The more that CNN and MSNBC put ambulance-chasing lawyer Michael Avenatti on the air, and gushed about his tailored suits, his possible presidential gambit, his cocky take-downs of Trump, and his advocacy of supposed female victims of the predatory Brett Kavanaugh, the more we knew he was a fraud, a criminal, and likely a legal predator of his own clients. That he was sent to prison was predictable the more one heard the media gush.Read more here.
Do we remember that for a while “Bob” Mueller was Washington’s hallowed prosecutor, investigator, or inquisitor par excellence? No wonder he had assembled a “dream team” of “all stars” who, as “hunter-killer” squads of legal eagles, would tear apart Trump’s supposedly doddering third-stringers and send Trump either to jail or into ignominious exile. So, the more that legal eagle narrative saturated the liberal media landscape, the more we knew the opposite was true.
Mueller himself had a spotty history. He was both physically and cognitively unable to run an effective two-year high-intensity investigation. He was the un-Durham—as leaky and hodge-podge as the latter’s probe is quiet and professional. Mueller likely outsourced his tasks to an incestuous group of partisan and progressive lawyers, many of them incompetent, with conflicts of interest and blinded by partisanship.
In the end, Team Mueller’s chief legacy was burning through more than $32 million in federal funds, hiding evidence, rigging a now-withdrawn indictment of Michael Flynn, initially hiding the amorous unprofessionalism of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok—and Mueller himself testifying before Congress that he knew little of anything about the Steele dossier and Fusion GPS, the fonts of his own investigation.
...Each time Schiff assured the media of “bombshells,” that the “walls were closing in,” or that there were all sorts of new top-secret, classified, rarified information known only to him, which would shortly “prove” Trump “collusion,” we understood that he was a con man and prevaricator who had no proof at all or any such evidence. Whatever report he issued (cf. the “Schiff memo”), would certainly be dishonest and not factual. And, of course, it was.
When readers are told that Trump is an idiot for suggesting that the virus might end up like a bad flu year, that his advocacy for opening up the country is a death sentence, that his travel ban was too late and too porous, and that the economy has been wrecked permanently by his incompetence, then we should assume that the death tolls by autumn might approximate or slightly exceed the flu’s lethality in years like 1957-8 or 1967-8, that states that open up do not have much greater spikes in virus morbidity than do states that do not, that the travel ban saved thousands of lives and would likely not have been issued by most traditional presidents so early, and that the economy likely will begin its ascendance by autumn.
...Today, the public knows that if Fauci issues a periodic warning from on high, listeners should contextualize it as a valuable data bit, collate his warning with underappreciated economic realities, consider that it might be seen as a subtle putdown of Trump, and move on—all the more so as the media blares out that Trump ignores the latest brilliant forecast from the Einsteinian viral master.
...When knowledge, wisdom, independent thought, even basic competence were no longer requisites for success, then the media naturally slid into mediocrity, valued youth and looks, rank partisanship, obeisance to conventions and stereotypes, and mastered networking and obsequiousness instead of valuing independence.
Trump’s antics simply lured the snails out of their shells and showed the public they were glorified slugs all along.
Monday, May 25, 2020
"We quickly discovered the truth through the Doctrine of Media Untruth."
Victor Davis Hanson writes in part in American Greatness,
She's got it covered!
No one stays on top of the news better than Clarice Feldman. Read her latest column in the American Thinker here.
Where is his apology?
Dov Fischer writes in part in the American Spectator,
Cuomo’s own government admits to nearly 6,000 of the killings attributable to his order. The data are so shocking and indefensible that he understandably now plays three-card monte and does not count among his nursing-home killings any senior who contracted COVID-19 in a skilled nursing facility and thereafter was removed to die in a hospital. No question that the honest tally is closer to 10,000 Cuomo killings.Read more here.
...Cuomo gets mega-plaudits on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and wherever else truth is distorted into lies and lies are falsified into truth. In such media, he is the anti-Trump, the genius of the coronavirus season. Measured. Methodical. Liberal. Democrat. Why, he ought to run for president of the United States — and there’s still time for this savior to do it, assuming he can get around Stacey Abrams, who has eclipsed him and most everyone else.
...Even so, Cuomo owes the survivors of his 10,000 victims the most deep, heartfelt apology imaginable. And not one of those famous political “IF Apologies” — “IF I offended you by calling your mother a prostitute” … “IF I offended you by saying that your child is genetically defective” … “IF I offended you by mocking your racial identity, religious belief, ethnic heritage … ” Rather, Cuomo owes an incredibly candid, tearful apology for killing some 10,000 grandparents, parents, brothers, sisters — people — who were among society’s least able to defend themselves from his killing onslaught.
In New York City, the tabloids are famous for appending nicknames to killers. I just googled “The Nursing Home Killer,” and the name remains available. America awaits the non-IF apology from New York’s Nursing Home Killer.
Sunday, May 24, 2020
..."display of conformity, egged on by bottomless docility, on the one side, and Nurse Ratched disapprobation, on the other."
