W³P Meme Dump

All the memes I found in the interweb's cookie jar today.
There are here for the taking. Enjoy! 

don't forget to post a few
memes of your own

recommend and invite
someone new to join in

Joe Biden tells Detroit worker he’s ‘full of s–t’ during argument over guns

 
Article by Mark Moore in the "New York Post":

Former Vice President Joe Biden got into a heated argument with a worker during a tour of an auto plant under construction in Detroit on Tuesday, at one point telling the hard hat-wearing man he was “full of s–t” and calling him a “horse’s a–.”

Biden, the front-running Democratic presidential candidate, was making his way through a crowd when the construction worker asked him if he was “actively trying to end our Second Amendment right and take away our guns.”

“You’re full of s–t,” Biden shot back.

“I support the Second Amendment,” Biden continued. “The Second Amendment, just like right now if you yell fire, that’s not free speech. From the very beginning, I have a shotgun, I have a 20-gauge, 12-gauge, my sons hunt. … I’m not taking your gun away at all. ”

The guy confronts him, claiming a video shows Biden saying he would take people’s guns away as did former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke, a one-time presidential candidate who last week endorsed Biden.

“I did not say that. That’s not true. I did not say that,” the former veep said.

“It’s a viral video,” the guy said.

“It’s a viral video like the others one they’re putting out that’s simply a lie,” Biden replied.

But the worker insisted that it was Biden’s voice in the video.

“Wait, wait, wait, wait, we’ll take your AR-14s away,” Biden told him.

“This is not ok,” the worker replied.

“Don’t try me, pal,” Biden shot back. “Do you want to go outside?”

“You’re working for me, man.”

“I’m not working,” Biden said. “Give me a break, man, don’t be such a horse’s a–.”

As a senator from Delaware, Biden voted in favor of the 10-year Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994.

As a presidential candidate, Biden said he favors reinstating the assault weapons ban, universal background checks and a gun buyback program.

Biden has often gotten into heated disputes on the campaign trail.
For example, he called a college student a “lying dog-faced pony soldier” in February when she asked him about his fourth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses.

Biden dressed down a man in Iowa in December who asked him about his son Hunter’s work in Ukraine for an energy company and whether the younger Biden was benefitting from his dad being vice president.

“You’re a damn liar, man. That’s not true. And no one has ever said that,” Biden told the man.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/10/biden-tells-detroit-worker-hes-full-of-s-t-during-argument-over-guns/

Here's How Eric Holder Helped the Obama Administration Transform the Democratic Party into a Party of Thugs

Elizabeth Vaughn reporting for RedState

Nancy Pelosi sat before a group of Northwestern University students on Monday morning and said, “Civilization as we know it is at stake.” No, she wasn’t talking about the coronavirus, she was talking about if President Trump wins the election. This is the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives explaining the constitution to young, impressionable minds.

How did we get to the point where Democrats would send spies into their opponents political campaign, fabricate a scandal to prevent him from winning, and spend his entire first term trying to remove him from office?

It was during the Bush Administration that Democrats, overcome by Bush Derangement Syndrome, stopped trying to maintain the traditional veneer of civility. That turned out to be child’s play compared to what came next.

It was during the Obama Administration that civility between the two parties truly became a vestige of the past. Obama’s eight years in office fundamentally changed the order of business in Washington. It was then that the Democratic Party morphed into a party of thugs.

And it didn’t happen by accident. Their objective was to fill the government and its agencies with as many liberals as they possibly could, politicizing them. They worked toward their goal deliberately and methodically throughout Obama’s presidency. It had all begun with an agreement between Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder. (And it continued under his successor, Loretta Lynch.)

Federal law prohibited the administration from basing hiring decisions on political affiliation, but Obama, Holder and Lynch easily found ways to get around that.

In 2010, Pajamas Media filed a FOIA request to obtain the resumes of attorneys hired into the Civil Right Division of the DOJ.

Following a court battle, these records were finally released and they revealed that the “ at the Department of Justice was engaging in politicized hiring in the career civil service ranks” and that “it had been unprecedented in scope.”

In a special investigation series written in 2011 called “,” Hans Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and PJ Media’s J. Christian Adams provide those resumes and so much more.

Holder’s DOJ received during the financial crisis, funds which had been intended to help homeowners who had suffered financially from falling real estate prices, to make donations to activist groups of their choice.

At the time of Holder’s resignation in September 2014, Spakovsky :

Holder was responsible for spearheading an unprecedented politicization of the Justice Department.

