestic product of a midsized European country, is transferred to low-income Americans through hundreds of programs, from Medicaid to food stamps to refundable tax credits. Right now, there are 42 million people on food stamps.
It would be one thing if the state were lifting citizens from poverty, but it is creating a permanent underclass.
Because she’d do more damage than good. There is only a small cross section of people that like Michelle. Her history of grifting and America hating turns off a lot of people. The liberals and radicals already are in Kamala’s pocket so she doesn’t bring anything to the table there.
Many are wondering why exactly it is that former First Lady Michelle Obama is not campaigning for Vice President Kamala Harris.
This comes, according to the Daily Mail, as Obama’s husband – former President Barack Obama – has hit the campaign trail for Harris, looking to stir up support for her in the final weeks leading up to the 2024 presidential election.
In contrast, the former first lady has been far less active than her husband.
As we will see, though, this does not mean that she is inactive.
Here’s what is going on:
It was Politico that first reported recently that Barack Obama has decided to do some significant campaigning for Harris.
The outlet wrote:
The former president will appear Thursday at an event in the Pittsburgh area, the start of what will be part of a swing-state “blitz” through Election Day, said a senior campaign official, granted anonymity to discuss the schedule ahead of the announcement.
This so-called “blitz” is already underway, with Obama hitting the campaign trail on Thursday. In the process, he managed to stir up some serious controversy.
Obama is scheduled to continue holding rallies in battleground states through Election Day.
A spokesman for Obama said:
President Obama believes the stakes of this election could not be more consequential and that is why he is doing everything he can to help elect Vice President Harris, Governor Walz and Democrats across the country.
Prominent black Trump booster Rob Smith has responded to the former president’s condescending screed over ‘brothas’ who are afraid to vote for Kamala Harris. In a now-viral reply, Smith tells Obama: “There is no amount of lecturing or bullying or shaming that you can do that is going to make me change that decision [to vote for Trump].
Sorry Obama!
I’m a BLACK MAN
I am voting for DONALD TRUMP on November 5th!
And NO amount of LECTURING or SHAMING is going to change that.
.@BarackObama should be ashamed for berating, rebuking and scolding Black men, because they won’t vote for Madam Lock Up A Brother…@KamalaHarris. As if we are too stupid to vote our interest and what best for ourselves and our families.
Having exhorted black men to embrace racism in the voting booth, Obama then suggested the same group’s sexism was at the heart of Harris’ problem with them:
“You’re coming up with all kinds of reasons and excuses, I’ve got a problem with that. Because part of it makes me think— and I’m speaking to men directly— part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that.”
“…And now, you’re thinking about sitting out or supporting somebody who has a history of denigrating you, because you think that’s a sign of strength, because that’s what being a man is? Putting women down? That’s not acceptable.“
Obama’s remarks seem to reflect a growing sense of desperation— and they seem likely to backfire. It’s bad enough for him to publicly spotlight Harris’ weakness compared to his own performance, but it’s even worse that he felt the best way to remedy the situation was to publicly shame black men — to the point of saying, “you’re lucky Michelle’s not here” — and to accuse black men of sexism.
They’ve been blaming it on homosexuals, who do have a higher incidence of monkeypox than other groups. They also have much riskier behavior all around, especially when it comes to the transmission of body fluids to other like sexual deviants.
It turns out that it’s in the vaccine cocktail of poison. Let’s look at that.
The United Nations’ (UN) World Health Organization (WHO) has admitted that “monkeypox” is actually a “side effect” of Covid mRNA “vaccines.”
The admission is buried on the WHO’s VigiAccess website.
The website contains a database that lists all known side effects of all drugs and vaccines that have been approved for public use.
Under “potential side effects” for the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, the WHO lists “monkeypox,” “smallpox,” and “cow pox” among hundreds of other disorders.
They are listed under “infections and infestations” that emerge as “side effects” of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.
The website is a searchable database that doesn’t provide direct links to the information.
However, you can find the information for yourself by following these steps:
Columbia’s Student Protesters Really Have Embraced Hamas – these are the real modern day Nazi’s
I touched on this earlier this week when Columbia’s anti-Israel group, Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), held a walkout/protest on the anniversary of 10/7, but I think it probably deserves more attention.
You may remember this guy, Khymani James, one of the student organizers at Columbia who made news earlier this year when a video circulated of him saying, “Zionists, along with all white supremacists, need to not exist.” He added, “Be glad, be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists.”
After this made news in April, James was suspended and CUAD put out a statement, apparently from James himself, apologizing for his comments.
“CUAD and the Gaza Solidarity Encampment have made clear that my words in January, prior to my involvement in CUAD, are not in line with the CUAD community guidelines. I agree with their assessment,” the apology read. “Those words do not represent CUAD. They also do not represent me.”
This week, CUAD reversed course, not only saying it regretted its earlier statement but making it plain that the group supports violence, i.e. it supports Hamas.
The pro-Palestinian group that sparked the student encampment movement at Columbia University in response to the Israel-Hamas war is becoming more hard-line in its rhetoric, openly supporting militant groups fighting Israel and rescinding an apology it made after one of its members said the school was lucky he wasn’t out killing Zionists.
“We support liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance,” the group, Columbia University Apartheid Divest, said in its statement revoking the apology.The group marked the anniversary of the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by distributing a newspaper with a headline that used Hamas’s name for it: “One Year Since Al-Aqsa Flood, Revolution Until Victory,” it read, over a picture of Hamas fighters breaching the security fence to Israel. And the group posted an essay calling the attack a “moral, military and political victory” and quoting Ismail Haniyeh, the assassinated former political leader of Hamas.
Hamas’ goal is to kill Jews, civilian or otherwise, and drive them from the land. This is what “from the river to the sea” has always meant. Now the group which ran the Columbia protests and inspired similar protests around the country is flat out saying they support the same thing.
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 