Roger Kimball writes in part in American Greatness,
...“A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05 percent,” Ioannidis points out, “is lower than seasonal influenza.” And here was my favorite bit: “If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.”Read more here.
...But back in March, before the destruction of more than 30 million jobs and tens of thousands of shuttered businesses, before the missed graduations, and soaring suicide and drug-addiction rates, I wondered when it would be that people would cotton on to the fact that the real crisis here was not the disease but our politician-and-media fired panic over the disease?
...For the past two months, the country has been on a moral bender, intoxicated by fear and panic. As with most benders, the aftermath will be painful. But the symptoms this time will not be nausea and headache but shame at our credulousness and rage against those who exploited it. Rage. Look for it in a neighborhood near you in the coming weeks and polling stations across the country in November.
Chinese troops cross into Indian territory, then fortify positions
Vijeta Uniyal reports in Legal Insurrection,
The border tensions between China and India have escalated once again, after hundreds of Chinese troops crossed into Indian territory. Soldiers of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) breached the Indian border at multiple locations in the northern Himalayan region of Ladakh, Indian media reports said on Saturday.Read more here.
...The border intrusion was followed by a Chinese build-up along the Indian border. Chinese troops “trespassed on Indian territory at three different locations and set up fortified encampments,” Indian strategic expert Brahma Chellaney noted on Twitter.
The United States backed India amid recent aggressive actions by the Chinese army. Ambassador Alice Wells, the senior U.S. diplomat for South and Central Asia, called Beijing’s behavior towards India provocative and disturbing. “The flare-ups on the border, I think, are a reminder that Chinese aggression is not always just rhetorical. And so whether it’s on the South China Sea or whether it’s along the border with India we continue to see provocations and disturbing behavior by China that raises questions about how China seeks to use its growing power,” she said on Wednesday.
China and India have a long history of border conflicts. Communist China disputes parts of its 2,200 mile Himalayan border with New Delhi. Chinese dictator Mao Zedong made sweeping territorial claims on India after annexing the Buddhist kingdom of Tibet which shared its western border with India. China attacked India in 1962, a war that ended in a devastating defeat for India, which lost around 16,600 square miles of its territory.
India faces the Chinese threat not just on its eastern and northern borders. The military planners in New Delhi are alarmed by Beijing’s so-called string-of-pearls strategy. China is gaining control over a network of strategic ports stretching from the Indian Ocean to the Persian Gulf, giving the Chinese Navy the ability to close India’s shipping lanes in case of a conflict.
The current wave of Chinese aggression in the wake of the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic is not limited to India. In recent months, the Chinese air force has repeatedly violated Taiwan’s air space, an independent nation which Beijing considers a breakaway province.
Who will the donors choose?
Tucker Carlson gives us his views on the front-runners for the vice-presidential candidates for Joe Biden.
"You don't have to be any particular race to know when someone puts you down because you're different!"
Harris Faulkner responds to Joe Biden.
The Clarence Thomas movie is still available!
In Bookworm Room, Bookworm writes about Clarence Thomas (with a link to the recent PBS movie) and Charlamagne tha God, who recently interviewed Joe Biden. Read Bookworm's excellent piece here.
Chinese communist propaganda centers in the U.S.
In Campus Reform, Jon Street reports in part,
Dozens of Chinese "propaganda" centers still operate across the United States, even as U.S. lawmakers debate how to hold the communist country accountable for withholding information about the coronavirus, which originated in China's Wuhan province.Go here to see where the propaganda centers are located in the U.S.
For years, Campus Reform has reported on the number of Confucius Institutes on U.S. college campuses. Funded by the communist regime, these centers are marketed as Chinese language and culture centers. However, U.S. intelligence officials have warned that these centers are little more than "propaganda" arms of the communist country.
"68 percent of those that are currently unemployed can now bring home more money than when they were actually employed…"
In Maggie's Farm, Dr. Joy Bliss reports,
I spoke with one of my local pharmacists today. He was harried. I asked him what was up. He told me all four of his assistants had taken a leave from work, then got copies of their unemployment papers from the government.Dr. Bliss then links to an article by Michael Snyder linked to by Tyler Durden in Zero Hedge. Snyder writes in part,
They are all getting $1600/week from COVID unemployment, and he only pays them about $1000/week.
He is an immigrant from Russia. He was not happy with the situation. Stereotypically cranky Russian. Asked me "Where is the work ethic?" How did he even know about that old fashioned phrase?
Over the past couple of months, 36.5 million Americans have filed new claims for unemployment benefits, and Congress understandably wanted to do something to address this unprecedented spike in unemployment. But by giving all of these unemployed workers a repeating 600 dollar bonus on top of existing unemployment benefits, Congress has actually created a very powerful incentive for Americans to be unemployed and to stay unemployed for as long as the bonuses last.Read more here.
According to a group of prominent economists at the University of Chicago, 68 percent of those that are currently unemployed can now bring home more money than when they were actually employed…
Just consider what restaurant and hotel workers must be thinking about now. According to CNBC, the average unemployed worker in that industry is now eligible to collect “182% of their previous wages”…
...Just recently, Facebook conducted a survey of “86,000 small and medium-sized business owners”, and the results of that survey were quite startling…
About a third of small businesses forced to close due to the coronavirus pandemic say they won’t be able to reopen due to an inability to pay bills or rent, a Facebook survery has found.