In clear violation of civil service rules, Mr. Holder filled the career ranks of the Justice Department with political allies, cronies and Democratic Party donors.

He treated Congress with contempt and did everything he could to evade its oversight responsibilities by misleading, misinforming and ignoring members of Congress and its committees.

[He] corrupted the law enforcement duties of the Justice Department to carry out the political objectives of President Obama.

The many cases in which judges have accused DOJ prosecutors of engaging in prosecutorial abuse during Holder’s tenure shows, unfortunately, the extent to which this modus operandi has seeped into the lower levels of the Department.

How long it will take to repair the damage that Eric Holder has done to the management and operation of the Justice Department? There is no way to know.

By the time President Trump took office, most, if not all, of the DOJ’s employees were Democrats. Judging from their resumes, most were far-left Democrats.

If this was happening with impunity at the DOJ, we have to assume that similar hiring practices were adopted by all of the other government agencies. Conservatives need not apply. This would explain how the deep state became so entrenched and so powerful that they were able to carry out such an audacious plot against candidate and then President Trump.

Far from being a scandal-free administration as former Vice President Joe Biden has claimed on the campaign trail, it was one of the most corrupt.

How could President Trump have known any of this when he first arrived in Washington? He was surrounded by vipers from his FBI Director to the ranks of the DOJ. And they were all seeking his destruction. Initially, they were hidden, but slowly they’ve been revealed. It’s amazing to me that he was able to accomplish so much.

Now, the President’s eyes are open. He has National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien sweeping out the Obama holdovers in the National Security Council who had worked against him during his first term. Richard Grenell and Kash Patel are starting that process in the intelligence office and no doubt it’s happening in many other areas of the Trump administration.

Let’s see if we can make them cry again.

Biden Team Already Discussing...

Matt Margolis reporting for PJMedia

Biden Team Already Discussing 

Cabinet Picks for Third Obama Term

Hillary Clinton spent the entire 2016 campaign expecting victory and she appeared to feel entitled to the presidency.

"Why aren't I 50 points ahead?" she infamously asked in September 2016. If there's anything one should take away from her defeat it is to not be overconfident. Her overconfidence likely resulted in her not campaigning as much (or at all) in states she should have. Her campaign had other problems as well, but treating the election like an annoying formality could not have been a good thing for her, and it appears that Joe Biden is making the same mistake.

Axios reports that Team Biden is already "discussing potential leaders and Cabinet members for his White House, including the need to name a woman or African American — perhaps both — as vice president."

According to the report, many familiar names from the Obama years are being discussed for key positions, including John Kerry, who "would love to take a new Cabinet position devoted to climate change" or possibly return as Secretary of State; and Susan Rice, who infamously lied to the entire country on behalf of Obama about the Benghazi attack, and ordered a standdown when it appeared that Russia was attempting to interfere with the 2016 election.

Some in Biden's inner circle are already considering potential VP picks. Elizabeth Warren is seen a choice that can excite the progressives in the party, but there are also quite a few minorities on the list, such as Kamala Harris and Cory Booker (who have both just endorsed him) as well as Deval Patrick, and, for some reason, Stacey Abrams.

One Biden advisor, who was asked by Axios who Biden's VP pick would be, said,  "Whoever Jim Clyburn wants it to be."

Clyburn, the highest-ranking African American in Congress, is credited with resurrecting Biden's campaign with his endorsement.

It's not unheard of for campaigns to start looking ahead during the campaign. President Trump released a list of judges he'd consider nominating for the Supreme Court during the 2016 campaign, though that was largely seen as a means of proving to conservatives he would nominate conservative judges to the bench. When you look at the list of names listed in the Axios story, Joe Biden's angle here appears to be to tell voters that his term would be a third Obama term, not a first Biden term. I'm sure President Trump will have a lot of fun with that.

Joe Biden Is Going to Eventually Have to Answer for All the Corruption Around Him

Bonchie reporting for RedState

As RedState reported earlier today, Joe Biden’s brother is now caught up in a fraud scheme involving a company named Americore Health. James Biden is being sued for making false promises of influence, including from the current Democratic front runner, unwittingly or not.

Here are some of the details.

A new report reveals legal problems and allegations of possible fraud involving former Vice President Joe Biden’s brother James, in the latest instance of the Democratic primary front-runner’s family members’ dealings drawing scrutiny amid his presidential bid.

According to Politico, James Biden’s business with medical companies – including Americore Health – has led to allegations that he potentially engaged in fraud and traded on his brother’s name, by claiming Joe was interested in the venture and the family name could provide opportunities.

“It was all smoke and mirrors,” former Americore Health executive Tom Pritchard told Politico. James Biden reportedly convinced Americore that he could use his political clout to deliver a significant influx of cash in the form of an investment from the Middle East, and even convinced the company to take on financial burdens including a six-figure loan to James that he has yet to repay.

The excuse here will continue to be that Joe Biden wasn’t aware. I think you’d have to assume Biden has no mental faculties left (possible I suppose) to believe that he had all these corrupt actions going on around him, including trading on promises of influence, and that he just didn’t know any of it was going on. Further, James Biden introduced his brother to Greg White, who’s also facing accusations of fraud, at the time all of this went down. Instead of moving to shut it down, Joe Biden, at best, looked the other way.

Meanwhile, we know that Joe Biden was aware of his son Hunter’s business dealings in Ukraine, where someone with no experience at all was paid $80,000 a month to seemingly do almost nothing. The appearance of corruption is overwhelming and to this point the elder Biden has not sufficiently answered any questions about that case. When he was pressed on it while Vice President, he hand waved away concerns and wants to now pretend the issue is closed. It’s not.

Biden can’t run from this forever. Things are going to come out and he’ll have to start providing some explanations for why he, as a public office holder, is so surrounded by corruption. Are we really to believe he’s had no hand in any of this? Or that he’s a victim, just having others take advantage of his good name? I don’t buy it. Biden has had ample opportunity to shut this stuff down. Instead of trying to reign his son in, for example, he’s simply ignored the issue.

Biden also has a history of taking large donations from certain companies and then voting in their interests as a Senator. That falls right in line with the trading on his name that’s been so frequent among his family.

In the current environment, it’s always worth asking what the reaction would be if this was Donald Trump. Imagine if Trump’s son had been involved in such a shady dealing in Ukraine. Would the media be looking into it? Of course they would be. Biden shouldn’t get special treatment just because he’s “Middle Class Joe” or whatever other common man moniker he’s flaunting these days.

We’ll see where this goes, but this latest revelation continues a trend of dirtiness surrounding the current Democratic front runner, with multi[ple family members using Joe Biden’s name to enrich themselves in corrupt fashion. Eventually, he’s going to have to start answering some questions about this stuff and yelling at reporters isn’t going to be enough.

The Democrats’ Cult of Pragmatism

Alex Pareene for New Republic

The Democrats’ Cult of Pragmatism

Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and other moderates claim they Get Things Done—but not because they actually do get things done.

March 9, 2020

“Nobody likes him!” Hillary Clinton said of Bernie Sanders in remarks taped last year for a documentary. She didn’t mean it literally, of course. Lots of people clearly like Sanders, sometimes with a fervor that irks Clinton’s fellow Democrats. She meant nobody useful: “Nobody wants to work with him! He got nothing done.” Clinton, like most people who consider themselves canny political realists, seems to divide politicians into two groups: those who make big promises, and those who Get Things Done. 

But what do the politicians who Get Things Done actually get done? In 2018, The New York Times’ editorial board said Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York “gets big things done when he’s determined.” While blunt about his flaws—he was a little corrupt, sure—the board made the case for reelecting Cuomo clearly: “When focused, [he] can be a nearly unstoppable force for progress.” That election not only won Cuomo a third term but also gave him a large—and even more liberal—Democratic majority in both the state Senate and Assembly. Getting things done would no longer require a Democratic governor’s “focus,” merely his pen. 2019 would become the “most productive legislative session in modern history,” in Cuomo’s own words. By June, the legislature had passed 935 bills. 

As of December 16, the Times reported, 168 remained unsigned. Then came the vetoes. The legislature passed a bill aimed at helping workers recover stolen wages. Cuomo vetoed it. It passed a bill legalizing the electric bicycles commonly driven by New York City’s food delivery workers, who are currently the targets of an absurd police crackdown. Cuomo vetoed it. It passed a bill aimed at increasing wages for some apartment building workers. Cuomo vetoed it. 

By January, he had vetoed 169 bills passed during that historically productive session. The governor promised to reintroduce some of these measures, in modified forms, in 2020. But the message was clear: The main thing Andrew Cuomo gets done is deciding what gets done and what doesn’t. 