More than half of the business owners surveyed by Facebook have also said they don’t expect to be able to rehire the same amount of workers that they employed prior to the pandemic.
More specifically, the survey discovered that just 45 percent of all small and medium-sized business owners plan to rehire the same number of employees that they previously had.
"Stop! Pause! This man can't be president!"
Here's @joerogan correctly pointing out that @JoeBiden can't be president in the state he's in. pic.twitter.com/ldBtRz9NUW
— Radical Bernie ☭ 4 General Secretary (@KarlMarxJunior) March 6, 2020
Read more here.
Saturday, May 23, 2020
Hate speech
Arthur Milikh writes in part in Heritage.org,
America’s big tech companies—Google, Twitter, and Facebook—largely imitate the premises of Europe’s “hate speech” laws. And they are currently in the midst of expanding restrictions. A leaked Google internal memo shows the company’s skeptical view of the freedom of speech, comparing the “American tradition” to the “European tradition”: America prioritizes “free speech for democracy, not civility,” while the European tradition “favors dignity over liberty and civility over freedom.” The memo states Google’s support for the European tradition and argues that all tech platforms will move in that direction eventually.Read more here.
Similarly, Twitter publicly states its commitment to prohibiting “content intended to incite fear or spread fearful stereotypes about a protected category” and “content that degrades someone.” Since inciting fear is so broad as to have no intelligible content, anything short of celebration of a protected identity group can be considered suspect, although Twitter is particularly devoted to stopping “hatred, prejudice or intolerance” that “seeks to silence the voices of those who have been historically marginalized.”
Facebook’s policies explicitly ban the use of what it deems to be “dehumanizing” terms as applied to groups. The problem with “hate speech,” according to Facebook, is that it prevents people from authentically expressing their identities. What exactly might constitute obstruction of individual expression of identity will be judged by the moral mirror within the tens of thousands of Facebook’s human “hate speech” reviewers and algorithms which monitor and ban content.
...many of America’s colleges and universities already actively promote and implement policies to ban offensive thoughts through speech codes. This, of course, is in stark contrast to the original purpose of these institutions: freedom of the mind and the pursuit of truth. Many of America’s colleges and universities are now the training ground for a generation of future citizens sympathetic to outlawing “hate speech.” A recent poll reveals that only 53 percent of college students—a bare majority—favor freedom of speech, a marked change from the spirit of 1960s campus activists.
...Many well-meaning, decent Americans do not yet clearly see the underlying goals or the political implications of “hate speech” laws. They should first recall that America’s laws already ban incitement to imminent violence of any kind; they already protect citizens against individual defamation. Perhaps even more powerfully, the law of opinion already opposes hatred and contempt for protected groups in the public square. There is thus no need for “hate speech” laws.
Restriction advocates, to various degrees, are committed to creating a world that is hostile to political liberty and freedom of the mind—viewing these, in fact, as conflicting with their genuine goal of dignity and equal self-respect. If the law’s aim becomes securing “each person’s proper pride and dignity against the soul-shriveling humiliation that a discriminatory rebuff can give rise to,” despotic measures must ultimately be instituted. 121
Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, p. 84.
In civil conditions, one can neither compel the earnest respect of others nor force one’s own self-respect, though it is possible to destroy political liberty in the attempt. Should such laws be implemented in America, the public square will be transformed into an arena where forced silence and false celebration rather than free political deliberation are the norm and where the state uses its power to act out resentments against oppressor groups. There will be more hatred and more political instability.
Thus, at least two possible outcomes may await America: despotism if “hate speech” advocates fully have their way or rebellion if they do not. On the one hand, the obedience of a free people to the goals beneath such laws is not produced through the kind of compulsion prescribed. If laws repress speech slowly, the nation will make of citizens mindless subjects incapable of political judgement and suited to being ruled by the state or by a triumphant marginalized group acting through it. On the other hand, free citizens, while still living with the memory of political liberty, will come to despise this new order and may well rebel against it. In such a rebellion, a new fierce spiritedness could be born that judges democracy and equality to be contemptible and grotesque ideals. An unstable mixture of the two is imaginable.
In the coming years, the public should be prepared for so-called moderate voices who in time may grow friendly to speech regulation and claim that “America would be even more American” if it enacted “hate speech” laws.122
Delgado and Stefancic, Must We Defend Nazis? Why the First Amendment Should Not Protect Hate Speech and White Supremacy, p. 105.
Moderate voices, however, are moderate only insofar as their desire for immediate peace blinds them from soberly judging what awaits the nation.
Courageous and patriotic politicians must fight for the freedom of speech by reminding the public of its purpose and the consequences of losing it. Many of today’s elites have already been at least partly convinced of the need to outlaw “hate speech,” and in late democracies throughout the world, the will of the majority is more and more disregarded by them. But public jealousy of free speech and anger at possible future usurpations, along with other possibilities, will be the only imperfect barriers that in the long run may protect this right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)