When politicians and pundits implore voters not to put their faith in candidates with more expansive visions, they frequently say they do so for the sake of the voters themselves. As Clinton put it in the documentary (reviewed on page 66 of this issue), “I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.” Later, speaking to Ellen DeGeneres, she elaborated on her problem with Sanders’s political style. “[I]f you promise the moon and you can’t deliver the moon, then that’s going to be one more indicator of how, you know, we just can’t trust each other.” Left unsaid was that Clinton had made a promise of her own in 2016: that her pragmatic sensibilities made her a safer electoral bet than Sanders. The general electorate would, we were assured, select the candidate offering judicious incrementalism over radical change. The November election saw that promise not just undelivered but spectacularly exploded, as voters in a few key states went with the man in the race who made the most outlandish promises of them all. 

Yet our pragmatic moderates continue to claim that they alone know how to win elections. Rahm Emanuel appears hourly in print or on television to insist that Democrats stick to the playbook he used to win a House majority in 2006 (when George W. Bush had the lowest approval ratings of his presidency to date). What a candidate ought to do, according to an advisory Emanuel published online last summer, is imagine sitting at the kitchen table of an economically comfortable woman in “Grand Rapids or Green Bay” and promising her extremely incremental reforms. Trust him, it works. As he told the Times in February, “Every time we have won the White House, gained seats in the House and the Senate and the state capitals, we have run based on a model that has proved itself in presidential years, and off presidential years.” It is unclear whose playbook the Democratic Party was using during the presidency of Barack Obama, for whom Emanuel served as chief of staff, when it lost more than 800 state legislative seats. This is not to blame Emanuel for those losses; elections are partly cyclical, and partly random, and no one has an infallible strategy for winning them. 

Emanuel knows as much, but he argues otherwise for the same reason Andrew Cuomo insists that he is indispensable (even though the primary justification for that claim was his talent in negotiating with Republicans who, as of 2020, have zero power in Albany): Both Cuomo and Emanuel want control of the agenda. 

Invoking backlash to liberal overreach is key to maintaining that control. Asked on the radio in February whether Democratic members of the New York state Senate should be nervous about losing their majority in November, Cuomo couldn’t help himself. “They should be worried.” 

“There are controversial laws that they passed, that have raised questions,” Cuomo said, as he raised the questions. Clearly annoyed that Democrats in the lower house had just thwarted his attempt to water down the bail reform law less than two months after it went into effect, he said, “Bail reform is one of them. Women’s right to choose is one of them—Catholic Church, Catholics, very upset. They think the woman’s right to choose law goes too far. The undocumented drivers’ licenses. The Trump people hate undocumented drivers’ licenses.” Having gotten things done, Cuomo seemed to be having second thoughts. 

There is a reason why politicians use the language of realism rather than argue the merits of any specific issue; it’s why Clinton uses “the moon”—or, as she did in her 2017 memoir, “a pony”—to describe Sanders’s ambitious programs. What seems to irk these pragmatists is not strictly that promises like Medicare for All are, in their minds, impossible to enact, but that they are popular enough to force these pragmatists to come clean about why they oppose them. 

It is perhaps unwise to make big promises and then fail to deliver on them completely, though we have no real way of testing that claim; a generation of Democrats has intentionally limited the scope of their promises. But moderates who speak out against proposing grand plans should be wary of a tendency in their own politics: They often claim to have delivered on their promises when, in reality, they didn’t. If you claim, for example, that you have given voters “tuition-free” public college, as Cuomo has been doing since 2017, people will eventually notice that SUNY and CUNY still charge tuition. If you constantly tout the rising graduation rate, as Rahm Emanuel did while mayor of Chicago, parents whose children were sent through storefront diploma mills to goose the graduation numbers will likely notice that the system isn’t working for their families. 

Even the realists in this presidential race are making promises they can’t keep. In the days leading up to Super Tuesday, Joe Biden sounded familiar themes. “Bernie doesn’t have a very good track record of getting things done,” he told CNN. “Much of what he’s proposing is very much pie in the sky.” In a victorious speech on the night of Super Tuesday, the former vice president pledged, if elected, “to find, and I promise you, cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes.” Biden has a history of cribbing lines from other politicians, but I doubt he meant to echo the first president to make a similar promise—William Howard Taft, who said, according to a cancer research center he once visited, that we’d cure cancer in five years. This was 1910. 

The final leader of the cult of pragmatism to enter the race was also perhaps the ultimate Getting Things Done politician. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is often noted for his pure capability. Even his critics grant the premise, dubbing him, as Ross Douthat did, “ferociously competent.” One of his slogans was, “Mike will get it done.” He spent more than half a billion dollars chasing the Democratic nomination, only to win just one caucus—in American Samoa, with 175 votes. 

His failure to achieve something that couldn’t be purchased calls into question his competence, and even his record. After 12 years with him in charge, New York City was transformed; the crime rate was down, housing costs were up. But even the richest man in town couldn’t have created the economic and social conditions responsible for those trends. He was stymied as much as any other mayor: on congestion pricing, on a football stadium, on securing the Olympics. On Bloomberg’s last day in office, trash still piled up in great heaps around the city on collection day, because no one could think of a better way to do it—or had the political will to change a failing system.

Politico Uncovers Allegations Of Suspicious Business Dealings Involving Joe Biden’s Brother

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState

It seems that former Vice President Joe Biden might have some splainin’ to do. Politico published a report on Monday revealing that his brother, James Biden, may have “fraudulently transferred funds” from a hospital and also taken funds as a “personal loan” that he has not yet repaid.

The FBI raided Americor Health hospital on January 20 amid suspicions of illegal activities involving members of Biden’s family. It appears they may have found evidence of illicit business dealings in connection to the former vice president’s career as a government official.

After the raid, two medical firms who had business relationships with James Biden stated in civil court proceedings that they possessed evidence that his transfer of funds from Americore was “outside of the ordinary course of business.” Politico reports that this case might represent, “potential pitfalls for the former vice president”

From Politico:

 “The raid of an Americore Health hospital represented a deepening of the legal morass surrounding James Biden’s recent venture into healthcare investing at a time when questions about the business dealings of Joe Biden’s relatives, and their alleged connection to the former vice president’s public service, continue to dog his presidential campaign.”

Politico points out that the reason for the raid has not yet been publicized, and the extent to which the investigation involves James Biden is unclear. But the news outlet does note that Americore’s owner “has faced legal problems and allegations of mismanagement that are unrelated to James Biden.”

But the article also indicates that legal filings that have been given to Politico show that the connection between James Biden and Americore could become an issue for the former vice president as he seeks the nomination.

Politico’s report follows its January 28 report on a 2005 land deal involving Biden’s brother James Biden and Scott Green, who was a staffer in the 1980s and 1990s for then-Senator Biden before becoming a lobbyist. Green’s clients, Politico explains, “benefited from Biden’s support and appropriations requests” both “before and after” the deal with his brother.

Legal filings and statements that former executives of Americore gave to Politico provide a more complete perspective on James Biden’s dealings with the company and how they might become a nuisance to the former vice president. “In 2017 and 2018, James Biden was embarking on a foray into health care investing, telling potential partners, including at Americore, that his last name could open doors and that Joe Biden was excited about the public policy implications of their business models, according to court filings and interviews with James’ former business contacts,” the author wrote.

Tom Pritchard, a former executive for the company, told Politico that James Biden stated he could bring a significant investment from the Middle East using his political connections. He helped the company secure a bridge loan to Americore from a hedge fund, according to Pritchard. Then, James Biden obtained a six-figure personal loan from Americore. But the money from the Middle East never materialized and he has not repaid the loan. “It was all smoke and mirrors,” Pritchard told Politico.

An official with Joe Biden’s campaign claimed that he never had a conversation with his brother about Americore. Grant White, the founder of the company, did attend a September 2017 fundraiser for the Beau Biden Foundation. “If the two interacted in any way, it would have been a handshake and nothing more,” the official said.

This is not the first time James Biden has been alleged to have made promises of Middle Eastern investments to deceive a company.

From Politico:

“Last year, two medical services firms jointly sued James Biden and his business partners in federal court in Tennessee, alleging James and his partners promised to provide a large investment from the Middle East, then pushed the firms to make expensive acquisitions, as part of a scheme to drive them out of business and steal their business models.”

The plaintiffs allege that James Biden touted his family’s political connections and intimated that the former vice president would “promote their health care model as part of his 2020 presidential campaign.”

There can be no doubt that should Joe Biden win the Democratic nomination, his brother’s business dealings could become a pesky thorn in his side. The scandal regarding his son, Hunter Biden, is already under scrutiny, and President Donald Trump will not hesitate to draw attention to the candidate’s family dealings.

Self-Created Disaster —

Austin Mayor Begs People to Go Out in Public After Cancelling SXSW Festival

Brad Slager reporting for RedState

Hysteria leads to idiocy, and now the mayor of a Texas city is scrambling.

To say that the overreaction to the Wuhan virus in the press and with politicians has been overblown is to traffic in the obvious. As the media hysterics become louder more and more people are altering their social plans. This has been felt directly in the airlines and cruise line industries already, and there is a growing paranoia felt in local areas as well.

The mayor of Austin Texas has sent out a plea for residents of his town to go on out and physically endorse area merchants, businesses and artists in order to help alleviate some of the economic strain to be felt in the city. The issue? He is attempting to mitigate the economic losses set to be felt, which he imparted on the local economy himself.

Prior to the CPAC conference, one attendee I was with who works in the Austin Texas area explained how they were already feeling the effects of Wuhanpanic in regards to the upcoming South By Southwest Festival (SXSW) , held annually in that city. A number of vendors and sponsors had announced they were pulling out of the festival due to the concerns of the contagion, and they explained that there were mounting concerns for the livelihoods that would become affected.

Those fears became fully realized when on Friday Mayor Steve Adler announced the decision was to cancel the entire festival. SXSW is a ten day event that is a music, movie, and technology expo held throughout the Austin area. It is estimated that up to 250,000 people might have attended this year’s event, with an economic benefit ranging between $350-400 million.

Now that has been entirely shut down. There has been not one case of the Wuhan virus reported in the Austin area.

While a number of callous-minded people online have dismissed the importance of this decision — many have said things along the lines of this being an unneeded event for the privileged — the economic impact will be significant for hundreds in the Austin area. As my source had detailed it the effects of this scare were going to be widespread. Numerous jobs depend on the influx of revenue during SXSW. There are hundreds of jobs connected directly to festival activities. Beyond that many of the local business owners rely on the windfall of festival income to factor into their annual operations.

In the video above one of his aides appearing on camera with Adler states, ‘’We want everyone to know, it’s still safe and a wonderful thing to stand with Austin.’’ They also have announced there would be a fund set up, which residents could contribute to with donations, that would benefit those who are, ‘’hit the hardest by this, and the least likely to be able to come out of it.’’ So they are now asking residents to help bail out those who were directly impacted by the rash decision made by Adler.

What is evident here is that this video is a clear hail Mary in the CYA mode of politics, and it illustrates one of two factors to be in play, neither of which look for Adler. Either he is compelling his gentry to head out and congregate in the midst of a public health crisis, or he has realized the impetuous decision he made and sees the economic disaster he has provoked. Either the case, this appears to be a completely disqualifying maneuver on the part of the mayor.

Now Adler is forced to essentially beg for the citizens of Austin to take action to bail him out. This is a tough call, considering those same citizens are the ones most directly affected by his decision. Those who are likely to feel the economic gut-punch of the festival closing are going to be the least able to aid in the economic rescue effort.

Notre-Dame: Paris cathedral restoration work continues

On Monday, restoration workers were seen on the elaborate scaffolding surrounding the roof, whilst some abseiled down the facade of the cathedral.

Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, nearly 11 months after a fire ravaged the French capital's 850-year-old landmark.

https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-51815537

Quarantine

There will be gender based quarantine quarters. 

Below you will find your gender assigned area.

I have chosen my vineyard. 🤔🤓

I will leave you gentlemen to choose your pub preference. 

New technology aimed at improving breast cancer treatment.

Parents Don’t Need Advice on...

Lenore Skenazy for Reason Magazine

 Parents Don't Need Advice 

on How To Talk To Their Kids About Coronavirus

Not every situation requires an expert's guidance.

3.9.2020

(Chernetskaya | Dreamstime.com) 

How should you talk to your kids about the coronavirus? CNN recommends this: "Resist the urge to bombard them with every possible headline or piece of information about the outbreak."

Twenty-four hour news channel: heal thyself.

Aside from the hypocrisy, it's good advice. Unfortunately, you can't expect the media to avoid offering tips at a time like this. The ritual has become part of the modern crisis package: assume parents are desperately in need of someone they don't know telling them how to talk to their own kids.

Nancy McDermott, author of the forthcoming book, The Problem with Parenting, says parents always asked for these articles when she was a mommy blog editor. But, she added, "I don't think this was something that would have vexed our parents or grandparents in quite the same way."

Yes, I doubt there were How to Talk About the Disappearance of Amelia Earhart notes going home from the schools. But now, a phalanx of psychologists rushes in to prescribe precisely the right mix of gravitas, insouciance, wisdom, and calm.

The usual mix of advice includes: listen to your kids (duh), don't freak out during the conversation (duh), don't tell them more than they need to know (good advice), and tell kids what they can actually do to be safer or keep other people safe.

In the case of the coronavirus, I'm happy to say that this includes telling the kids to wash their hands and cough into their elbows. One site tells kids to practice the "Dracula sneeze," which is a great name for this technique.

Many advice-givers also add Mr. Rogers' tip: "Look for the helpers." By this he meant the firefighters, doctors, and anyone else doing the right and difficult thing to improve the situation. I'm happy about that suggestion.

What I'm less happy about is the tip-giving culture itself, because it implies parents want or need—I'm not sure which—expert help when it comes to interacting with their own children.

"Coaching parents how to talk to their kids first emerged in the 1930s," Frank Furedi, author of Paranoid Parenting, told me in an email. "But it kicked in big time in the 1980s. This shift was based on the assumption that communication between parent and child required expert skill, and if a parent miscommunicated it could have a devastating effect on their child."

So mom and dad have basically been warned that any word they utter could ruin their kids forever. And we wonder why parents are so anxious, and read so much advice? It's a vicious circle.

NBC gives what seems like an entire script for parents to follow:

"You can say something like, 'It's really scary for you to be hearing all about this virus and people who are dying and how awful it is. I bet that has you feeling worried that you or someone you love might get sick and maybe even die. I can absolutely see — especially as a kid — how you would feel this way and have these thoughts. I think that's probably pretty normal…'"

And on and on.

The problem with that script is, well—it's a script. It's obviously not meant to be repeated word for word, but clearly the network feels that parents need extremely granular guidance. But as Furedi points out, "Whenever parents adopt someone else's script, they lose the capacity to be sensitive to specific dynamics of their very unique relationship. It is far better to invent a family ritual like, 'This is how the Smiths react when faced with a mega problem.' Such rituals make kids feel that they are special and helps forge a close bond within the family."

If that sounds like advice for parents on how to talk to your kids about the coronavirus, you're welcome to take it—or leave it. Probably, most parents will navigate this particular conversation with their kids just fine on their own.

Gavin Newsom Praises Trump’s Coronavirus Cruise Ship Response: ‘Every Single Thing He Said They Followed Through On’

Article by Hannah Bleau in "Breitbart":

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday praised President Trump for his handling of the novel coronavirus, particularly with the issue of the virus present on the Grand Princess cruise ship that has been hovering off California’s coast, telling reporters that “every single thing he [Trump] said, they followed through on.”

Newsom, during the presser, gave an update on the status of the Trump administration’s response to the Grand Princess cruise ship set to dock in Oakland, California, on Monday. Twenty-one people aboard the ship have tested positive for the virus.

“Over the past couple of days, President Trump has said that he would prefer if none of the passengers aboard these cruises landed on U.S. soil. Did he mention any of that to you in your conversation?” a reporter asked Newsom.

Newsom confirmed that he had a private conversation with the president, who told him, “We’re gonna do the right thing,” and, “You have my support, all of our support, logistically and otherwise.”

The governor added that Trump said, during their conversation, “everything that I could have hoped for.”

“And we had a very long conversation, and every single thing he said, they followed through on,” he continued, praising Vice President Mike Pence as well:

So I’m just not interested in finding daylight on those statements because every single thing his administration — and it stars at the top, including the vice president — has been consistent with the expectation that we’d repatriate these passengers and we’d do it in a way that does justice to the spirit that defines the best of our country and the state of California.

ABC News ✔ @ABC

California Gov. Newsom had kind words for Pres. Trump and Vice Pres. Pence when asked about the administration's handling of coronavirus and cruise ships:
"We had a very long conversation, and every single he said they followed through on."


Thousands of passengers, 3,533, are aboard the Grand Princess cruise ship, 21 of whom have tested positive for the virus.

Deboarding will begin following its arrival on Monday. Newsom confirmed that passengers will undergo a 14-day quarantine at various military bases. The 926 Californians aboard the ship will be quarantined at Miramar Naval Air Station in San Diego and Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, according to USA Today.

Dozens, including “thirty-four Georgians and additional American citizens,” will be transferred to the Dobbin Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia, according to Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.

Others will be transported to Joint Base San Antonio Lackland inx Texas, and “passengers from other countries will be flown out of the U.S. on charter flights,” according to USA Today.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/09/gavin-newsom-praises-trumps-coronavirus-cruise-ship-response-every-single-thing-he-said-they-followed-through-on/ 

Does Hillary Clinton Know Something About Joe Biden We Don’t?

Bonchie reporting for RedState

If you’ve paid attention to political media the last week, you’ve probably noticed that Hillary Clinton has jumped back into the public spotlight. A new “documentary” (which is really just a fluff piece) showed her absolutely trashing Bernie Sanders late last week.

she's going to hell btw 🤠👍 pic.twitter.com/z1VL42ZPCd

— salaryman (@bobby) March 7, 2020

Given that, it’s becoming increasingly odd that she won’t just endorse Joe Biden. He’s the establishment choice, he’s leading in all the polls for the nomination, and you’d think he represents exactly what Hillary wants.

But nope, she won’t endorse him.

WATCH: Hillary Clinton refuses to endorse Joe Biden, after saying that Bernie Sanders isn't the "strongest nominee against Donald Trump."

CNN's Fareed Zakaria quickly points out that there isn't anybody left in the Democrat's primary. pic.twitter.com/JgTXJVXTc9

— Francis Brennan (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@FrancisBrennan) March 8, 2020

I’m gonna guess she’s not holding out to endorse Tulsi Gabbard because Hillary hates her guts. That only leaves Biden. So what’s the hold up? Does she know something we don’t?

It’s a fair question and one that leads down a lot of different paths. One theory is that Hillary believes she can swoop in at the convention and take the nomination. This would be based on a scenario where Biden’s mental collapse continues and becomes something Democrats simply can’t ignore. That’s not a bad bet at this point, as he once again “gaffed” today on the stump and it’s become an every speech thing for him. The more he speaks, the worse he looks. If Hillary backs him now and he drops out in the summer, she’ll be one of the “suckers” who didn’t pay attention to the obvious.

I’m skeptical though. It’s pretty far-fetched to think the Democrats would throw up a divisive two-time loser like Hillary instead of say, Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar, who actually ran campaigns this cycle. If she’s jockeying for the nomination, she’d have done better to just run, right?

So if it’s not some complicated scheme to run for president again in 2020, what it is? My assumption is that she’s really just this egotistical and is skeptical of a Biden candidacy. After getting beat in 2016, she simply doesn’t want to subjugate herself to another Democrat candidate this early, especially one who can’t finish a stump speech without forgetting what he’s doing.

While I believe the latter is the most likely explanation, it is interesting to imagine some of the other reasons she might be doing this. Whatever it is, it’s getting increasingly odd that she won’t just throw her support behind Joe Biden. We’ll find out soon enough what she has cooking.

DOJ Responds To District Judge’s Misinterpretation Of Muller Report Redactions

Tristan Justice reporting for The Federalist

The Justice Department pushed back on a federal judge’s ruling last week to re-litigate the conclusive findings of the Mueller report while charging Attorney General William Barr of creating a “one-sided narrative.”

“The court has grave concerns about the objectivity of the process that preceded the public release of the redacted version of the Mueller report,” ruled D.C. District Court Judge Reggie Walton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.

Walton accused Barr of rushing a public summary of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian collusion to the public prior to its full release while keeping sections redacted omitting key information that Walton argues contributed to “a narrative that is clearly in some respects substantively at odds with the redacted version of the Mueller report.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice rejected Walton’s claims as “contrary to the facts,” and noted that the redactions made in the final report were decided in part by members of the special counsel’s own team.

“The original redactions in the public report were made by Department attorneys, in consultation with senior members of Special Counsel Mueller’s team, prosecutors in U.S. Attorney’s Offices and members of the Intelligence Community,” Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement.“There is no basis to question the work or good faith of any of these career Department lawyers. The Department stands by their work.”

The recent court ruling comes out of a Freedom of Information Act case filed by BuzzFeed journalist Jason Leopold and the Electronic Privacy Information Center seeking to gain access to the full unredacted version of the report under the law.

In April last year, Special Counsel Mueller wrapped up his more than two-year investigation supported by endless media coverage, with a 448-page report finding not one person on President Donald Trump’s campaign, let along Trump himself, colluded with the Russian government in the 2016 election. The report also exonerated the president on charges of obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority to fire FBI Director James Comey.

Leading up to the redacted release of the report, Barr reviewed Mueller’s findings over two days and made public a four-page summary outlining its findings. Mueller later sent a letter to Barr writing that Barr’s account “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance,” of his team’s “work and substance.”

Barr dismissed Mueller’s criticisms as “snitty,” and wrote in a letter to lawmakers in March prior to the report’s release that the media had mischaracterized his summary explaining that it “did not purport to be an exhaustive recounting.”